Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...

Locus Standi: The two decisions that the Applicant sought to challenge have no direct link to the Applicant¡¯s own contract of employment. All the substantive issues raised in the claims relate to the terms of employment of Ms. Okuda and Mr. Alvaro-Rivero who are the two individuals with the requisite standing to challenge the decisions concerning their reassignments. Having found that the Applicant lacked the standing to lodge the claims, the Application was held not to be receivable.

The Tribunal noted that the delegation of authority in disciplinary matters from the SG to the USG for Management in July 2009 had not been published and as such lacked a substantial requirement for taking legal effect. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the USG for Management could not further delegate this power to another person, since any kind of ¡°sub-delegation¡± should have been provided for in the initial delegation of authority by the SG to the USG for Management, which was not the case. The decision to dismiss the Applicant was taken by the OIC, USG for Management. The Tribunal found...

The Tribunal rejected the application and awarded costs for abuse of process.

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant¡¯s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

The Applicant¡¯s request for recusal was not receivable and did not warrant a referral to the President of the Tribunal for determination. The Applicant¡¯s claims were all of a substantive nature and would have been more appropriately dealt with by an appellate Tribunal. There was nothing to rectify or correct in the judgment as none of the particulars listed in the application were related to any errors.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision that there was ¡°reason to believe¡± that the Applicants may have committed misconduct was manifestly unreasonable, arrived at in breach of due process, and was thus unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants¡¯ rights were not respected during the subsequent preliminary investigation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to conduct an investigation against the Applicants and the manner in which it was carried out was tainted by procedural irregularity and manifest unfairness. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants had engaged in protected activity, namely, reporting of...

The Tribunal found the Applicant¡¯s acceptance of the implementation of the agreement, his failure to raise the allegations of duress until well after two years after the mediation and his failure to proffer any supporting evidence, can only lead to the conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s claim of duress is devoid of any merit. Burden of proof - Where an Applicant alleges that an agreement was imposed upon him by duress, the burden lies on him or her to convince the Tribunal that such is the situation. Res Judicata - Where the subject matter of an application has been settled between parties...

The Tribunal found that the ICTR management was right to comply with the checking out procedures by withholding the Applicant¡¯s checkout since had been part of a committee that had not rendered financial accounts. The Applicant had been a member of an executive committee that had left office without accounting for finances during their tenure which prompted the ICTR management to withhold some of the Applicants entitlements until such accountability is undertaken. Accountability: The Applicant cannot reap a harvest of compensation from his own lack of accountability. He did not deny that he...

Reasons for non-renewal: A staff member has a right to ask the administration to provide for reasons of non-renewal of his/her contract; if he/she does not ask, then he/she cannot claim not to have been given reasons for the decision and seek to infer negative inference. Fraught working relationship: If a staff member¡¯s work relationship with his/her superiors has deteriorated to the extent that there is no possibility of salvaging such a relationship, it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion not to renew such a contract.