Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found in Villamoran Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/126, that the mandatory 31-day break in service for staff between their fixed-term and temporary appointments, if not supported by law, is prima facie unlawful. The Respondent was ordered to provide evidence to support the decision but failed to do so. The evidence submitted neglected to show the publication date or the precise method of publication of the revised administrative instruction. The Administration has an obligation to properly announce amendments to Staff rules and regulations for decisions to be proper and made...

At this stage, the Applicant¡¯s allegations are assertions that are not adequately supported by evidence. Outcome: Dismissal of the application.

The current Application for suspension of action must be adjudicated against the stipulated cumulative test, in that the Applicant must establish that the impugned decision is prima facie unlawful, calls for urgent adjudication and that implementation of the impugned decision would cause him irreparable harm. The Tribunal finds no impropriety in the Respondent¡¯s application of the staff retention criteria in respect of the Applicant. This Application therefore fails on the limb of prima facie unlawfulness therefore. Having found that the impugned decision is not unlawful, and given that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant satisfied the test that the decision appeared to be prima facie unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant satisfied the urgency test. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the decision would leave five days, from the date of the Judgment, for the Applicant to obtain temporary employment for a period of three months. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that a stay in the implementation of the decision, albeit for the limited period of an additional 25 calendar days, until the management evaluation is due on 7 November 2011, would serve the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Respondent to carry out a proper...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of irreparable damage and particular urgency. The application for suspension of action was rejected.

Consultations: ¡°Consultation with the appropriate staff representative bodies¡± does not mean that for an administrative instruction to enter into force, it must necessarily meet the agreement of the staff representatives.Acquired right: An acquired right is breached only when an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental or essential terms of employment.Irreparable damage: Mere financial loss is not enough to satisfy the test of irreparable damage. Harm to professional reputation and career prospects, or harm to health, or sudden loss of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

On 19 October 2011, the Tribunal issued Order No. 129 (NBI/2011) suspending the implementation of the contested decision until 10 November 2011 allowing the Tribunal to allow the filing of the Respondent¡¯s Reply, the hearing held on 3 November 2011 and the determination of the matter. The Applicant was communicated the response from MEU on 27 October 2011 as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s response. The Applicant filed his case on the merits, registered in the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s records as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2011/070 and simultaneously filed under article 14 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure...

The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. The contested decision had not yet been implemented, as the head of the department had simply communicated by phone his selection to the successful candidate and the latter had merely sent an email expressing his ¡°great interest¡± in the job. The Tribunal found that this did not amount to an official offer by the Administration followed by an unconditional acceptance by the candidate. The Tribunal considered that the impending appointment of the successful candidate conferred urgency to the matter; that the contested decision, if...