Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal finds that the cancellation of the second selection exercise and its subsequent recommencement were, in the circumstances, appropriate and lawful in view of the strong representations by the Staff Council and the complaints raised regarding the selection exercise. However, there were excessive and unjustifiable delays in concluding the selection process. The Organization also consistently and without just cause failed to respond to the Applicant¡¯s reasonable requests for information and action. The delays in question as well as the failure to respond to the Applicant¡¯s enquiries...

Following successful mediation, the Applicant filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

Following successful mediation, the Applicant filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

The Applicant has not requested any damages or a modification of the contested sanctions but rather only their rescission. The Tribunal considers that the level of disciplinary measures that were finally applied against the Applicant were taken in accordance with the rules and therefore there are no rescindable decisions. The Tribunal can also not award a remedy that was not requested by the Applicant with regard to any delay in the proceedings or the original sanction which has since been modified to comply with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. The application is dismissed.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found...

In the present case, the parties reached an agreement through mediation after the application was filed and the Tribunal will reject the application as being nonreceivable.

The Tribunal found that the applications were receivable since the contested decisions produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ terms and conditions of appointment. The Tribunal further found that the chosen period of retroactive application of one year was not only unlawful because it was based on a misconstruction and misapplication of staff rule 3.16 but it was manifestly unreasonable, irrational, and above all unjustifiably discriminatory. It did not amount to a proper exercise of administrative discretion and breached the fundamental principle of equal pay...

The application was rejected and the Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 1,500 for abuse of process. On receivability: The absence of a response by the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), during a delay of ten working days between the Applicant¡¯s request on 14 March 2014 to carry out an investigation and his request for management evaluation on 28 March 2014, could not reasonably and sensibly be considered as an implied unilateral decision. It could also not be construed as a failure to act promptly in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. There is no appealable...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s claims of moral damage are receivable and well founded and he is awarded USD1,000 as compensation for anxiety. The Tribunal finds that it is incorrect to characterize the decision to hire new staff members as being purely preparatory in nature as the contested decision was in fact implemented and the outcome of the selection process could have adversely affected the Applicant. It is therefore a contestable administrative decision. Further, even if a decision is rescinded, if an applicant can show that there was a causal link between the breach on the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the implementation date of 1 December 2010 and the related cut-off date of 1 December 2009 for retroactive consideration, as stated in the Guidelines, were binding on the Administration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s situation should have been reviewed accordingly. Given the administration¡¯s failure to follow its own Guidelines, which thus renders the decision unlawful, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found it unnecessary to consider the question as to whether there has been a breach of the duty to ensure that the principle of equal pay for equal work was strictly followed. The contested...

The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) failed to comply with the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU¡ªwhich missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...