Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that: there were no legal consequences arising from the contested decision which adversely affected the Applicant; the Applicant has not suffered any downgrading in her salary and emoluments or in her functions; and that at best, her concerns are speculative. Receivability - The Applicant contends that the implementation of the renumbering of her post will have adverse effects on her rights including her career advancement but she did not place any evidence before the Tribunal to show that the contested decision was taken solely with respect to her or that there are legal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that: there were no legal consequences arising from the contested decision which adversely affected the Applicant; the Applicant has not suffered any downgrading in her salary and emoluments or in her functions; and that at best, her concerns are speculative. The Tribunal was of the view that it behoves the Applicant to submit to a classification review of her post in accordance with the relevant Staff Regulations and Rules. Receivability - The Applicant contends that the implementation of the renumbering of her post will have adverse effects on her rights including her career...

With respect to the issue of classification of the Applicants¡¯ post at the S-3 level, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants¡¯ claims regarding the Administration¡¯s decision not to proceed with their classification request were receivable. However, based on the evidence in this case¡ªincluding oral testimony as well as contemporaneous documents¡ªthe Applicants did not perform the same exact functions as their S-3 level colleagues. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to proceed with the classification or reclassification of the Applicants¡¯ posts at the S-3 level was...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFEM/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP subsequently took a decision to process the Applicant¡¯s separation from service in 2012, the Tribunal concluded that this was not an appealable administrative decision in accordance with article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute in that the Applicant no longer had a contract of employment with the Organization because he resigned from service in May 2008. Thus, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFEM¡¯s 2012 decision to finally record his separation from service did not have any direct legal consequences on him. ;}

Management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was notified to the Applicant on 30 June 2008 and yet he waited until 20 January 2014, more than five years after the fact, to submit a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal concluded that where an applicant fails to request management evaluation in a timely manner, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider his/her application. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that even if it was minded to consider the Application, the provisions of article 8.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute clearly place a bar on any such action. Costs...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that: there were no legal consequences arising from the contested decision which adversely affected the Applicant; the Applicant has not suffered any downgrading in her salary and emoluments or in her functions; and that at best, her concerns are speculative. Receivability - The Applicant contends that the implementation of the renumbering of her post will have adverse effects on her rights including her career advancement but she did not place any evidence before the Tribunal to show that the contested decision was taken solely with respect to her or that there are legal...

The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...

It is not clear when exactly the decision was first notified to the Applicant. However, by email of 23 August 2013, a Senior Human Resources Officer clearly informed the Applicant of the decision and provided him with a comprehensive explanation on the rationale and the legal basis thereof. Thereafter, the Applicant contacted the Chief, HRMS, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, and the Director, Division of Administration, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, seeking reconsideration of his request. By email of 25 November 2013, the Chief, HRMS, noted that the Applicant would soon be informed of the outcome of HRMS consideration of his case. Moreover, on...

The Tribunal noted that the rebuttal process was still ongoing and that no administrative decision had yet been taken; it further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Rebuttal Policy was a regulatory instrument which was not of individual application and did not carry direct legal consequences on the Applicant; hence, these matters of the application were found to be irreceivable. Further, with regard to the Applicant having been denied access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ City Building on 13 February 2014, as well as the blocking of her emails after the end of her contract, the Tribunal noted that these events referred to...