Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...

The application can be decided through a summary judgment as there was no controversy on the facts, and the legal matter at stake was already been decided by this Tribunal in its Judgment Krioutchkov Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/052.

The Applicant decided not to participate in the written assessment, which was a compulsory step in the recruitment process. It follows that his non-selection for the vacant post was exclusively a consequence of his own actions and, as per Loeber 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-836, he stopped himself from contesting the selection outcome.

Although the schedule of the written assessment was probably...

/

The Applicant¡¯s roster membership did not give her a right to appointment to FS-5 positions and did not give her a right to be placed against available positions on a priority and non-competitive basis. The Organization has no obligation to assist a staff member affected by downsizing to obtain a non-competitive promotion. The Administration¡¯s obligation is to make proper, reasonable, and good faith efforts to assist the Applicant in finding an alternative post at her level or at a lower grade but not at a higher level.

Regarding the applicable Appendix D to the present case, the Tribunal notes that in the current Appendix D (ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.1), it is stated that ¡°[f]or claims filed for incidents that occurred prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, the previously applicable rules will be applied¡± (see art. 6.1(b)). According to the Applicant¡¯s own factual submissions, whereas his compensation claim was submitted on 29 June 2018, it concerned incidents that occurred somewhere between 2015 and until his medical leave started in August 2017. The applicable Appendix D is therefore one...

The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member¡¯s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.

Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff...

The Tribunal held that neither claim (i), (the decision to continue to conduct an investigation) despite the Applicant's claimed medical condition, nor claim (ii) (the refusal to convene a medical board to examine it), had produced a decision of direct negative consequences for the Applicant. The impact, if any, of these decisions on the outcome of the disciplinary process will be examined in relation to his application against the disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the application, in relation to claims (i) and (ii) was dismissed as not receivable.