Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la demande d¡¯indemnisation de Mme Johnson-Simmons au titre des imp?ts non per?us n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable, dans la mesure o¨´ non seulement Mme Johnson-Simmons n¡¯avait pas identifi¨¦ la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e concernant le remboursement des imp?ts sur le revenu, mais o¨´ elle avait ¨¦galement admis ne pas avoir soumis la question ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦valuation de la direction, et o¨´ rien n¡¯indiquait qu¡¯elle ait pay¨¦ des imp?ts.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que Mme Johnson-Simmons avait sciemment et intentionnellement dissimul¨¦ ¨¤ l¡¯Organisation des...

The staff member who was on a roster of suitable candidates for the Senior Service Desk Officer (SSDO) post was informed that the SSDO post was reclassified to the IT Service Delivery Officer (ISDO) post and the job description had changed to the degree that his membership in the SSDO roster was not applicable to the ISDO post. He expressed interest in applying for the ISDO post but did not apply.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member was not the incumbent of the SSDO post at the time of reclassification. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reclassification of the SSDO post to the ISDO post had not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that Ms. Johnson-Simmons¡¯s claim to compensation for unpaid taxes not receivable, as not only did Ms. Johnson-Simmons fail to identify the contested administrative decision regarding reimbursement for income tax payments, but she also admitted that she did not submit the matter for management evaluation, and there was no indication that she had paid any taxes.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Johnson-Simmons knowingly and intentionally concealed relevant information about her changed residency status from the Organization, and she also willfully...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in its prior Judgment the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que, dans sa requ¨ºte, le fonctionnaire avait clairement identifi¨¦ la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e comme ¨¦tant le courriel de la Caisse des pensions l¡¯informant que ses prestations de retraite avaient d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ vers¨¦es et qu¡¯il n¡¯avait droit ¨¤ aucune autre
prestation.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯il n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ de r¨¦examen de la d¨¦cision ni interjet¨¦ appel devant le Comit¨¦ permanent du Conseil de la Caisse des pensions, mais qu¡¯il avait plut?t d¨¦pos¨¦ une demande d¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction, puis interjet¨¦ appel devant le Tribunal des litiges. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que, de ce fait, il n¡¯avait pas...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n¡¯avait commis aucune erreur de fait ni de droit en concluant que le comportement de la fonctionnaire constituait une faute grave.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait examin¨¦ les explications fournies par la fonctionnaire concernant les erreurs commises lors de la pr¨¦sentation des demandes de subvention pour l¡¯¨¦ducation sp¨¦cialis¨¦e, mais qu¡¯il s¡¯¨¦tait prononc¨¦ contre elle en se fondant sur son ¨¦valuation de son manque de cr¨¦dibilit¨¦. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que ses conjectures quant aux ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve qu¡¯un t¨¦moin potentiel aurait pu apporter relevaient de la simple...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯une partie de la demande d¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction formul¨¦e par la fonctionnaire ne semblait pas avoir ¨¦t¨¦ prise en compte par le TDNU. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les informations figurant dans le formulaire type MER constituaient une demande d¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction des d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es, y compris le non-respect d¡¯une promesse pr¨¦sum¨¦e de maintenir son emploi en garantissant le financement de son poste pendant une p¨¦riode donn¨¦e. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la fonctionnaire avait suffisamment soulev¨¦ les questions relatives ¨¤ la l¨¦galit¨¦ de la suppression de son poste et de la...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a part of the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation appeared not to have been considered by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the information in the MER standard form constituted a request for management evaluation of the contested decisions, including breach of an alleged promise to continue her employment by maintaining funding of her post for a particular period. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had raised sufficiently the issues of the lawfulness of the abolition of her post and the termination of her employment to have met the requirements of their...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had requested management evaluation 64 days after he was informed of the contested decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the staff member¡¯s arguments that the delay in requesting management evaluation had been minimal or that his permanent incapacity constituted a force majeure which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was obliged to consider.