Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury¡¯s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione materiae.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ms. Hanjoury made requests and inquiries regarding the 1 March 2020 email, but this subsequent correspondence did not extend the time limit for seeking management evaluation.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further recalled that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT proceeded to find merit in the position of the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) that de-rostering was not an administrative decision for the purposes of Staff Rule 1.2(a) and held that there was no administrative decision in the case but without elaborating its reasons. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT having found the application not receivable due to the request for management evaluation being out of time did not need to make this finding. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not review the relevant facts and evidence under this finding nor how the legal principles defining an administrative decision applied to those facts. However, because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the application was not receivable on other grounds, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s lack of adequate reasons on whether there was an administrative decision was not fatal to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment.
Lastly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ms. Hanjoury¡¯s argument that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not considering the adverse legal consequences of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that tribunals can only address a matter if it has jurisdiction to do so. Where, as here, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction because her application was not receivable, it had no authority to address any legal consequences of the decision, including alleged discrimination or violation of an acquired right, or alleged lack of explanation by the Administration with respect to the de-rostering.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
In Summary Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/114, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that Ms. Hanjoury¡¯s application was neither receivable ratione materiae nor ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it had no jurisdiction to determine the application because Ms. Hanjoury requested management evaluation of the contested decision more than a year beyond the 60-day deadline. In addition, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no appealable administrative decision in the case.
Ms. Hanjoury appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Under Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and established jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal, the Dispute Tribunal has no authority to extend or waive the deadlines for management evaluation and the time limits must be strictly enforced.
The Dispute Tribunal, having found the application not receivable due to the request for management evaluation being out of time, did not need to make a finding on whether the application was also not receivable due to the lack of an appealable administrative decision.
Jurisdiction is conferred by legislated requirements such as a timely management evaluation and the existence of an administrative decision. Where the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction because the application was not receivable, it had no authority to address any legal consequences of a decision or conduct.