Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute

  • Article 1
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.3
  • Article 10.4
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.7
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 105
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 11.5
  • Article 11.6
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.2
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 12.4
  • Article 12.5
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.7(b)
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 3
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 3.1(a)
  • Article 3.1(b)
  • Article 3.1(c)
  • Article 32
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 4.5
  • Article 4.9
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.2(e)
  • Article 7.2(h)
  • Article 7.2(i)
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(b)
  • Article 8.1(b)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)¨C(iv)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(a)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iv)
  • Article 8.1(i)
  • Article 8.1(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(ii)
  • Article 8.1(ii)(c)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.2(d)(i)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.3(a)
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.5
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(a)
  • Article 8(c)
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 8(d)(ii)
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1361 - 1370 of 1867
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/200, Chawla et al.

    Since the applications were identical, the Tribunal joined them per employing organization. The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/201, Wahi, Jaya, Srivastava

    Since the applications were identical, the Tribunal joined them per employing organization. The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/202, Pandey, Oberoi

    The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific categories of decisions: those taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies and...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/191, Alsado

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, because the Applicant was able to secure alternative employment, albeit at a lower...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/192, Wright

    International standards on retrenchment and retention: There are international norms and standards regarding the termination of employment of work due to economic, technological or structural change, and the rights of retrenched workers and of staff representatives. The International Labour Organization Convention on Termination of Employment (Convention No. C158) (1982), which contains provisions applicable to all branches of economic activity and to all employed persons (art. 2), states at art. 4 that the employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/193, Fasanella

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered payment of USD7,000 as compensation for emotional distress and two years¡¯ net base salary...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/194, Smith

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered payment of USD7,000 as compensation for emotional distress and two years¡¯ net base salary...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/195, Zachariah

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered payment of USD7,000 as compensation for emotional distress and two years¡¯ net base salary...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/188, Pedicelli

    Findings of fact by the Appeals Tribunal ¨C As a matter of general principle, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to question a finding of fact or a ruling on the law as set down by the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ¨C A staff member who raises a credible claim which needs to be tested ought not to be shut out at a preliminary stage. There is a difference between a claim that is clearly not receivable because it does not challenge an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1 and a claim which on the face of it raises an apparently credible challenge that a decision of general...