The Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications. This meant that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline.
He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline so the application was dismissed as not receivable.
Whether the contested decision is lawful
Whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements
The Organization’s duty of care towards staff during the COVID-19 pandemic
Since March 2020, when WHO declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic, the Organization has ensured that all necessary measures are in place to support the safety and health of all 蘑菇视频 personnel when carrying out the functions and responsibilities entrusted to them.
The nature of the Applicant’s functions may require her on-site presence, as evidenced by...
Regarding the ex-gratia claim, the Tribunal observed that the evidence of the fact that the Applicant was carrying out the functions of a P-4 post could be noted from the fact that the functions which the P-4 currently is performing are the same as those which the Applicant was performing before she was reassigned in 2021. The Tribunal, thus, concluded that the Administration violated the Applicant’s right to equal pay for equal work. The Applicant had the right to be compensated for her functions at the proper level, and therefore, she had the right to retroactive payment of salary lost...
At the outset, the Tribunal recalled that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant’s main claim to have the contested decision rescinded had been rendered moot by the Applicant’s retirement. Therefore, the matter that remained for adjudication concerned compensation for the financial and moral harm.
In the entirety of the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision had an improper motive and improper purpose and was therefore, unlawful. The Tribunal further held that based on the aforesaid, it was satisfied that the reassignment decision had a negative impact on...
On the issue of illegality, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been removed from his official functions, without case or proper justification, and had been forced to re-apply for his own previous functions. These decisions were taken without reference to any failings of the Applicant, misconduct, indication that he has not successfully performed his functions in the past, or indication that he would not be able to perform his functions in the future.
On the issue of damages, the Tribunal found that although the Applicant kept on holding a continuing appointment at the D-1 level, he...
The Applicant requested management evaluation on 27January 2023. The deadline for the management evaluation response was 13 March 2023. The Applicant filed his application on 13 February 2023, which was 28 days before the management evaluation response was due.
Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be prematurely filed and therefore, not receivable.
There was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in entitlement fraud and received reimbursement for medical services that had not occurred. He falsely certified and submitted three Cigna claims; for which he was paid a total of USD17,171.26. He was not entitled to this reimbursement. As 蘑菇视频DP is self-insured, these funds represented a loss to 蘑菇视频DP.
The Applicant’s behaviour fell within what the 蘑菇视频DP Policy against Fraud and other Corrupt practices (approved in October 2018) defines as fraud. The established facts constituted misconduct.
As to proportionality of the...
The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. In the absence of an administrative decision, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter.
The Applicant failed to comply with staff rule 11.2(a), which makes management evaluation a pre-requisite for staff wishing to contest decisions excluded by staff rule 11.2(b). Since the Applicant did not submit his claim for negligence/gross negligence for management evaluation, the Tribunal could not entertain his application.
The Tribunal's findings were as follows:
The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.
It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the 蘑菇视频DT Statute.
The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant’s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...
The documents on record demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Applicant had rented out his flat in Addis Ababa to two other staff members, based on a lease with an inflated rent (and without paying agent’s fees), and that the latter two used that lease to claim rental subsidy from 蘑菇视频HCR in an amount undue.
