Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found the application receivable because: 1)Although the Applicants, who were self-represented, referred to and addressed some of the findings in the management evaluation response at section VII of their application, the applications were evidently not directed at the Management Evaluation Unit response but rather at the decision not to renew their appointments beyond 30 June 2019. 2)The 5 April 2019 notice was not unambiguous and the non-extension decision may have been interpreted as conditioned upon the future General Assembly resolution on the budget. The communication dated...

The Tribunal found the Respondent¡¯s explanation for extending the Applicant¡¯s FTA for one month plausible. It thus held that the impugned decision was not unlawful.

The Tribunal found the application receivable because the Applicant was not relitigating the same claim that was dismissed by Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2019/122. The Tribunal concluded that Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2019/122 related solely to the Applicant¡¯s challenge against MONUSCO¡¯s decision to abolish his post by way of a ¡°dry cut¡± and not to extend his fixed-term appointment (FTA) and that this judgment made no pronouncements, whether procedural or substantive on the Applicant¡¯s claim for a termination indemnity. In the absence of an explicit decision/evidence corroborating the Applicant¡¯s assertion that...

Termination indemnity serves to provide sufficient means of survival for the staff member to identify a regular placement in the labour market, and thus is computed dependent on the length of service. It serves to compensate for the premature loss of employment and also discourages inconsiderate use of termination by the Respondent. Termination indemnity operates on the premise that the protected interest is in preserving the contract and not in generating more profit for the employee. The applicable legal framework for abolishment of post does not confer upon a staff member a right to have...

Termination indemnity serves to provide sufficient means of survival for the staff member to identify a regular placement in the labour market, and thus is computed dependent on the length of service. It serves to compensate for the premature loss of employment and also discourages inconsiderate use of termination by the Respondent. Termination indemnity operates on the premise that the protected interest is in preserving the contract and not in generating more profit for the employee. The applicable legal framework for abolishment of post does not confer upon a staff member a right to have...

Termination indemnity serves to provide sufficient means of survival for the staff member to identify a regular placement in the labour market, and thus is computed dependent on the length of service. It serves to compensate for the premature loss of employment and also discourages inconsiderate use of termination by the Respondent. Termination indemnity operates on the premise that the protected interest is in preserving the contract and not in generating more profit for the employee. The applicable legal framework for abolishment of post does not confer upon a staff member a right to have...

Termination indemnity serves to provide sufficient means of survival for the staff member to identify a regular placement in the labour market, and thus is computed dependent on the length of service. It serves to compensate for the premature loss of employment and also discourages inconsiderate use of termination by the Respondent. Termination indemnity operates on the premise that the protected interest is in preserving the contract and not in generating more profit for the employee. The applicable legal framework for abolishment of post does not confer upon a staff member a right to have...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was managed or evaluated in a fair and objective manner The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has adduced evidence of possible bias and lack of objectivity in the evaluation of his performance by the FRO and the SRO¡­ Even assuming that the FRO and the SRO evaluated the Applicant¡¯s performance in a fair and an objective manner, they certainly failed to ¡°proactively assist¡± the Applicant to remedy his performance shortcomings in accordance with section 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. Moreover, the undisputed interpersonal issues between the Applicant and his FRO have...

Receivability As it was not until January 2019 that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the 2017 decision to transfer her to a new position, the requirements for receivability of this aspect of her application were not met. Her request for management evaluation was too late. There is logic to the Applicant¡¯s explanation, that it was not until the time of the subsequent non-renewal decision that she realised the extent to which the prior transfer had left her vulnerable to termination. However, that of itself does not justify that the strict provisions as to timelines are not...