Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Since the applications were identical, the Tribunal joined them per employing organization. The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific...

The Applicant, a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Investigations Specialist at the P-4 level, contested three decisions. The appeal against two decisions was found not to be receivable ratione materiae: a preliminary decision and failure to request management evaluation. The third decision concerned the imposition of a written reprimand as an administrative measure against Applicant. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s appeal regarding the third decision on the merits.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was not afforded proper priority consideration for the DM post under the framework established by staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Tribunal finds that, had the Applicant been afforded proper consideration for the DM post as a displaced permanent staff member, he would have had fifty per cent chance of being selected. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the selection process was tainted by bias against the Applicant. Having considered relevant factors¡ªnamely, that (i) the Applicant lost a fifty per cent chance of being selected...

The Applicant, as a former Service Contractor, does not have standing to submit an application to the Tribunal pursuant to article 2.1 and 3.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis, on the grounds that the applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the applicable deadline, and that the application was filed more than three years after receipt of the contested decision. Identification of the contested decision: As the Appeals Tribunal held in Massabni 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-238, it is part of the duties and of the inherent powers of a Judge to adequately interpret and comprehend the applications submitted by the parties, and to...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not comply with his obligation to make reasonable and good faith efforts under staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d) to find the Applicant an alternative post. Termination of appointment: A termination of a contract of employment by reason of restructuring of the workplace is lawful provided that the Organization discharges fully its duty and obligations towards the displaced staff member in accordance with the applicable law; the latter, in the case of termination of a permanent appointment for abolition of post, is staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Duty of...

The Tribunal found that the facts of the case created a situation in which a fair-minded observer would have concluded that there was a real possibility that the presence of that senior official on the interview panel would lead to a reasonable perception of bias. It was thus unreasonable for that Panel member not to, at least, have raised the matter of a perceived conflict of interest with the panel and, ultimately, not to have recused himself from sitting on it. However, since there was no evidence that the presence of the senior manager had an impact on the outcome of the selection process...

Restructuring process: The Tribunal concluded that there were no procedural irregularities in either the creation of Oversight and Support Division (OSD) or the subsequent restructuring/realignment process. Both were undertaken in a fully transparent manner, with full consultation of all staff members including the Applicant. Sufficiency of reasons: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was given reasons for the decision on more than one occasion including those conveyed to her by her staff representative following a meeting with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Senior Management. These reasons were based on the...

The Tribunal found that the letter of 9 June 2015 constitutes, in essence, merely the implementation of the earlier decision to separate the Applicant from the Organization for reason of post abolition. The termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment was already adjudicated by Judgment Seyfollahzadeh Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/037, affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgment Seyfollahzadeh 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-620. The Tribunal thus found that the matter was res judicata, and rejected the application. Res judicata: If a termination letter constitutes the mere implementation of an earlier decision to terminate the...

Scope of application: It is an essential and inherent part of the duties of a Judge to clarify, interpret and comprehend what the claim is to identify what is in fact being contested. Time limits (receivability ratione materiae): Time limits do not begin to run anew simply because and when an Applicant is provided with a reasonable belief that there are grounds to request management evaluation of a decision that was notified at an earlier stage. Administrative decision (receivability ratione materiae): In case of post abolition, the decision to (re)advertise the post is not an administrative...