Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Dispute Tribunal shall not award exemplary or punitive damages. The Tribunal did not find any procedural flaws in the competitive review process as it was implemented in the Applicant¡¯s case. All three candidates for the PIO posts were assessed against the same methodology and criteria adopted by the CRP. The Applicant was not accorded full and fair consideration for the second P-3 PIO post in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS contrary to the policy adopted by the CRP. In this regard, there were both substantive and procedural irregularities on the part of the Respondent.The Applicant is entitled to compensation for...

The purported termination conveyed in the letter from the ED of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS dated 11 May 2010 is accordingly rescinded. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had not misused his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵLP and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ ID when he showed it to the person with whom he had entered into a business transaction. Ultra Vires: The Secretary-General or his agents in the instant case blatantly acted outside the scope of his or their authority in carrying a disciplinary process beyond the expiry date of the staff member¡¯s contract. The decision to separate the Applicant in May 2010 was manifestly ultra vires and therefore unlawful. Debt...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not adduced any arguments to substantiate the claim that the compensation recommended by JAB was inappropriate, insufficient or improper.

Non-renewal The Chief Administrative Officer¡¯s decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was arbitrarily taken. Downsizing In cases of downsizing, there is generally some established criteria put in place to ensure accountability and transparency of the process. In the present case, there was no evidence of such criteria and the Tribunal found that the Applicant was deliberately reassigned to another unit in order to make it possible for the downsizing axe to fall on him. Expectancy of renewal Applicant had a legitimate expectancy of renewal of contract considering that the Personnel...

Demotion: A demotion is not a purely financial disciplinary measure, unlike a fine or loss of steps. It also carries a stigma and a loss of responsibilities. Discretion of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters: Due deference must be shown to the Secretary-General¡¯s choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure. Establishment of charges: If the disciplinary measure is justified with respect to the established facts in relation to a certain charge, it is not necessary to determine whether additional charges are also established. Violation of due process rights and compensation: Not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that the Applicant¡¯s initial complaint was meeting all the requirements contained in sec. 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It noted that the decision not to initiate a formal fact-finding investigation was made only six months after the complaint had been lodged hence it did not meet the requirement of ¡®promptness¡¯ contained in sec. 5.3 and sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Further, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the course of action chosen by the ASG/OHRM, which consisted in asking first the alleged offender for his views, had no legal basis in ST/SGB/2008/5. Having considered the definition of the...

Estoppel - It was argued on behalf of the Respondent that the Applicant has waived or is estopped from enforcing his right to challenge the contested decision since at the Applicant¡¯s request, the Administration in good faith deferred the effective date of termination of his appointment to enable him to acquire a pension benefit. Given the circumstances of this case, the Applicant had neither waived nor was he estopped from enforcing his rights to challenge the contested decision. The principles of waiver and estoppel will not apply in such a case to deny an Applicant from enforcing his legal...

The Tribunal concluded that the sanction was taken in accordance with the applicable regulations and rules that govern disciplinary matters and that it was in line with sanctions applied in other matters of similar nature. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected throughout the preliminary investigation and the ensuing disciplinary process. The contested decision was both factually and legally reasoned and did not reflect any bias, improper motivates, flawed procedural irregularity or errors of law. The Applicant¡¯s disciplinary liability was correctly determined and the disciplinary...

Decision of a technical body: A rebuttal panel should be considered as a technical body as per the provision of staff rules 11.2(b). Consequently, a decision of a rebuttal panel is not subject to management evaluation as a prerequisite before filing an application before the Tribunal. The preeminent purpose of management evaluation is to reconsider the initial decisions taken by the Administration. Where such reconsideration is delegated to a specialized body, there is no need for further administrative review. Rebuttal panel: The panel¡¯s mandate is fixed for two years and ST/AI/2002/3 did not...