Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Termination indemnity serves to provide sufficient means of survival for the staff member to identify a regular placement in the labour market, and thus is computed dependent on the length of service. It serves to compensate for the premature loss of employment and also discourages inconsiderate use of termination by the Respondent. Termination indemnity operates on the premise that the protected interest is in preserving the contract and not in generating more profit for the employee. The applicable legal framework for abolishment of post does not confer upon a staff member a right to have...

Termination indemnity serves to provide sufficient means of survival for the staff member to identify a regular placement in the labour market, and thus is computed dependent on the length of service. It serves to compensate for the premature loss of employment and also discourages inconsiderate use of termination by the Respondent. Termination indemnity operates on the premise that the protected interest is in preserving the contract and not in generating more profit for the employee. The applicable legal framework for abolishment of post does not confer upon a staff member a right to have...

The fact that the Applicant had only a few months left to reach full retirement age and that if she had been allowed to reach mandatory retirement age her terminal benefits would have been better than what she received on termination, or the fact that the Field Staff Union intervened to have her granted a brief extension, or that she was afforded less days¡¯ official notice before termination do not constitute valid grounds for alleging that the abolition of her post was irregular. These were not relevant matters that the Administration was obliged to consider. The Respondent conceded that one...

The evidence shows that the Applicant was put on notice of her performance shortcomings orally during the period of the first performance appraisal and in writing thereafter. The Applicant continued to receive feedback on her appraisal throughout the period of the second appraisal. The Applicant elected to submit a written explanatory statement which, as agreed with the Management Evaluation Unit, was included in her Official Status File. In conclusion, the evidence shows that while some procedural irregularities occurred in the recording of the Applicant¡¯s performance,t eh overall evaluation...

In the preliminary assessment of the complaint, the responsible official correctly reviewed not only the Applicant¡¯s allegations but also the evidence he provided. The responsible official reasonably (a) found no grounds to believe that the subject of the complaint had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct, and (b) concluded that the evidence did not reveal a pattern of harassment. No evidence showed that the authority to review the complaint had been unlawfully delegated or any other procedural irregularity. While the responsible official could have better spelled out the managerial measures...

The Applicant missed the 90-day deadline to file the application which is, therefore, time-barred.

Considering that the Respondent did not contest the merits of the allegations as set out in the applications, the Tribunal found that the contested decisions, i.e., to remove the Applicant from his position, to place him on SLWFP and not to renew his appointment were unlawful. Therefore, the only legal issue that remained for adjudication before the Tribunal was that of remedies. The Tribunal considered that the decision to remove the Applicant from his position was, in fact, subsumed in the ultimate decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, having found that both decisions...

There is nothing in the wording of sec. 2.5(a) that prescribes for ruling out of the count of one-year assignments that were preceded by an assignment that lasted less than a year. Accordingly, even though the prior assignment of nine months in Cairo did not itself count as an assignment, the following period in Tripoli, which was for one year, fully meets the requirements to be counted as an assignment. The Tribunal finds that there is no room to interpret the relevant provisions to claim, like the Respondent does, that his return to Tripoli in April 2012 should be considered as a...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had been notified of his placement on special leave without pay in August 2018 and he requested for management evaluation on 6 July 2019, almost a year after the contested decision was communicated to him. The request fell way out of the 60-day deadline. The application was accordingly dismissed as not receivable.

The application is not receivable. The management evaluation request was not receivable because the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.