蘑菇视频

蘑菇视频DP

Showing 131 - 140 of 237
蘑菇视频DT/2011/007, Ndjadi

The preliminary issue at stake was whether the Tribunal had competence ratione personae to examine this application. In this regard, the Tribunal found that, under the relevant 蘑菇视频DP rules, persons recruited under Service Contract are not staff members. It therefore considered that it did not have competence to adjudicate this case. It also found that the facts had clearly established that the Applicant had actually amicably settled the issue of the non renewal of his contract and received USD 9593 as compensation. The Tribunal therefore considered that the Applicant, who was a party to this...

蘑菇视频DT/2012/101, Leal

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant conceded, in his closing submission, that the distribution and storage of pornographic material using the 蘑菇视频DP equipment constituted misconduct. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the characterization of this charge settled and did not go on to examine it. On due process, the Tribunal found that the investigation was hasty and afforded the; Applicant little opportunity to prepare for his case. On proportionality, the Tribunal held that the lack of due process shown on the part of the Respondent while investigating the Applicant must necessarily count to...

蘑菇视频DT/2011/005, Comerford-Verzuu

The Tribunal found that the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision but that the application was time-barred. Force of JAB conclusions and recommendations: The Tribunal is not bound by the conclusions and recommendations of the Joint Appeals Board, which is only a consultative body. Tribunal’s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion—that is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties—whether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass...

蘑菇视频DT/2012/192, Gakumba

The events leading up to the Applicant’s separation from service do not amount to a termination. The Applicant was in fact wrongly placed on Special Leave With Full Pay from 21 May 2004 to 31 December 2004. 蘑菇视频DP guidelines on Results and Competency Assessment do not confer any power on the Resident Representative to place a staff member on special leave with full pay for unsatisfactory performance as was done by the RR in this case. Not only was the decision to place the Applicant on SLWFP illegal, it was a disguised disciplinary measure designed to humiliate and embarrass the Applicant to the...