Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in requiring the staff member to work from the office two days per week. It further held that relevant considerations, including the staff member¡¯s personal and medical circumstances, were taken into consideration, and irrelevant considerations were excluded. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that there was no obligation on the Administration to establish that the requested accommodations represented a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no merit in the staff member¡¯s argument that the lack of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Safi failed to discharge his burden in identifying in what respect and for what reasons the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its Judgment. Mr. Safi merely reiterated the same arguments that he had presented in his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that it is not its role to reexamine the staff member¡¯s case anew, and accordingly, his appeal must fail. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT drew reasonable inferences from its extensive fact-finding exercise and delivered a well-reasoned judgment.

The appeal was dismissed, and Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2023/011 was...

It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-335).

The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.

As indicated by the Respondent in his reply, the selected candidate signed the letter of appointment and assumed her functions on 19 June 2024. She further completed the onboarding formalities on 24 June 2024. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that it can no longer entertain the instant application, which was filed on 28 June 2024, thus after the contested decision has been implemented. Granting an injunction would require reversing the onboarding of the selected candidate, which it clearly cannot do.

The dispute between the parties relates to whether the Applicant met the condition of satisfactory service during his probationary period to warrant a contractual right to have his FTA converted into a CA. In this context, the Applicant claims that his FRO and SRO did not identify any performance shortcomings during the performance cycle, including at the two ¡°landmark¡± performance discussions they had previously to the contested decision. Allegedly, the first time he heard about any dissatisfaction with his performance was when he was informed that he would not receive a CA and, instead...

Since the management evaluation in this case has been completed, one of the cumulative and mandatory conditions specified in art. 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute is not fulfilled. The Tribunal will therefore not examine if the remaining statutory requirements have been met, as the matter now lies moot.

An application for suspension of action can only be entertained under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal when the challenged contested decision is the subject of an ongoing management evaluation (see Onana 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-008, para. 19; Igbinedion 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-159, para. 20). In the present case, the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request was no longer pending. The evidence showed that the Deputy High Commissioner completed the management evaluation on 27 June 2024, and that the Applicant received the outcome of his management evaluation request the same day. Consequently, as the management...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had filed his appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment on his application for execution before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment in the underlying case was issued and the Commissioner-General had an opportunity to address the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment before submitting the answer to the present appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that given these circumstances, it was in the interest of procedural fairness to allow the staff member to submit additional pleadings 20 days from the issuance of the Order and not exceeding five pages. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion for additional pleadings.

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proved that he suffered any direct adverse effect on account of the contested decision. The contested decision is therefore not an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2(1) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.