Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was not afforded proper priority consideration for the DM post under the framework established by staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Tribunal finds that, had the Applicant been afforded proper consideration for the DM post as a displaced permanent staff member, he would have had fifty per cent chance of being selected. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the selection process was tainted by bias against the Applicant. Having considered relevant factors¡ªnamely, that (i) the Applicant lost a fifty per cent chance of being selected...

As the Appeals Tribunal stated in Bowen 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-183, the Applicant¡¯s termination indemnity should be taken into account when awarding compensation. This is consistent with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s pronouncement in Warren 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-059 that ¡°the very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations¡±. Therefore, as both the termination indemnity and the payment in lieu of notice stemmed from the improper termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment, these sums shall be deducted from...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the element of the application concerning conversion to permanent appointment was not receivable as the Applicant had not requested management evaluation of this decision. In respect to the receivable elements of the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal. However, the Tribunal found that the decision not to renew his appointment was unlawful, as it was based on a flawed performance management process. In particular, in the Applicant¡¯s first performance cycle, there were significant delays in the implementation of the various...

The Applicant, as a former Service Contractor, does not have standing to submit an application to the Tribunal pursuant to article 2.1 and 3.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it does not have jurisdiction to review the medical opinion expressed by the Medical Services Division, as requested by the Applicant, and dismissed the application in its entirety. Procedure for challenging a decision taken pursuant to Appendix D: A claimant may either challenge a decision taken by the Secretary-General upon recommendation from the ABCC by seeking reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D or by appealing it before the Dispute Tribunal. However, the two avenues offer different prospects. Reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D: The reconsideration...

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 the Applicant¡¯s termination was unlawful because he did not receive proper...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that as there is no sufficient nexus between her non-selection to the advertised post and the terms of her previous appointment, the application is rejected as irreceivable ratione personae. Sufficient nexus (receivability ratione personae): A former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose, partly arose, or flowed from his or her employment. There must be a sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned decision. In the absence of any provisions giving rights to...

The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis, on the grounds that the applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the applicable deadline, and that the application was filed more than three years after receipt of the contested decision. Identification of the contested decision: As the Appeals Tribunal held in Massabni 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-238, it is part of the duties and of the inherent powers of a Judge to adequately interpret and comprehend the applications submitted by the parties, and to...

Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.