Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal observed that it was not disputed that the impugned decision related to facts anterior to the Applicant¡¯s appointment. Also not in dispute was the fact that no disciplinary process was initiated, and no disciplinary measure was taken against the Applicant. It followed that the impugned decision was not a disciplinary measure but was an administrative decision affecting the Applicant¡¯s contract or terms of appointment under staff rule 11.2(a). Accordingly, the Applicant should have sought management evaluation before filing the application, which he did not do. The Tribunal further...

Whether there was a genuine restructuring process In the present case, there is no evidence that the restructuring exercise was not genuine. Instead, the evidence shows that there was a genuine, large-scale restructuring, and this resulted in numerous staff members and non-staff personnel being separated from service. The restructuring of WSSCC was in effect the shutting down of WSSCC and the establishment of the SHF. Moreover, the strong donor support shows that it was a genuine restructuring. As the donors have a fundamental objective to ensure that the funds they provide are appropriately...

The Tribunal found that with clear and convincing evidence, the Respondent only managed to establish that the Applicant intended to assert some, albeit ineffective, pressure on BM in the hiring process of daily workers. Under Sanwidi, the Tribunal found that the termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment was manifestly incorrect and led to a disproportionate outcome. The contested decision was therefore unlawful.

Considering its findings on the unlawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal found that the most appropriate remedy would be to rescind this decision (in comparison, see...

Scope of judicial review and the contested decision The Applicant described the contested decision as a failure to implement ¡°measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect personnel from prohibited conduct through preventive measures¡±. As remedies, the Applicant sought damages for moral harm and emotional distress resulting from the Administration¡¯s breach of its duty to ensure a harmonious work environment. Accordingly, the Applicant seeks to contest the Administration¡¯s failure to take appropriate measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect him from...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent¡¯s explanation as to why the Applicant¡¯s post was the one chosen for abolition is well substantiated. There was a genuine large scale restructuring due to severe budget cuts, which resulted in other staff members being separated from service, including the Applicant, and there was a legitimate explanation for the recruitments and vacancies that were not cancelled. The presumption of regularity was satisfied. Since the Applicant cannot convincingly show why his post should not have been abolished even though the posts of dozens of other staff members...

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established In determining whether the standard of proof has been met, the Tribunal ¡°is not allowed to investigate facts on which the disciplinary sanction has not been based and may not substitute its own judgment for that of the Secretary General¡±. Thus, it will ¡°only examine whether there is sufficient evidence for the facts on which the disciplinary sanction was based¡± (see Nadasan 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-918, para. 40). As such, the Tribunal considers to be irrelevant the Applicant¡¯s submission that the facts on which the...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the alleged failures and shortcomings in the investigation process did not prejudice the Applicant¡¯s case. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had discussed an amended procurement bid to enable LL to be awarded the procurement contract; that, as a result, the bid was fraudulently amended and with the Applicant¡¯s acquiescence. Thus, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had...

In the current case, the Applicant only filed his request for management evaluation one calendar day before his application to the Dispute Tribunal and is yet to receive a response by management to his submission. Under staff rule 11.2(d), the Administration has 30 days to provide the management evaluation if the staff member is stationed in New York and 45 days if s/he is stationed outside New York. In the circumstances, the Applicant¡¯s application is premature and therefore not receivable.

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety Although the Applicant questioned the legality of the threshold to qualify for a single parent allowance, contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6, it must be understood as part of his legal reasoning or arguments and cannot be considered as the ¡°contested decision¡± as suggested by the Respondent. Indeed, the Applicant does not claim in the abstract that the requirement contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6 is unlawful but rather seeks to challenge the direct and individual application of the specific requirement to his case as it adversely...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant¡¯s complaint involved one specific incident, i.e., a chain of emails where his performance was being criticized, which evolved into two managerial decisions by his supervisors: a transfer of functions and instauration of a PIP. The Applicant perceived those emails as harassment. However, for a staff member¡¯s behaviour to be punishable as constituting the disciplinary offence of harassment pursuant to ST/SGB/2019/8, the analysis of said behaviour must pass a two-fold test: it must be found ¡°improper and unwelcome¡± and ¡°might reasonably be expected or be...