Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that OIOS operates under the ¡°authority¡± of the Secretary-General but has ¡°operational independence¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, insofar as the contents and procedures of an individual report are concerned, the Secretary-General has no power to influence or interfere with OIOS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also has no jurisdiction to do so, as it can only review the Secretary-General¡¯s administrative decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, noted that to the extent that any OIOS decisions are used to affect staff members¡¯ terms or contract of employment, OIOS¡¯ reports may be...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not address the staff members¡¯ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into ¡°incomplete¡± applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the ¡°equivalent¡± of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was a reasonable exercise of discretion and the Administration¡¯s reasons for the decision were acceptable.

The Applicant considers that the disclosure requirements did not apply to him. The Respondent failed to establish that the Applicant was required to file a financial disclosure statement for 2006. The Tribunal rescinds the Applicant¡¯s written reprimand. Any record of it is to be removed from the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File.

Since the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general...

Interpretation of art. 11.3(c) of Appendix DArticle 11.3(c) is ambiguous. Pensionable remuneration scales are adjusted regularly and there is no explicit statement or guidance in Appendix D to indicate the relevant or operative date for assessing the pensionable remuneration at grade P-4, step V in any given case.Past practice¡­it is clear from the afore-stated email that the ABCC Secretary¡¯s personal experience of the consistent practice as at 21 June 2013 spanned a mere period of two years, and that in his experience, this practice has been used without exception. The statement does not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the main legal issue was whether ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility and hardship scheme) applied to the counting of assignments that the Applicant undertook before the instruction went into effect on 1 July 2011. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ST/AI/2011/6 could not be applied retroactively to assignments that took place before it went into effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the revised staff rule 4.8(b), which allows for different counting of the Applicant¡¯s assignments, was applicable only to assignments starting on or after 1 July 2009, and was not retroactively applicable to prior...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...