Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal finds the Respondent¡¯s application for interpretation as an attempt to have the Tribunal re-examine its Order, which is not a proper way to seek a reversal or modification of the Tribunal¡¯s Order. As the Appeals Tribunal clearly stated, the exercise of interpretation under art. 30 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure is not an avenue for review or the basis for a fresh judgment. It goes without saying that the motion is not receivable and must be dismissed. The Administration provided some reasonable explanation for the contested decision, which is supported by evidence...

The Tribunal noted that at the time of the hearing, Respondent counsel had not been instructed or informed the recruitment exercise in question and consequently did not apprise the Tribunal about this fact, just as the Applicant¡¯s Counsel did not know about the Applicant¡¯s application for the position. The Tribunal held that the applying party, the Respondent, meaning the Administration at large, must have known about the ongoing recruitment exercise and the Applicant¡¯s job application for the Job Opening. At the very least, such knowledge must be imputed or assumed to have been known to the...

The Applicant failed to abide by several orders and did not respond to attempts from the Registry to contact him. Ther Tribunal, therefore, can only conclude that the Applicant is no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which must therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stands to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Applicant does not question whether this presentation of the applicable law is comprehensible, but rather intends to reargue his case that the contested selection processes were unlawful. As the Tribunal further finds that paras. 14 to 17, as well as the remaining parts of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/075, are straightforward and easy to understand.

The Tribunal held that regarding the Applicant¡¯s requests for compensation for time spent since she separated from the Organisation, salary arrears, interest of 15% paid on compensation and salary arrears and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred on medical bills these claims were not awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and such could not be claimed as part of the execution. As such, all the four claims were rejected. However, the Tribunal found that the only issue relevant to the execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment that was still pending was the interest due on awards granted therein. Accordingly...

The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent complied with the judgment and took steps to execute the judgment accordingly. The Applicant failed to show that the judgment remains unexecuted. The Tribunal held that the express notice in the form of the memorandum from the Respondent advising the Applicant of his reinstatement from date of separation in compliance with the judgment was proof of execution.

As per the account of both parties, previously awarded costs had been paid and, thus, what remained to be considered is if the 2014 contested decision has been fully rescinded or not. The issues at stake are of a medical nature and that is why this Tribunal remanded the matter by Order No. 24 (GVA/2016) so that a Medical Board is convened and a determination on the Applicant¡¯s sick leave entitlements is made. This medical determination is a condition sine qua non for the submission for consideration for a disability benefit by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC. Contrary to what the Applicant argues, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent complied with the judgment and took steps to execute the judgment accordingly. The Applicant failed to show that the judgment remains unexecuted. The Tribunal held that the express notice in the form of the memorandum from the Respondent advising the Applicant of his reinstatement from date of separation in compliance with the judgment was proof of execution.