Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Receivability: The letter of November 2007 was sent before the contested decisions had been made. The Applicant thus cannot be appealing against those decisions. The letter of 4 March 2008 was sent by the Applicant within the required two-month period but it was not addressed to the Secretary-General. If this letter were properly filed with the Assistant Administrator of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP, in accordance with the practice of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP to conduct its own administrative review, it remains that this letter could not trigger an administrative review as the Applicant did not state in clear terms that she was...

Receivability: The Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review was made outside the mandatory time limit. In accordance with article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning requests for administrative review or management evaluation. There is no basis in the former Staff Rules for finding that time to request an administrative review should only be calculated from the end of the involvement of the Ombudsperson. The terms of reference of the Joint Ombudsperson are inconsistent with the Staff Rules. The...

The Tribunal found that the Administration had erred in giving to the Applicant an appointment whose expiration date went well beyond his retirement age but that it duly rectified this error by separating him from service. It also found that the Applicant had been sufficiently compensated by the Respondent. Nature of contractual relationship: The contracts by which the Organization employs staff members are not regular contracts, given the particular relationship established between staff members and the Organization, and they are for the most part governed by the Staff Regulations and Rules...

Award of allowances: The award of an allowance is contingent upon the existence of a written text. The fact that, in breach of the applicable provisions, the Administration granted the end-of-service allowance to staff members who were in the same situation as the Applicant cannot serve as a basis for awarding the allowance to her. Applicability of national laws: National legislations are not directly applicable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff members, and it is for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ authorized bodies to implement such legislation into the internal laws of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ. Judicial review: The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interpret...

The Tribunal concluded that there was cogent evidence that extraneous factors were taken into account in the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had sufficiently discharged his burden of proof. He showed that the actions of the Respondent¡¯s agents were unfair, improperly motivated, and wholly arbitrary.

Jurisdiction: The Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over this SOA in light of the fact that the Applicant had received a response to his request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Thus, the contested administrative decision was no longer the subject of an ongoing management evaluation as required under art. 2 of the Statute.

The application was filed approximately eleven months after the period stipulated in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal and was therefore deemed to be time-barred. Additionally, the Applicant failed to make any submissions on the issue of receivability thus the Tribunal concluded that this was not an exceptional case to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the application was time-barred and therefore not receivable.

The Dispute Tribunal shall not award exemplary or punitive damages. The Tribunal did not find any procedural flaws in the competitive review process as it was implemented in the Applicant¡¯s case. All three candidates for the PIO posts were assessed against the same methodology and criteria adopted by the CRP. The Applicant was not accorded full and fair consideration for the second P-3 PIO post in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS contrary to the policy adopted by the CRP. In this regard, there were both substantive and procedural irregularities on the part of the Respondent.The Applicant is entitled to compensation for...

The events leading up to the Applicant¡¯s separation from service do not amount to a termination. The Applicant was in fact wrongly placed on Special Leave With Full Pay from 21 May 2004 to 31 December 2004. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP guidelines on Results and Competency Assessment do not confer any power on the Resident Representative to place a staff member on special leave with full pay for unsatisfactory performance as was done by the RR in this case. Not only was the decision to place the Applicant on SLWFP illegal, it was a disguised disciplinary measure designed to humiliate and embarrass the Applicant to the...

Reason to believe: that a staff member has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct is buttressed by a fact-finding, which in turn creates the requirement to investigate.Fact-Finding: fact-finding process is the collection and analysis of information to determine the veracity of an allegation against a staff member. It is a prerequisite for an investigation and cannot replace an investigation. As such cannot be used as the basis for imposing a disciplinary measure. Investigation: A disciplinary process can only be initiated based on proper official investigation being conducted under ST/AI/371.