Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the application irreceivable in respect of one position due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file a request for management evaluation within the applicable time limit. With respect to the remaining three posts, the Tribunal found that the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of Chief of Section (Procurement of Services) was unlawful, and that the other two selection decisions were not. Consequently, the Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of Chief of Section (Procurement of Services), set the amount of alternative...

The Tribunal found that after a first positive evaluation in 2012, the Applicant¡¯s first reporting officer had put the Applicant on notice in respect of what she perceived as shortcomings in the Applicant¡¯s performance, at the beginning of the performance cycle 2013/14. It found, however, that the Rebuttal process was marked by serious procedural flaws and ruled that the final decision on the rebuttal, confirming the Applicant¡¯s PAS rating for the cycle 2013, was illegal and could not stand. Therefore, and since the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond 30 June 2014 was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the conduct of the Acting Chief of Mission Support and the Applicant¡¯s direct supervisor constituted an abuse of authority in their treatment of the Applicant. Given the gross injustice meted out to the Applicant by her managers, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded her compensation representing twelve months' net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded the Applicant three months¡¯ net base salary as moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded the Applicant USD5,000 for the unfair treatment at the hands of her managers. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the two managers literally destroyed the Applicant¡¯s career and made decisions in clear breach of...

Provision of adverse material to the Applicant: The Tribunal noted that the ABCC had information before it that was adverse to the Applicant¡¯s claim when it reached its recommended decision but did not disclose to the Applicant. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant should have been given the opportunity to see and comment on the adverse material. In failing to afford him this basic right the ABCC violated the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. Service incurred injury: The Tribunal concluded that it was not within the competence of the MSD medical advisor to provide...

The Dispute Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful and rejected the application. Application of ST/AI/2010/5 on Performance Management and Development System: This administrative instruction does not apply to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, which is a separately administered fund, as it has not explicitly accepted its applicability, as per ST/SGB/2004/9 on Procedures for the promulgation of administrative issuances. Obligation to provide an opportunity to improve performance prior to non-renewal: Absent any specific provision in the applicable rules, the Organization has no legal obligation to take any...

Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has requested management evaluation, where required. Failure to file a request for management evaluation prior to filing the application makes the latter irreceivable, ratione materiae.

The Tribunal determined that the matter put to it is the filling of a P-3 translator vacancy in RTS, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, by a lateral transfer, under sec. 2.5 of ST/AI/2010/3, instead of through a competitive selection process, which would have then required the advertisement of a vacancy announcement for the concerned post on different grounds his non-selection for the post of Chief, Russian Translation Unit, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON. This is a decision having direct effects on the Applicant¡¯s rights, hence appealable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that filling a vacancy through a lateral transfer of a staff member...

The Tribunal noted that: (a) there was no female member in the assessment panel, (b) the panel¡¯s evaluation of the candidates was substantially modified between its adoption by all three panel members and its scrutiny by the competent Central Review Committee (¡°CRC¡±), (c) the Hiring Manager failed to transmit his final recommendation to the decision-maker; instead the CRC Secretariat forwarded the selection record (with only one recommended candidate) to the decision-maker, and (d) the Applicant was not notified of his non-selection within the prescribed 14 days of the decision; rather, he...

Finding that the Applicant had been notified about the respective administrative decisions on 12 August 2014, and not in September 2014 as argued by the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, dated 6 November 2014, was not submitted timely. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case and that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable. Management evaluation: the requirement of timely filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant has neither submitted a request to the ASG/OHRM for exceptional grant of an ex gratia payment under staff rule 12.3(b) nor has he submitted a Management Evaluation Request in respect to the same. The Applicant has not complied with staff rule 11.2(a). As such, the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae under art. 8.1(c) of its Statute. SPA and ex gratia payments - The legal bases for the grant of SPA are set out in staff rule 3.10 and ST/AI/2003/3. The aforementioned rules do not provide a legal basis for the grant of an ex gratia...