Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the Application is not receivable and dismissed it. Receivability - The Tribunal accepted that the extended use of the temporary appointments was the reason for the disparity in the amount of assignment grant that the Applicant was entitled to and that this negatively affected the Applicant. However, in this Application the Applicant was effectively asking the Tribunal to find that the Rules on assignment grants for staff members on temporary appointments are unlawful. Those rules were based on resolutions of the General Assembly. Pursuant to art. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute...

Receivability - The Tribunal accepted that the extended use of the temporary appointments was the reason for the disparity in the amount of relocation grant that the Applicant was entitled to and that this negatively affected the Applicant. This however was the subject of a settlement agreement between the parties. Further, in this Application the Applicant was effectively asking the Tribunal to find that the Rules on relocation grant for temporary employees are unlawful. Those rules were based on resolutions of the General Assembly. Pursuant to art. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute the Tribunal¡¯s...

Receivability - The Tribunal accepted that the extended use of the temporary appointments was the reason for the disparity in the amount of relocation grant that the Applicant was entitled to and that this negatively affected the Applicant. This however was the subject of a settlement agreement between the parties. Further, in this Application the Applicant was effectively asking the Tribunal to find that the Rules on relocation grant for temporary employees are unlawful. Those rules were based on resolutions of the General Assembly. Pursuant to art. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute the Tribunal¡¯s...

Receivability ratione personae ¨C Applying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decisions in Gharemani and Sims, the Tribunal holds that the Application is not receivable ratione personae because the contested decision has no bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member.

Receivability: The Tribunal observed that there is a difference between a contested administrative decision and the grounds relied on to impugn the decision and noted that neither of the two issues remanded for the consideration of the Tribunal was included in the list of administrative decisions which the Applicant requested the MEU to review. The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant raised the issue of the non-conversion of his temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment, he did so as a ground for contesting the specified decisions. He did not identify this issue as a...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s claims relating to the performance evaluation of his FRO and his SRO¡¯s theoretical negative influence of future performance appraisals to the Applicant¡¯s detriment were not receivable because they either did not form part of the terms and conditions of his employment or had no direct legal consequences on his terms and conditions of employment. With respect to the negative comments and rating of the SRO in his 2015-2016 e-PAS, the Tribunal noted the successful roll-back of the e-PAS and concluded that there no longer existed a live issue because he had...

The application was receivable because there was a reviewable administrative decision stemming from the SRO¡¯s negative comments and rating in the Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal because the Applicant was granted only a six-month contract instead of the one year appointment that he was granted when he initially entered on duty with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSMIL. Thus, the SRO¡¯s comments had direct legal consequences for the Applicant in that he ended up with a shorter term of appointment. Although the Respondent had made assurances to the Applicant that the 2015-2016 e- PAS would be rolled back and re-created, his...

There is nothing in the wording of sec. 2.5(a) that prescribes for ruling out of the count of one-year assignments that were preceded by an assignment that lasted less than a year. Accordingly, even though the prior assignment of nine months in Cairo did not itself count as an assignment, the following period in Tripoli, which was for one year, fully meets the requirements to be counted as an assignment. The Tribunal finds that there is no room to interpret the relevant provisions to claim, like the Respondent does, that his return to Tripoli in April 2012 should be considered as a...