Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant did not raise the refusal to grant an exception to an eligibility criterion for the Applicant to be considered for a continuing appointment in his request for management evaluation, therefore, the application was not receivable. Even if the Tribunal considered that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to grant him a continuing appointment in the present application, the application was not receivable as time-barred. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the statutory time limit for requesting a management evaluation is within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for want of a valid statutory basis. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not seeking a revision of the Judgment per se rather he was asking for an order or a mechanism of enforcing the administrative decision that had rendered his initial application moot.

The Applicant was required to request management evaluation of the contested decision (imposition of a written reprimand), which he failed to do and hence the application was not receivable.

As part of a closing statement, the Applicant submitted new written evidence. The Tribunal rejected all new evidence as this evidence could have been submitted before the closing of the proceedings and no exceptional circumstances justified the late submission. The Applicant was not fully informed of all the evidence upon which the Administration would rely to impose the disciplinary sanction. However, he was nevertheless informed of the allegations against him and therefore the Tribunal proceeded to a de novo review of the facts and a judicial review of the remaining aspects of the case. It...

Nowhere in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Policy is using interviews or written test to appraise the competencies and/or qualification of job candidates prohibited or even as much as discouraged. Rather, interviews are mandatory when ¡°the appointment of an external candidate is being considered¡± as it is stated that in such circumstances ¡°the applicants (external and internal) selected by the manager will be interviewed¡± (emphasis added). It is further stated that a ¡°[w]ritten test may be required¡± (see sec. 71). The fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR policies make no specific stipulations about whether skills, competencies and...

It resulted from the records that the Applicant only requested management evaluation of the decision concerning her non-selection, while no management evaluation request was filed with respect to the decision to abolish her former post The Tribunal, therefore, found that the claim concerning the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s former post was not receivable and proceeded to only review the non-selection decision. The Tribunal found that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Instruction on Staff Selection and the Recruitment Strategy. In accordance with these...

The Tribunal found that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Instruction on Staff Selection and the Recruitment Strategy. In accordance with these rules, the Applicant was given priority consideration due to her status as a staff member on an abolished post and was shortlisted, tested, and interviewed for the post as an internal candidate. However, following the written tests and the interviews, the selection panel unanimously found that none of the internal candidates, including the Applicant, were suitable for the position and recommended that the vacancy...

The Applicant had not adduced any documentary evidence to show that the SecretaryGeneral considered and made an administrative decision in relation to his claim for gross negligence. The only evidence that he had produced was to the effect that he asked the ABCC to consider compensating him for gross negligence over and above the award for compensation for injuries sustained in the course of duty. The Applicant brought his claim for compensation for gross negligence under a procedure that had been adjudicated irregular for not being supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rule or...

The Applicant did not respond to a case management order. She was therefore no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of the proceedings which were deemed to have been abandoned. The matter was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant¡¯s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...