The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it, supplied by the Applicant himself, showed that the contested decision was taken on 17 April 2011 and the Application was filed in 2025.
Based on art. 8.1(d)(ii) of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the application was manifestly time-barred. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione temporis and the application was rejected.
Regarding the decision to not convene a fact-finding panel, the Tribunal recalled its jurisprudence which indicates that a fact-finding investigation may only be undertaken if there are sufficient grounds to believe that a staff member had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct. In the instant case, the Tribunal, concluded that the Applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to support his claim.
In relation to the second contested decision, the Tribunal also referred to its settled jurisprudence which indicates that there is no right to FWA. The Tribunal, rather, observed that a denial of FWA...
The Tribunal observed that the letter communicating the contested decision did not indicate whether the Advisory Body on Compensation Claims ("ABCC") considered the exceptional circumstances set out by the Applicant in her request to reopen her claim, which explained the reasons for her not meeting the submission deadline.
The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant had succeeded in establishing that the decision not to reopen her claim was irrational. The Tribunal deemed the contested decision as irrational because ABCC ignored factors relevant to whether despite not meeting the four-month...
Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal held that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarised, is implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons (right already acknowledged in Belkhabbaz, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/047 at para. 21) because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person.
The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant had a right to receive the report in full, with reasonable redactions, from the Administration. Therefore, the claim in question was granted.
In...
The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.
The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration¡¯s alleged ¡°continued failure¡± to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...
The Tribunal observed that a review of the evidence in this case indicated that the panel¡¯s assessment of the Applicant¡¯s interview was proper. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant received full and fair consideration and that the Administration followed all applicable procedures.
The Tribunal recalled that under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute, it is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal from ¡°an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±. The Appeals Tribunal explained that this provision establishes a ¡°jurisdictional precondition of an immediate, direct, and adverse impact¡± of the challenged administrative decision upon the staff member.
Having examined the record, the Tribunal concluded that, in this case, there was no showing of such adverse impact on the Applicant. Accordingly...
The Tribunal held that the decision to change a staff member¡¯s reporting lines is not a reviewable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal's Statute. The Tribunal, further, established that the contested decision did not produce direct adverse legal consequences to the Applicant¡¯s employment contract. The Applicant continued to perform his functions at the P-4 level. The only change was that he reported to different persons. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.
