Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...

The separation decision for abandonment of post took effect in December 2012, and the Applicant claimed that she received separation related paperwork only in November 2018. The Tribunal decided that the Administration properly followed the procedures, including seeking and obtaining the approval of separation for abandonment of post from the Office of Human Resources Management, and notifying the Applicant at every important step by email and other authorized means in accordance with ST/AI/400 and therefore the separation decision was properly made. The Tribunal found that even if the...

The Tribunal commended the parties and the Ombudsman for their efforts in finding an alternative resolution following proactive case management by the Tribunal, as encouraged by General Assembly Resolution 70/112, adopted on 31 December 2015.

The Tribunal also highlighted the positive contribution of the Chief, Languages Services, in the resolution of this matter, through her regular attendance at CMDs as well as the cooperative and positive approach adopted by the Applicant.

As the parties concur that the correct procedure for the ABCC was not applied and the cases should be remanded to the ABCC for institution or correction of the required procedure, the Tribunal will, by consent, so order. However, since art. 10.4 of the Statute explicitly states that such remand shall be done ¡°prior to a determination of the merits of the case¡±, the Tribunal is not in a position to pronounce on the substance of the cases (at least Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2018/011, concerning the ABCC¡¯s initial rejection of the compensation claim and not the subsequent rejection by its Secretary), and...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

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.

Receivability The Tribunal found that the ASG, OHRM¡¯s failure to take action on the Applicant¡¯s complaint almost nine months after its filing, taking into account only the period that preceded the request for management evaluation, is a clear violation of the provisions of ST/SGB/2008/5. The Tribunal considered that the Administration¡¯s failure to act on the Applicant¡¯s complaint amounted to an implicit administrative decision that was subject to judicial review. The application was therefore considered receivable. Merits The Tribunal found that the failure to process the Applicant¡¯s complaint...

Receivability What is the contested decision? The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the decision to grant her a permanent appointment, as argued by the Respondent. Rather, the Applicant contested the decision not to ¡°provide her with an effective remedy¡± after having been granted a permanent appointment with retroactive effect to 30 June 2009, namely not being given employment against the permanent appointment or, in the alternative, not being granted compensation equivalent to the termination indemnity. Does the principle of ¡°res judicata¡± apply? The Applicant requests to be...

The Tribunal noted the application of two salary scales in this case. One salary scale, effective from 1 January 2015, was applicable to all staff recruited to the General Services category at the Bangkok duty station on or after 1 March 2012. The other salary scale applied to those who were recruited prior to 1 March 2012. The Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment were set by specific agreement and were not impacted in any manner by any decision which was implemented in January 2015 or were disclosed to him when he received his first payslip. He agreed to certain terms and conditions in the offer...

Although each claim was being dealt with separately, given the resolution agreed between the parties, the Tribunal ordered that these claims be subject to an order for combined proceedings. There being no matter for judicial consideration and determination in these cases, the cases were closed.