Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The applicant (but not his counsel) received a copy of the letter on 1 December 2008 and therefore had until 2 March 2009 to file his application. However, his application was dated 30 June 2009, or 120 days past the deadline, and it was received by the former Administrative Tribunal only on 6 July 2009. The respondent submitted as a preliminary matter that the application was time-barred. The applicant contended that his counsel had not been notified of the decision by the Administration and therefore counsel was unable to file a timeous appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant was informed of...

1998 reclassification: The issue of the 1998 reclassification exercise is long out of time and no circumstances justify the review of it now. 2005 reclassification: Examining the 2005 reclassification exercise is moot as the post was abolished and the applicant did not challenge the abolition. Withdrawal of SPA: In relation to the period for which the applicant¡¯s SPA was withdrawn, it would be reasonable to expect a notation of a change in functions in the e-PAS records as there was a crossover between two cycles. However, there was none and the SPA should thus be retroactively paid...

The Tribunal found that was no breach of former staff rule 109.3(a) or 109.3(c) and the applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected. Outcome: Application dismissed.

It is not the function of the Tribunal to review the prior JAB report, but to consider whether the respondent acted properly and with due regard to the applicant¡¯s due process rights in deciding to appoint the applicant at the G-3 level. It is incumbent upon any party making serious allegations to produce supporting evidence. It was for the applicant, as a freely contracting person, to decide whether or not to accept the appointment and she did so on the basis of the clear oral and written conditions governing her appointment.Outcome: Application dismissed in its entirety.

Having received no application by the deadline imposed, the undersigned Judge finds that this case is hereby closed.

The case cannot proceed without the active involvement of the applicant as the dominus litis. Accordingly, in the interests of ensuring that only current proceedings are maintained before the Tribunal, the application stands to be dismissed.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirement of progressively responsible experience in the vacancy announcement was in line with the generic job profile and was not prejudicial to the applicant. The applicant¡¯s arguments were in any case without merit as all the candidates interviewed by the selection panel had at least ten years of experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, although the Organisation failed to properly carry out and document its consideration for the designation of the successful candidate to perform significant functions in financial management, this did not result in a violation of the applicant¡¯s...

Economic loss: Since the applicant was due to retire at the time the selection would have been made, his economic loss was the value of the salary and emoluments of an ASG, without any adjustment for the receipt of entitlements as a D-2 Director, which is a simple calculation of the gross earnings minus deductions, plus the respondent¡¯s subsidy contributions. Any actual income he made is adjusted against this amount. Pension: The pension calculation is more difficult. Two methods of calculation are open as the Pension Fund has stated it will not recalculate the applicant¡¯s pension: the first...

The applicant, a P-3 level staff member, applied for the P-4 post of Chief of her Unit. She was not selected. It later transpired that the applicant had initially received the highest score, but her supervisors, who participated in the selection, increased the successful candidate¡¯s score. This resulted in the successful candidate being ranked higher than the applicant. The Secretary-General agreed with the finding of the Joint Appeals Board that the applicant¡¯s rights were violated and awarded her compensation in the amount of three months¡¯ salary. The applicant appealed, seeking additional...

The panel report did not constitute a breach of the applicant¡¯s contractual rights and therefore no compensation is warranted. Such a panel is not a court and while it must be fair, it must be allowed to do its reasonable best to ascertain the facts as it thinks is right. Even though the audit was seriously flawed in significant respects, the decision as to its content is not subject to appeal to the Tribunal. Constructive dismissal occurs when the employer engages in a scheme of action which, in effect makes it so difficult for the employee to continue with his or her work, that the latter...