Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application is not receivable. The Applicant, as a staff member at the relevant time period, had a right to be fully and fairly considered as part of the terms of his former employment. Since the Applicant decided not to apply for JO 41653 in the belief that the post in question would be abolished according to the budget proposal for OICT, the question is whether he is entitled to a review of the contested decision despite his decision not to apply for the job opening. It is not disputed that the budget proposal for OICT was not adopted at the time of the publication and closing of JO...

The Tribunal had to determine whether a valid contract existed between the Applicant and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵISFA, and, in the affirmative, whether the decision not to proceed with his on-boarding was illegal. The Tribunal considered that for the conditions of Gabaldon to apply, it is necessary that the offer of employment extended to a candidate be based on a selection decision made by the person disposing of the relevant delegated authority. Legal framework for delegation of authority to make the selection decision The Tribunal was of the view that at the time of the contested decision in accordance with the...

If all candidates are treated in the same manner, there is no discrimination. The candidates for the job opening were treated equally with regard to the notice given to scheduling of interviews and taking of the written assessment. This may not have been ideal and represents poor managerial practice, but without evidence in support of any ulterior motive or how the failure to give the five working days¡¯ notice prejudiced the Applicant, the Tribunal does not find that this failure amounted to discrimination per se (see Lennard Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/044, at paras. 34 to 37). The definition of an ¡°assessment...

The Tribunal found that the impugned administrative decision was the decision not to offer the Applicant the post when the first candidate declined the offer and that it satisfied the test in Andronov (former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment No. 1157 (2002)) as further elaborated and clarified in Andati-Amwayi (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-058). The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s claim that she had a legitimate expectation of being selected for JO 39506 because while the Applicant made this allegation in her request for management evaluation, she did not raise it in her application. Further, the fact that the Applicant had been...

The Tribunal held that the Respondent had made more than a minimal showing that the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of D-1, Chief of Service, Humanitarian Affairs, was not tainted by improper consideations. The Applicant failed to show that he was denied a fair chance of promotion. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

In circumstances where an applicant is not provided with the whole of the documentation involved in a matter sought to be brought before the Tribunal, it is essential that as material is provided to an applicant there be a right to amend an application. To not allow the amendment of the application would not ¡°do justice to the parties¡± or ¡°lead to the fair disposal of the case¡±. Clearly, not permitting an amendment of the application when the true state of affairs is revealed for the first time by the Respondent would offend the inherent obligations of the Tribunal consistent with the...

The Tribunal finds it noteworthy that in relation to functional delegation of authority, the person in whom authority is vested by virtue of his/her position/function has the power to delegate that authority. However, such delegation does not equate to the delegator definitively ridding himself/herself of the powers and authority that he or she delegates. Legally, a delegator continues to maintain the powers and authority that he or she has delegated, and such delegation is thus revocable at any time. Therefore, both parties¡¯ arguments that the USG/OIOS could or should have ¡°surrendered¡± her...

The Applicant indicated on page 4 of his application that he received the response to his management evaluation request on 21 June 2018. Thus, to be in compliance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the Applicant should have filed his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by 19 September 2018 but he did not do so until 6 October 2018, more than two weeks after the statutory deadline, to file his application. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Although the Applicant made considerable effort...

The Tribunal was of the view that, essentially, the Applicant attempted to create an administrative decision in an attempt to contest it. Whilst the approach discloses some imagination on the part of the Applicant, the absence of a response by the High Commissioner to the Applicant¡¯s request does not create any direct legal consequence for him. Thus, there is no administrative decision, directly or by implication, that the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to consider. The Applicant has no right to make an appeal in respect of matters to which he was not a party. Indeed, the Applicant did not...

The Applicant was notified of his non-selection on 7 December 2016. Yet, he requested management evaluation only on 11 April 2017.; Paragraph 119 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s Revised Policy and Procedures on Assignments (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR/HCP/2015/2/Rev.1) provides that: ¡°Staff members who have reasons to believe that they have not been given full and fair consideration for a particular decision, have; the right to be provided, upon request, with information on the process which led to that particular decision¡±. Its purpose is merely to establish a duty for the Administration to provide non-successful candidates, upon...