Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

The Tribunal notes that though the application against the MEU¡¯s decision to dismiss a request for management evaluation and claim of abuse of authority and harassment is different from the decision of the OIAI to dismiss a claim on abuse of authority and not to conduct an investigation, the decision which is being contested before the Tribunal is principally the same as the one which was contested at the MEU level, with only a few editorial differences.Therefore, the application is receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that supplying additional circumstances as reasons for not rehiring the Applicant in 2018 did not revive the contested decision of 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the required deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no evidence that the Applicant and the Administration were in any way involved in an Ombudsman-driven negotiation process which may have implicitly extended the management evaluation deadline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that although the Applicant claims to have been blocked from rehiring, he did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS or any other entity of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, had no locus standi before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the decision to extend the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment with effect from 11 September 2015 until 29 February 2016 was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that his appointment had been converted into a continuing one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the procedural irregularity in issuing the retroactive fixed-term appointments could cause vexation but did not amount to a serious violation of rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the delays did not entail an ex lege conversion to a continuing...

The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± and the Applicant¡¯s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel¡¯s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the...

Since the Applicant has not sought management evaluation of the alleged instruction for him to work for Warrior Security Limited Company or his allegations of harassment and retaliation in relation to the performance improvement plan, those claims are not properly before the Tribunal. Consequently, the decision to appoint another staff member at the same level as the Applicant¡¯s supervisor and FRO is the only decision that the Tribunal can entertain. Clearly, the Tribunal cannot reinstate an application that was withdrawn by the Applicant in 2015 and has no bearing whatsoever on the decision...

At the time of the cancellation, the selection process had not been completed. The cancellation itself was an internal step to facilitate another lawful consideration, to wit, gender parity, within the selection process. It did not occasion the Applicant any direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment.

Since the selection process did not yield a selection list, the Tribunal found that there was no administrative decision for the Applicant to contest. In the circumstances, the application was dismissed in its entirety as it was not receivable ratione materiae.