Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

To determine the legality of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined: Whether the first PIP complied with the applicable rules The Tribunal found that the duty to inform the Applicant of his shortcomings and to assist him in improving his performance was fulfilled by his supervisors, particularly the FRO. The documentary evidence and the testimonies during the hearing showed that the Applicant was made aware early on and on different occasions of his performance shortcomings and confronted with them. Efforts were also made to clarify the goals to achieve and to provide support to the...

The Tribunal dismissed the application. Whereas the Applicant contended, that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3 (Sick leave), his contract should have been extended beyond its expiry date, in order to allow him to avail himself of the right to exhaust his sick leave the Tribunal found that there was no evidence that (ST/AI/2005/3) expressly provided for its applicability to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS and that the Applicant did not show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS accepted the applicability of the policy. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in the Applicant¡¯s contention that it was unlawful to separate him from service...

If all candidates are treated in the same manner, there is no discrimination. The candidates for the job opening were treated equally with regard to the notice given to scheduling of interviews and taking of the written assessment. This may not have been ideal and represents poor managerial practice, but without evidence in support of any ulterior motive or how the failure to give the five working days¡¯ notice prejudiced the Applicant, the Tribunal does not find that this failure amounted to discrimination per se (see Lennard Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/044, at paras. 34 to 37). The definition of an ¡°assessment...

The Tribunal found that the impugned administrative decision was the decision not to offer the Applicant the post when the first candidate declined the offer and that it satisfied the test in Andronov (former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment No. 1157 (2002)) as further elaborated and clarified in Andati-Amwayi (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-058). The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s claim that she had a legitimate expectation of being selected for JO 39506 because while the Applicant made this allegation in her request for management evaluation, she did not raise it in her application. Further, the fact that the Applicant had been...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/021. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK¡¯s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant¡¯s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant¡¯s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant¡¯s rebuttal and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK¡¯s transmission of the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant¡¯s...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute require only ¡°requesting¡±...

The Tribunal held that the Respondent had made more than a minimal showing that the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of D-1, Chief of Service, Humanitarian Affairs, was not tainted by improper consideations. The Applicant failed to show that he was denied a fair chance of promotion. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

A matter cannot be before the MEU and the Dispute Tribunal simultaneously and allowing applicants to circumvent this process and file applications with the Tribunal before the deadline for a response to a request for management evaluation has passed would contravene the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure, undermine the time lines set out in the Staff Rules, and would be contrary to the intentions of the General Assembly.

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materia. As a first step, a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision, had to submit to the Secretary-General in writing a request for a management evaluation of the administrative decision. In this case, the Applicant did not provide in his application any document showing that he had filed a request for management evaluation, thus failing to meet the mandatory first step. The Tribunal also found that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. The Applicant filed his application over seven...