Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal noted that Order No. 20 (NBI/2024) in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2024/008 rejected the Applicant's application for suspension of action under art. 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant maintained that the Tribunal misconstrued his application in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2024/008 as being filed under art. 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure (governing suspension of action during a management evaluation), rather than art. 14 (governing suspension of action during the proceedings) of those Rules.

The Tribunal held that to the extent that the Applicant¡¯s intent was to file an application...

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant¡¯s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant¡¯s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant¡¯s...

Having considered the case record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based. He did not contest either that his actions legally amounted to misconduct or that his due process rights were observed. Accordingly, the main issue in the present case was whether the disciplinary measure imposed was proportionate to the offense committed. However, as the proportionality of the sanction cannot be reviewed in isolation, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to refer to the established facts and the misconduct as per the sanction letter.

Receivability

The Tribunal found that to the extent the Applicant challenged the legal framework of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR, and requested the removal of a part of para. 34 of the Recruitment and Assignments Policy, her application was not receivable ratione materiae. The application was only receivable concerning the decision not to select the Applicant for the G-7 position of Senior Resource Management Associate, Addressing SEA and SH.

Merits

Whether the applicable procedures were properly followed

First, the Tribunal addressed the Applicant¡¯s argument concerning the alleged forgery of the document...

The dispute between the parties relates to whether the Applicant met the condition of satisfactory service during his probationary period to warrant a contractual right to have his FTA converted into a CA. In this context, the Applicant claims that his FRO and SRO did not identify any performance shortcomings during the performance cycle, including at the two ¡°landmark¡± performance discussions they had previously to the contested decision. Allegedly, the first time he heard about any dissatisfaction with his performance was when he was informed that he would not receive a CA and, instead...

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant¡¯s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request.

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant¡¯s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proved that he suffered any direct adverse effect on account of the contested decision. The contested decision is therefore not an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2(1) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable ratione materiae because the Applicant, by his own admission, failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions.

The Applicant was under the obligation to act with a minimum level of probity, impartiality, fairness, honesty and truthfulness as required by the established facts (staff regulation 1.2(b)). Also, if it is found that an actual or possible conflict of interest arose out of these facts, the Applicant was obliged to disclose this conflict to his head of office in order to allow Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵVMC to mitigate its impact and resolve it in accordance with its own best interests (staff regulation 1.2(m)). Finally, if the Applicant¡¯s involvement in a matter could result in an actual or potential conflict of...