Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted acclaim to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not consider documents he had filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly observed that, even if it had been able to find the impugned decision, the Appellant had not been able to show that he had requested management evaluation of that or any other administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that human resources and the Ombudsman were responsible for submitting his claim and should have referred his case to the ABCC had no legal basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that, since the Appellant had failed to submit a claim to the ABCC, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to consider his claim for compensation for work-related injuries. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions were fully consistent with the jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and with the evidence on record. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or committed any error of law, fact, or procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decisions or absence of decisions relating to his remuneration, compensation for workplace injury, and his desire to be reassigned to a less difficult duty station. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the application was not receivable.
Legal Principle(s)
A statutory burden is on the staff member to establish that an administrative decision in issue was in non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment; such a burden cannot be met where the applicant fails to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. A timely request for management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and, in the absence of this administrative review, an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not receivable ratione materiae. Staff members have to ensure that they are aware of the Staff Regulations and Rules and the applicable procedures in the context of the administration of justice in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ internal justice system; ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse for missing deadlines.