Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal granted the application is part and awarded the Applicant USD4,000 in compensation for procedural violations.

The Tribunal found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS was incorrect when it restricted applicants to the TJO to staff already employed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS since the Applicant was an internal candidate. The Tribunal concluded that the decision to consider the Applicant ineligible for the TJO was unlawful and breached the Applicant¡¯s right to be fully and fairly considered for the post. The Tribunal found the application receivable and that the contested decision not to find the Applicant eligible for the TJO and the related decision to continue the selection process were unlawful and breached the Applicant¡¯s right to a full...

Disclosure: The Respondent¡¯s disclosure obligation in proceedings concerning appointment and promotion is twofold. Firstly, the Respondent shall produce evidence to satisfy his own burden to minimally show that the staff member¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. Secondly, the Respondent shall disclose any document in his possession that is relevant to the determination of the Applicant¡¯s case, as presented in his or her application. This duty of candour that falls on the Respondent is necessary to ensure that staff members have access to justice. When the Respondent fails to...

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can only be exercised if the contested administrative decision has previously been submitted for management evaluation, where required, and it is not open to the Tribunal to waive this requirement or make any exception to it. As a consequence, in the absence of a management evaluation, the Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration¡¯s failure to timey conclude its investigation was an act of omission and an implied administrative decision receivable by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The personal crisis of one investigator did not account for the entire three years nor justify the Administration¡¯s failure to take corrective measures to control the delay. The excessive delay breached fairness and the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Further, the Administrations¡¯ failure to respond to the Applicant¡¯s multiple reasonable follow up queries spanning three years constituted a breach of duty owed the Applicant...

The Tribunal found the application receivable since the contested decision was a new and separate aministrative decision distinct from any decisions issued by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Board in relation to their pensions. The Secretary-General decided not to grant the relief requested by the Applicant in the contested decision and thus this is a separate administrative decision.; There was no mention in the Applicants¡¯ acceptance of their appointments confirming that they were also provided with a copy of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, being therefore aware of their content and accepting their contracts to be...

The failure to re-interview the subject of an investigation to confront him/her with additional gathered evidence constitutes a breach of his/her due process rights: the contested disciplinary decision is unlawful since it was taken based on the evidence and recommendations of the SIU/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID investigation reports issued in January 2013 and December 2013, even though the SIU/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID continued the investigation and gathered additional evidence from two witnesses in January 2015 and April 2015. The new evidence was never brought to the attention of the Applicant or of the decision-maker before...

Staff rule 4.7(a) and (b) has a limited and express area of application as established in staff rule 4.7(c) and that, per a contrario, a person who is the father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister of a staff member and who applied to a post, was considered and was selected through a competitive selection process as being the best candidate, can be assigned to any post, including in the same department/unit which is not superior or subordinate in the line of authority to the staff member to whom s/he is related. Staff rule 4.7(c), by establishing that the posts which are superior or...

Receivability: The part of the application regarding the decision identified under ¡°g) the possibility of providing a negative reference about [the Applicant] to OLA where [she has] been interviewed and considered for a shortterm position of six months¡± is to be rejected as not receivable since a request for management evaluation was not filed timely. Merits: The contested decision: The Applicant¡¯s fixed-term contract was terminated following the abolishment of her post due to a lack of funds and therefore subject to availability of suitable posts, the Applicant had the right (¡°shall¡±) to be...

The Respondent submitted that the case was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not concern an appealable decision, but the Tribunal rejected this claim and found the case receiveable.