Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that there were severe failures in affording the Applicant due process during the investigation. After first interviewing her as a non-subject, SIU later decided that she would be a subject of the investigation but did not then afford her the due process entitlements under section 10 of ST/AI/2017/1. While there was procedural unfairness to the Applicant, inefficiency and a lack of reporting transparency; there was no due process failing on the part of the decision-maker since her decision expressly considered not only the SIU investigation report but also the Applicant¡¯s...

The challenge against the decision to grant the Applicant a special post allowance (SPA) instead of a temporary promotion was found to not be receivable ratione materiae for the lack of an administrative decision. The Tribunal also considered that this claim was not receivable due to the absence of a timely management evaluation request. The challenge against the decision to find the Applicant ineligible to apply for a job opening at the P-5 level was found receivable given that the management evaluation request was filed within two months from the application for the job opening. The...

The Applicant had no standing to contest the modality of a further recruitment process. Absent a reviewable administrative decision, the application was not receivable with respect to the principal claim. As the administration acted within the scope of its discretion, compensation was not due.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent¡¯s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...

There was no express indication that the Judgment of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court was executable upon issuance, neither was the issue investigated by the administration in the proceedings leading to the impugned decision. Rather, pertinent documents focus on the finality, apparently presumed from the title ¡®Final judgment of dissolution of marriage¡¯. The title should not have been relied upon. The contested decision was not based on a court order whose enforceability was unequivocal. The Tribunal did not find any indication of the judgment by the Third District Court of Appeal of the State...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Newland¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-820. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given that Mr Newland had already been paid Special Post Allowance, Hazard pay, and outstanding interest, the only questions requiring determination were whether he was entitled to payment of Rest and Recuperation (R&R), free tickets, and the relocation grant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Newland¡¯s claim that he was entitled to the payment of R&R was unsustainable, as it was not an accruable benefit or entitlement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

The Applicant submitted that his initial ¡°informal¡± enquiries into a possible review of his retirement age only began in July 2016, and that his first formal query of the date was not until 13 August 2016. It was difficult to imagine why the Applicant never thought to query the applicable position, or seek to have the mandatory retirement age in respect of himself reviewed, until five months before he was actually due to retire. Indeed, the Applicant had not sought to even challenge any of the Respondent¡¯s submissions on receivability. While the Tribunal appreciated that a self-represented...