At the time of the management evaluation, the contested decision had not been implemented and, therefore, had not had any impact on the Applicants¡¯ terms of employment. The contested administrative decision did not, therefore, constitute a reviewable administrative decision.
Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was managed or evaluated in a fair and objective manner The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has adduced evidence of possible bias and lack of objectivity in the evaluation of his performance by the FRO and the SRO¡ Even assuming that the FRO and the SRO evaluated the Applicant¡¯s performance in a fair and an objective manner, they certainly failed to ¡°proactively assist¡± the Applicant to remedy his performance shortcomings in accordance with section 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. Moreover, the undisputed interpersonal issues between the Applicant and his FRO have...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable both ratione personae and ratione materiae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision had no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.
The Applicant has made it clear in his email dated 23 April 2021 that the objective of his filings is solely to protect his staff rights should the Administration fail to finalize his claim under Appendix D. The Tribunal does not see the need to maintain current legal proceedings considering that the Applicant has the right to file an independent application contesting an administrative decision regarding his Appendix D claim under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Judicial remedy is not warranted, at this stage, in the present case. Moreover, as of the date of this Judgment, the...
Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been ¡°shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member¡± (see Michaud 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT denied the Applicant¡¯s motion in which he sought the disclosure of an extensive amount of additional documents, as it was filed after the end of the collection of evidence and after the submissions of closing statements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the contested non-renewal decision was unlawful because the provided reason for it, namely lack of funding, was not based on correct facts. It was therefore not necessary for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to examine whether the decision was tainted by ulterior motives, as also argued by the Applicant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the most appropriate remedy for the Applicant would be rescission...
Whether the application is receivable in its entirety In determining the date when the three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute should run from, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°a written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly, and strictly, calculated. Where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability, ratione temporis¡± (see Manco 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-342, para. 20). Without receiving a notification of a decision in writing, it would not be possible to determine when the period of three years for contesting the...
The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the application materially receivable as it concerned a decision that was appropriately the subject of judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to reassign the Applicant rather than place her on administrative leave, was taken balancing her best interest with those of the Organization. These reasons were supported by evidence. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving any improper motive, irregularity or unlawfulness on the part of the Respondent in the decision to re-assign her duties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore held that the presumption of...
Regarding the removal of the hiring manager from the interview panel, despite an alleged procedural irregularity, the Applicant successfully passed a competency-based interview and was recommended for the Post. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the removal of the hiring manager from the interview panel affected her right to full and fair consideration. Regarding the failure to consult with the hiring manager in making the selection decision, the Applicant fails to explain how the failure to consult with the hiring manager adversely affected her right to full...
