Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Following careful review of the facts as they appear in the pleadings, and the accompanying documentary evidence, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that the presumption of regularity in the selection process has been or should be rebutted. There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent acted improperly in selecting the recommended candidate, or that he was motivated by any extraneous factors in not selecting the Applicant.; The Applicant was given full and fair consideration and the selection decision was proper and lawful.

The application was not receivable because the Applicant acknowledged that she became aware of the decision she was appealing in December 2015 but only sought management evaluation in 2018. She claimed that she made the decision to lodge this application after realising that her issue (in 2015) could have been handled in a professional manner, after a similar issue was professionally handled in 2018.; The relevant date for purposes of the rule however, was the one on which the applicant knew or reasonably should have known of the implied decision. It was that date that triggered the deadline...

The application was moot because the contested decision was effectively rescinded and superseded by subsequent renewals of the Applicant¡¯s appointment. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal notes that though the application against the MEU¡¯s decision to dismiss a request for management evaluation and claim of abuse of authority and harassment is different from the decision of the OIAI to dismiss a claim on abuse of authority and not to conduct an investigation, the decision which is being contested before the Tribunal is principally the same as the one which was contested at the MEU level, with only a few editorial differences.Therefore, the application is receivable.

Receivability The Respondent argued that the decision to discontinue the payment of SPA was notified to the Applicant on 10 September 2020 and since the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation by 10 November 2020, the application is not receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument was rejected. The Tribunal found that the contested decision is not the initial discontinuation of the payment of SPA but rather the the refusal to pay her SPA after certifying officer functions had been assigned to her, which was communicated to her on 25 July 2012. The Applicant timely requested a management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Dispute Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Applicant¡¯s dispute with ICAO.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that supplying additional circumstances as reasons for not rehiring the Applicant in 2018 did not revive the contested decision of 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the required deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no evidence that the Applicant and the Administration were in any way involved in an Ombudsman-driven negotiation process which may have implicitly extended the management evaluation deadline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that although the Applicant claims to have been blocked from rehiring, he did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant had all the information necessary to seek management evaluation of the contested decisions and that the time limit for seeking management evaluation started running on 31 March 2018, which meant that the 60-day deadline for submitting a management evaluation request was 30 May 2018. The Applicant sought management evaluation of the decisions only on 29 June 2018, 29 days out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant¡¯s claim that she was unable to ¡°deal with the issue until she was released from the medical facility¡± on 28 May 2018 was unsupported...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the requirements of ST/AI/2003/3 were not satisfied since the Applicant was not serving on a higher-level post or regularly performing functions at the P-5 level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant was serving on a post that was budgeted and classified at the P-4 level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further noted that there is no P-5 post within the Conference Management and Translation Unit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly held that the Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a Special Post Allowance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed all claims.

The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 5 February is vague and fails to articulate the precise administrative decision he is contesting. It ambiguously mentions the recruitment processes for Job Openings (JOs) 108789 and 109656, the termination of his continuing appointment and the lack of effort by the Organization to find him a new post. Since the application makes no mention of the selection processes for JOs 108789 and 109656, the Tribunal will not address it. Consequently, the Tribunal¡¯s review will focus solely on whether the claims against the termination of the Applicant...