Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal recalled that it may only review decisions that have been the subject of a timely request for management evaluation.

Considering, inter alia, that the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation after the 60 calendar days¡¯ deadline, and that the Tribunal is not competent to suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation as per art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae. It consequently dismissed the application.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that there was clearly sufficient evidence to support the Administration¡¯s conclusion that the staff member¡¯s performance only partially met expectations, and that this concern was communicated to him. Although the Rebuttal Board¡¯s confirmation of the rating, and the preparation of a second short-term performance appraisal occurred after the non-renewal was taken, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that these reviews nonetheless confirmed that management¡¯s prior informal evaluation of the staff member¡¯s performance was not arbitrary but was instead well-based...

The application is not receivable ratione materiae on two grounds. First, the alleged contested decision does not carry the capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment and, thus, is not a reviewable administrative decision falling under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal. Second, the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation within the statutory deadline.

A lack of cooperation is not always a relevant circumstance in every case to be taken as aggravating factor. Sometimes, if the lack of cooperation is not serious, it may not be taken as an aggravating circumstance. However, the nature of the case may affect how lack of cooperation during an investigation is viewed. Being dishonest and misleading during the investigation may be considered serious and be taken as a ground of aggravation. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that a lack of cooperation can never be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

While the Appeals Tribunal has repeatedly...

Receivability
The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation and found that only the decision not to consider him eligible for a temporary appointment through the Talent Pool, at the P-2 level, was receivable and subject to judicial review. Any other decision to which the Applicant referred in his submissions was consequently not receivable.

Merits
The Tribunal referred to the applicable legal framework as well as to the evidence on record and noted that the practice is to only consider experience at the G-6 level and above (or equivalent experience outside of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that given...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason why the Appeals Tribunal should intervene and modify the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings, which were both reasonable and equitable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while the hiring of the casual workers was not part of Mr. Saleh¡¯s official duties, Mr. Saleh coordinated and supervised the work of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR implementing partner which was responsible for hiring at the warehouse, and Mr. Saleh also had the function of overseeing the warehousing operations. Given these responsibilities, as well as his previous intense involvement in the setting up and management of the warehouse, which...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had performance shortcomings as evidenced by the 2016 to 2019 ePADs and by the fact that he failed to initiate the 2020 ePAD.

The Applicant was aware or could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the required performance standards.

The Applicant was given a fair opportunity to meet the required standard and the Administration did not err by not availing him more opportunities to improve considering the totality of circumstances in this case.

The totality of circumstances supported a finding that the termination of the Applicant's appointment was...

Mr. Hassan appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...