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 Applicant received the contested decision on 10 May 2022 thus, she should have requested management evaluation by 9 July 2022 but she did not do so until 13 July 2022. The application was deemed not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within the stipulated time limit.
Mr. Farhadi appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the successful candidate had not been subject to the mandatory vetting procedure. The mere indication by the Hiring Manager of the fact that ¡°[b]oth candidates have worked with women and trade previously¡± under the rubric ¡°Reference check¡± was not sufficient to conclude that there were no actual reference checks. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that more importantly, reference checks normally take place only once the selection has been concluded, and in the present case, Mr. Farhadi was not selected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it found that the Appellant should not have been treated differently from other candidates without justification and that proceeding in the manner suggested by him would have breached the other shortlisted candidates¡¯ rights to fair and full consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its finding that there was a regrettable error in the temporary job opening when it exempted the previously rostered candidates from any further assessment, and that this error was later rectified when all short-listed...
Request for oral hearing: Given Mr. Toson¡¯s arguments wherein he wishes to contest evidence before the Dispute Tribunal in a manner that would be essentially a rehearing of the evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing should not be granted and would not assist in expeditiously and fairly resolving the issues in this appeal. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal applied the appropriate standard of review. It reviewed the applicable policy of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA for selection processes (the PPM), reviewed the evidence, and determined that the applicable procedures were followed in the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first explained that this is a case where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster. The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision?maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision?maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by failing to implement its mandatory obligation to award an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof that the contested decision caused a loss of income due to loss of career opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not discharge his onus to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred as the first instance trier of fact with regard to the issue of moral damages, and therefore accepted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on compensation for moral...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have only received her application against the selection decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s allegation that the case management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the re...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal that centred on whether the Appellant should be awarded enhanced compensation of three months¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make a reversible error in declining to award compensation for moral suffering. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case was distinguishable from Mebtouche (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/039), where the Applicant, Mr Mebtouche, had already retired and had no chance of being promoted, therefore enhanced compensation was justified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that enhanced compensation could not be awarded to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