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding the application not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in fact or in law in deciding that the staff member¡¯s conduct constituted serious misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered the staff member¡¯s explanations for errors in submitting claims for the special education grant but had found against her based on its assessment of her lack of credibility. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found her speculation as to what evidence a potential witness may have established to be supposition. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that it had been right for the Administration not to pursue allegations that it considered could not be...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in his application, the staff member had clearly identified the contested decision as the Pension Fund¡¯s email which informed him that his pension benefits had already been paid and there were no further entitlements.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he had not requested a review of the decision or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee of the Pension Board but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then appealed to the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure under the rules of the Pension Fund.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le recours form¨¦ par le fonctionnaire contre la r¨¨gle 3.3 du R¨¨glement du personnel (b) ¨C en l¡¯occurrence, la distinction ¨¦tablie entre les candidats internes et externes en mati¨¨re de d¨¦termination de l¡¯¨¦chelon ¨C en vigueur au moment de sa s¨¦lection et dont le r¨¦tablissement avait ¨¦t¨¦ ordonn¨¦ par l¡¯Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale, ne pouvait faire l¡¯objet d¡¯un contr?le juridictionnel, car cela reviendrait ¨¤ ¨¦valuer le contenu de fond d¡¯une r¨¦solution ¨¤ l¡¯aune de valeurs normatives sup¨¦rieures, question qui ne
relevait ni de la comp¨¦tence de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ni de celle du Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Le TNA a en outre...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s challenge to Staff Rule 3.3(b) ¨Cspecifically, the distinction drawn between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination ¨C in force at the time of his selection and whose reestablishment was ordered by the General Assembly, could not be subject to judicial review, as it would be tantamount to testing the substantive content of a resolution against higher normative values, a question that fell outside the remit of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that, since the staff member was selected for the position on 17 May 2024, af...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que M. Flekal, en acceptant le renvoi de la plainte pour harc¨¨lement le 3 mars 2024 en vue d¡¯une intervention de la direction, avait en substance renonc¨¦ ¨¤ son droit de saisir les tribunaux pour absence d¡¯enqu¨ºte sur ses plaintes pour harc¨¨lement, y compris pour intimidation. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯en vertu de l¡¯instruction technique pertinente du D¨¦partement des services de contr?le interne, l¡¯intimidation ne constitue pas une cat¨¦gorie distincte de faute professionnelle, mais est consid¨¦r¨¦e comme une forme de harc¨¨lement.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que M. Flekal avait ¨¦galement renonc¨¦ ¨¤ sa...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a fait remarquer que la d¨¦cision de soumettre M. Flekal ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure d¡¯OTI ne constituait qu¡¯une ¨¦tape interm¨¦diaire du processus de gestion des performances et n¡¯avait eu aucun impact direct ni aucune cons¨¦quence d¨¦favorable sur ses conditions de nomination ou son contrat de travail; il ne s¡¯agissait donc pas d¡¯une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours judiciaire.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que M. Flekal avait ¨¦t¨¦ mis ¨¤ la retraite pour raisons m¨¦dicales, d¨¦clar¨¦ inapte au service et b¨¦n¨¦ficiait d¡¯une pension d¡¯invalidit¨¦. Il n¡¯a pas ¨¦t¨¦ mis ¨¤ la retraite de l¡¯Agence en raison du non...

Bien que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ne f?t pas partie ¨¤ l¡¯ordonnance contest¨¦e, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il avait un int¨¦r¨ºt direct et recevable dans un recours visant ¨¤ d¨¦terminer si le TNDU est habilit¨¦ ¨¤ d¨¦cider si son repr¨¦sentant l¨¦gal doit ¨ºtre exclu de la possibilit¨¦ de compara?tre dans de futures affaires et dans des affaires sans rapport devant le TNDU. Si le TDN est habilit¨¦ ¨¤ ordonner une telle mesure, cela fait peser un risque important d¡¯atteinte ¨¤ l¡¯autorit¨¦ du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de nommer des membres du personnel pour exercer des fonctions juridiques, d¡¯allouer ses ressources juridiques et...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur dans la d¨¦finition de la port¨¦e de la demande de M. Kebede, et que son all¨¦gation de repr¨¦sailles syst¨¦miques n¡¯avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ valablement soumise ¨¤ l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. M. Kebede n¡¯a contest¨¦ la d¨¦cision de
non-s¨¦lection que dans sa demande d¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction et dans sa requ¨ºte adress¨¦e ¨¤ l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Le TNDU a partag¨¦ l¡¯avis du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral selon lequel il n¡¯existait aucune preuve de fausset¨¦ mat¨¦rielle ou de d¨¦claration trompeuse de la part de l¡¯Administration ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦gard du TNDU concernant la note attribu¨¦e ¨¤ M. Kebede lors de l¡¯entretien...