Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s service should be deemed uninterrupted and continuous on a 100 series fixed-term contract. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not suffer any loss with respect to the delay of her family leave, but that she should be awarded USD1,200 as compensation for not receiving her home leave entitlement in December 2009. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s claims of emotional distress as unproven. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that the Applicant satisfied the eligibility criteria for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment and should have been considered for it...

Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant. The parties were ordered to attempt to resolve the issue of appropriate relief, failing which it would be considered by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirement to take a break in service was unlawful and did not reflect the true facts as no actual break in service or separation took place. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was no legal requirement for the Applicant to be placed on appointment of limited duration between 5 and 30 June 2009, and the decision to give her an appointment of limited duration was manifestly unreasonable and therefore unlawful. The...