Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, the authority to place a staff member on SLWFP rests with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Executive Director, and that his authority was not duly delegated to another Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Official. In view of that, the Tribunal concluded that the decision-maker did not have the competence to take the contested decision, ordered its rescission and awarded USD1,000 to the Applicant as moral damages for the breach of her rights due to that fundamental procedural flaw. The compensation was restricted to the fact that the Applicant had stated on several occasions that while she did contest the...

The Tribunal found that the Administration violated the rights of the Applicant by not including the PAD cycle year 2009 when making the termination decision in July 2010. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the contested decision and compensation for material damage equivalent to the loss of salary until her early retirement date on 1 May 2011. When terminating a contract for unsatisfactory service, the PAD reports to be taken into consideration must be the ones immediately preceding the non-renewal decision, so the PAD cycle years 2007, 2008, and 2009 for a termination decision made in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decisions were lawful and that there was no evidence to support the claim that these decisions were motivated by ill will. The Tribunal also expressed its concern at the huge volume of unnecessary as well as irrelevant material that had been filed by the Applicant thereby imposing an onerous burden on the Tribunal at the expense of other cases awaiting a judicial determination.

The Tribunal noted an indication of favouritism towards a particular candidate and a desire to appease the staff council neither of which are consistent with the standard of conduct...

The Tribunal noted that the rebuttal process was still ongoing and that no administrative decision had yet been taken; it further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Rebuttal Policy was a regulatory instrument which was not of individual application and did not carry direct legal consequences on the Applicant; hence, these matters of the application were found to be irreceivable. Further, with regard to the Applicant having been denied access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ City Building on 13 February 2014, as well as the blocking of her emails after the end of her contract, the Tribunal noted that these events referred to...

The Tribunal considered that the Applicant as a party cannot file a motion for intervention in her own case, and that her request for intervention by the Tribunal in the rebuttal process is not receivable ratione materiae, thus leaving no legal ground for an interim measure.

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...

The Tribunal considered that since the decision of 29 April 2015 was superseded by subsequent renewals, the application was moot, hence irreceivable. Receivability: An application against a non-renewal of appointment becomes moot when the appointment is extended prior to or pending the proceedings before the Tribunal, since the contested decision is deprived of its effects. As a consequence, the application is irreceivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that with respect to one of them, Mrs. V., no complaint was ever received by OAIS and the Applicant never filed a request for management evaluation concerning her; hence, the application before the Tribunal was found as not receivable on this matter. Further, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s formal complaints addressed to OAIS against her four other colleagues were untimely as they had been sent in August 2014, i.e. more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s complaint against her colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with said colleague, whereas Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s complaint against said colleague, which was sent on 22 August 2014 to OAIS, was untimely as it had been sent more than eleven months after the Applicant¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (¡°SLWFP¡±) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with her colleague, whereas Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.