Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has complied with every aspect of the regulatory framework. Specifically, regarding the complaint that the Applicant was not provided with details of the allegations that led to the investigation, there is no requirement for such disclosure when informing a staff member that they will be placed on leave with pay at the initial stage of an investigation. This differs from the circumstances where the decision being made is placement on leave without pay. There is no indication that the Respondent acted other than in full compliance with the regulatory...

The Applicant seems to also challenge the Administration¡¯s response to his request for management evaluation, which is not a reviewable administrative decision, and therefore the Tribunal will only review the contested decision itself. The governing legal framework in this case is ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). ST/SGB/2008/5 is not applicable in this case as he did not allege that he was subjected to discrimination, harassment, or abuse of authority by Ms. A. Rather, the Applicant¡¯s claim is that Ms. A filed a false and malicious complaint...

Scope of the review The original decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was notified to her in January 2019. The communications between the Applicant and the Administration in this regard in April-May 2020 were merely reiterations of a challenge and of the original decision. These communications did not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines. The Applicant failed to challenge the decision made in January 2019 within the statutory time limit and, therefore, the Tribunal rejects the application with respect to the Administration¡¯s refusal to grant a permanent...

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety In determining the date when the three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute should run from, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°a written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly, and strictly, calculated. Where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability, ratione temporis¡± (see Manco 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-342, para. 20). Without receiving a notification of a decision in writing, it would not be possible to determine when the period of three years for contesting the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that that there was sufficient evidence in the investigation report that the Applicant harassed staff members and created a hostile work environment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no clear and convincing evidence, against the Applicant, that the recruitment of two local consultants was an act of misconduct on his part, as it was a managerial process in which he was not regularly involved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT thus held that there was no basis for the inclusion of irregular recruitment in the charges against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was not clear and convincing evidence of sexual harassmet of C1 by the...

Non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment due to the lack of funding The proffered reason for the non-renewal is supported by evidence. The post encumbered by the Applicant was funded by funds received under service level agreements, and the Applicant¡¯s salary in 2016-19 were fully covered by a specific service level agreement, whose contributions were reduced to the extent that they were insufficient to cover the Applicant¡¯s salary. The Applicant questioned why other staff members were not affected by the reduction of funding, but none of the other staff members¡¯ salary was fully...

The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...

The ASG/OIOS was appointed as OiC by the previous USG/OIOS pending the appointment of a new head of entity. The mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term does not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid and there is no allegation or evidence that subdelegations to the ASG/OIOS as OiC/OIOS were withdrawn or modified by the new USG/OIOS. Rather, in the contested decision, the ASG/OIOS used his title as OiC/OIOS. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the contested decision was made by the authorized responsible official. While the OiC/OIOS¡¯s decision does not refer to the specific...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the application materially receivable as it concerned a decision that was appropriately the subject of judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to reassign the Applicant rather than place her on administrative leave, was taken balancing her best interest with those of the Organization. These reasons were supported by evidence. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving any improper motive, irregularity or unlawfulness on the part of the Respondent in the decision to re-assign her duties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore held that the presumption of...

Regarding the removal of the hiring manager from the interview panel, despite an alleged procedural irregularity, the Applicant successfully passed a competency-based interview and was recommended for the Post. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the removal of the hiring manager from the interview panel affected her right to full and fair consideration. Regarding the failure to consult with the hiring manager in making the selection decision, the Applicant fails to explain how the failure to consult with the hiring manager adversely affected her right to full...