Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that MINUSTAH erred when it excluded the Applicant from the comparative review process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that process should have included all staff for all available posts at the Mission after retrenchment, which was not done in this case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached in that she was not reviewed by the comparative review panel against all the remaining posts in the new mission structure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that the Applicant¡¯s contract expired and was not terminated. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to separate the Applicant was lawful since it...

Receivability: The Tribunal observed that there is a difference between a contested administrative decision and the grounds relied on to impugn the decision and noted that neither of the two issues remanded for the consideration of the Tribunal was included in the list of administrative decisions which the Applicant requested the MEU to review. The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant raised the issue of the non-conversion of his temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment, he did so as a ground for contesting the specified decisions. He did not identify this issue as a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the main legal issue was whether ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility and hardship scheme) applied to the counting of assignments that the Applicant undertook before the instruction went into effect on 1 July 2011. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ST/AI/2011/6 could not be applied retroactively to assignments that took place before it went into effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the revised staff rule 4.8(b), which allows for different counting of the Applicant¡¯s assignments, was applicable only to assignments starting on or after 1 July 2009, and was not retroactively applicable to prior...

Receivability: The filing of a recourse application as per Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Promotions Policy suspends the time limit to submit a request for management evaluation of a decision not to grant promotion only if it is timely done; otherwise, the deadline for requesting management evaluation runs from the date of notification of the initial decision, unless an extension of time is granted or the deadline is waived by the competent authority.

Receivability: The Tribunal observed that the Applicant had the option of lodging a formal complaint of gender discrimination under ST/SGB/2008/5 but chose not to. However this does not prevent her from alleging, as she does, that the classification decision which she is challenging was ill-motivated by reason of gender discrimination. The Tribunal concluded that in determining whether the decision to abolish her post was ill-motivated it is competent to examine each of the Applicant¡¯s allegations against the relevant facts and circumstances.

Non-renewal: A non-renewal decision can be taken on the basis of a projected reduction of workload; in assessing future workload, the Administration necessarily has to make some prognosis, on the basis of the elements available at the time of the contested decision. Factual developments relating to the future workload after the date of the decision have to remain out of consideration, and do not have an impact on the legality of the decision under review. Extraneous factors: The burden of proof with respect to extraneous considerations falls on the Applicant. Ultra vires: A non-renewal...

Material facts: The Tribunal noted that the decision letter, the minutes of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB meetings and the evidence of the Secretary of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB showed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB acted on the understanding that in spite of its date, the Applicant¡¯s 7 December 2010 inventory list had been prepared after the event and that there was no evidence of the Applicant¡¯s personal possessions that predated it. The Tribunal found that such evidence existed and was available to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB did not take into account all material facts relating to the Applicant¡¯s claim for...

Where a member of an assessment panel is conflicted, s/he cannot take part in the selection process. It is irrelevant for the outcome of the present case, that the Head, PMCS, and the Director, DESS, confirmed in their evidence to the Tribunal that they did not feel any bias or resentment against the Applicant. Indeed, a subjective feeling is irrelevant and the question of impartiality or bias has to be analysed from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer. It is also irrelevant whether the Applicant had a subjective feeling that one or more of the Panel members were biased...

Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2015/129

Contingency of the Applicant¡¯s FTA: return of Mr. C. to post No. 501057

Under sec. 6.7 of ST/AI/2010/3, in cases of secondment, a lien against a specific post shall only be granted for up to two years, after which it shall be surrendered. No discretion is granted to the Administration for extending the lien beyond the two years. Quite distinctly, para. 7 of ST/AI/404 allows the Administration to extend the mission assignment beyond the two years period, and continue blocking a specific post in the parent department, provided there is a specific written agreement to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that notifying the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resource Management, in a case where authority to issue a reprimand has been delegated, is not required. Even if it was, its omission could not have had any impact on the validity of the impugned decision. The Applicant had not been properly given the opportunity to comment on the facts and circumstances prior to the issuance of a written or oral reprimand, thus his right to respond embodied by staff rule 10.2(c) was not observed. The facts relevant for the decision were not established to the required standard...