Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Scope of the review The original decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was notified to her in January 2019. The communications between the Applicant and the Administration in this regard in April-May 2020 were merely reiterations of a challenge and of the original decision. These communications did not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines. The Applicant failed to challenge the decision made in January 2019 within the statutory time limit and, therefore, the Tribunal rejects the application with respect to the Administration¡¯s refusal to grant a permanent...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT order requesting information. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and contested a decision purportedly taken by that agency. The Tribunal further recalled that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA does not fall under the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Accordingly, the Applicant had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The Application was thus dismissed as non-receivable.

The Applicant seems to also challenge the Administration¡¯s response to his request for management evaluation, which is not a reviewable administrative decision, and therefore the Tribunal will only review the contested decision itself. The governing legal framework in this case is ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). ST/SGB/2008/5 is not applicable in this case as he did not allege that he was subjected to discrimination, harassment, or abuse of authority by Ms. A. Rather, the Applicant¡¯s claim is that Ms. A filed a false and malicious complaint...

Receivability As it was not until January 2019 that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the 2017 decision to transfer her to a new position, the requirements for receivability of this aspect of her application were not met. Her request for management evaluation was too late. There is logic to the Applicant¡¯s explanation, that it was not until the time of the subsequent non-renewal decision that she realised the extent to which the prior transfer had left her vulnerable to termination. However, that of itself does not justify that the strict provisions as to timelines are not...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has complied with every aspect of the regulatory framework. Specifically, regarding the complaint that the Applicant was not provided with details of the allegations that led to the investigation, there is no requirement for such disclosure when informing a staff member that they will be placed on leave with pay at the initial stage of an investigation. This differs from the circumstances where the decision being made is placement on leave without pay. There is no indication that the Respondent acted other than in full compliance with the regulatory...

Regarding the removal of the hiring manager from the interview panel, despite an alleged procedural irregularity, the Applicant successfully passed a competency-based interview and was recommended for the Post. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the removal of the hiring manager from the interview panel affected her right to full and fair consideration. Regarding the failure to consult with the hiring manager in making the selection decision, the Applicant fails to explain how the failure to consult with the hiring manager adversely affected her right to full...

The challenge against the UMOJA process and its automated response to the Applicant, as articulated in this application, is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. If there was no action taken in the Applicant¡¯s precise individual case but there was only general action applicable to all staff members, there is no administrative decision for purposes of pursuing a receivable appeal to the Tribunal. If the action that is challenged produced no direct legal consequences, this is a further lacuna in the subject matter of an appeal that renders it not receivable.

Relevant matters were ignored. The timing and circumstances of the Applicant¡¯s appraisals, sick leave taken, the nature of the four-month assignment in 2018 and the reasons for it, are relevant. These factors have been considered in coming to a determination that a proper exercise of the Respondent¡¯s discretion would have been to consider an appraisal of the Applicant¡¯s work for the four-month period in 2018. The Applicant was on sick leave for the first seven months of the year but there is no provision in the regulatory framework indicating that the appraisal for a shorter period of work...

The Applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The Application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.