Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that: there were no legal consequences arising from the contested decision which adversely affected the Applicant; the Applicant has not suffered any downgrading in her salary and emoluments or in her functions; and that at best, her concerns are speculative. The Tribunal was of the view that it behoves the Applicant to submit to a classification review of her post in accordance with the relevant Staff Regulations and Rules. Receivability - The Applicant contends that the implementation of the renumbering of her post will have adverse effects on her rights including her career...

With respect to the issue of classification of the Applicants¡¯ post at the S-3 level, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants¡¯ claims regarding the Administration¡¯s decision not to proceed with their classification request were receivable. However, based on the evidence in this case¡ªincluding oral testimony as well as contemporaneous documents¡ªthe Applicants did not perform the same exact functions as their S-3 level colleagues. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to proceed with the classification or reclassification of the Applicants¡¯ posts at the S-3 level was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON Administration had, prior to mid-2012 when the error was discovered, been miscalculating the amount of overtime and compensatory time off due to Security Officers and Drivers at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON. The Security Officers, as a result had received payments in excess of what was due to them. Administrative errors - As held in Boutruche, the Administration has a right and even an obligation to put an end to illegal situations as soon as it becomes aware of them, while preserving any rights acquired by staff members in good faith. Staff-management consultations - No staff-management...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFEM/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP subsequently took a decision to process the Applicant¡¯s separation from service in 2012, the Tribunal concluded that this was not an appealable administrative decision in accordance with article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute in that the Applicant no longer had a contract of employment with the Organization because he resigned from service in May 2008. Thus, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFEM¡¯s 2012 decision to finally record his separation from service did not have any direct legal consequences on him. ;}

Management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was notified to the Applicant on 30 June 2008 and yet he waited until 20 January 2014, more than five years after the fact, to submit a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal concluded that where an applicant fails to request management evaluation in a timely manner, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider his/her application. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that even if it was minded to consider the Application, the provisions of article 8.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute clearly place a bar on any such action. Costs...

The Tribunal established that it was clear from the facts and documents provided that the Applicant never received written notice of non-renewal of his contract but was informed orally. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant's rights were not respected and strongly condemned the attitude of the Administration which, despite the decisions of the Appeals Tribunal in which it had been decided that written notification was essential in order to allow a staff member to assert his rights, had simply decided to ignore these principles. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was unable to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that: there were no legal consequences arising from the contested decision which adversely affected the Applicant; the Applicant has not suffered any downgrading in her salary and emoluments or in her functions; and that at best, her concerns are speculative. Receivability - The Applicant contends that the implementation of the renumbering of her post will have adverse effects on her rights including her career advancement but she did not place any evidence before the Tribunal to show that the contested decision was taken solely with respect to her or that there are legal...

In the course of the selection process, the post of Chief, IS, (D-1)¡ªwhose incumbent had been acting as Hiring Manager for the contested post¡ªwas being temporarily loaned to the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM), for a period of more than ten months. Despite this vacuum, the Administration assigned a Chief of Section (P-5) as OIC, IS, for the whole period of the loan and derived from this status the authority to act as Hiring Manager in the selection process, including the submission of the recommendation memorandum for final selection to the Director-General...

In the course of the selection process, the post of Chief, IS, (D-1)¡ªwhose incumbent had been acting as Hiring Manager for the contested post¡ªwas being temporarily loaned to the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM), for a period of more than ten months. Despite this vacuum, the Administration assigned a Chief of Section (P-5) as OIC, IS, for the whole period of the loan and derived from this status the authority to act as Hiring Manager in the selection process, including the submission of the recommendation memorandum for final selection to the Director-General...

The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...