Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

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...

Any irregularity in the selection process had no impact on the selection status of the Applicant because, no matter what, she had no foreseeable chance of promotion.

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 held that the request for management evaluation was not time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the rules and procedures applied to establish the Applicant¡¯s EOD date were due consequences of the fact that she had been reappointed in 2008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the choice of reappointment as modality of the Applicant¡¯s move was borne out by personnel actions of separation and reappointment and acknowledged by her in the memorandum of understanding with respect to annual leave from 2008. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the matter was outside the temporal jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the EOD date as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS or any other entity of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, had no locus standi before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

Given that the Applicant believed that he had to receive the decision directly from the USG/DM he ought reasonably to have concluded that there was an implied decision not to commission a fact-finding enquiry long before his request for management evaluation on 25 April 2017, two years and seven months after he was notified by OIOS that they had referred his complaint to the USG/DM. The interests of both staff members and the decision maker/s are best served by a contemporaneous record of the fact that there was a review under the guidance or delegated authority of the responsible official and...

As the matter was settled by mutual agreement, the case is closed.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the decision to extend the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment with effect from 11 September 2015 until 29 February 2016 was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that his appointment had been converted into a continuing one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the procedural irregularity in issuing the retroactive fixed-term appointments could cause vexation but did not amount to a serious violation of rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the delays did not entail an ex lege conversion to a continuing...