Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr. Salon¡¯s argument that the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute¡¯s provisions for an application for interpretation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was clear...

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae as (1) the record indicates that the Applicant did not submit a request for request for management evaluation to the Management Advice and Evaluation Section as required under staff rule 11.2; and (2) the contested decision had no direct effect on the Applicant, no external legal effect, nor any adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual employment rights.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly dismissed Mr. Salon¡¯s application as not receivable on grounds that he had failed to establish that an appealable administrative decision had been taken by the Organization and that in any event, he had failed to request management evaluation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely ¡°experience in leading large teams¡±, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of ¡°lead¡± is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...

The Applicant claims that several events of prohibited conduct occurred between 2018 and 2022 affecting him. However, he did not follow the procedural path under Bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) and ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) for the handling of formal reports of prohibited conduct and the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into such allegations.

There is no evidence that the Applicant ever...

Accoding to the hiring manager, he concluded that the Applicant id not meet one of the minimum requirements for the position and thus, lawfully not considered further in the selection process. This requirement was "experience in leading large teams", which the hiring manager defined as "supervising at least 10 employees".

The Tribunal found that the process of advertising and setting out the criteria for selection was done lawfully. However, it also found that there was evidence of an unjust process that failed to provide a fair chance to job applicants like the Applicant because it failed to...

The Tribunal recalled that staff rule 3.9(b) clearly requires that to be eligible for education grant, a staff member must "reside and serve" outside his or her home country. Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal established that the Applicant had telecommuted from his home country for the entire period of 2020-2021 academic year. On this score, the Applicant was not entitled to the education grant.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s contention that he had relied on an erroneous information provided to him by the Organization, the Tribunal found that there was no reliance on incorrect...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant neither appealed the administrative decision not to select him for the post, nor challenged the selection process or the JAB¡¯s conclusion, but rather he discussed the release of a Confidential Letter which occurred after the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed errors warranting the reversal of its determination that his challenge to the decision to release the Confidential Letter was not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci. Recalling that compensation in the absence of actual injury is without legal basis, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law. However, acceding in part to the cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that when the disciplinary procedure does not bear out allegations against a staff member that may have been considered during a preliminary investigation, entitlements that may have been lawfully withheld pursuant to administrative instruction ST/AI/2004/3 must be paid in full, including interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasised the importance of performance appraisals and noted that there appeared to be a pattern of delays in completing those of the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the present circumstances of the case, the award of USD 3,000 was manifestly insufficient and increased the compensation to three months¡¯ net base pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal to the extent that it pertained to compensation.