The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was a staff member of 蘑菇视频RWA and contested a decision purportedly taken by that agency. The Tribunal further recalled that 蘑菇视频RWA does not fall under the jurisdiction of 蘑菇视频DT. Accordingly, the Applicant had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The Application was thus dismissed as non-receivable.
The contested decision arose from an agreement signed on 21 April 2020 between the Applicant and 蘑菇视频ICEF to terminate her appointment. If the Applicant had wished to contest the circumstances of her termination agreement, she ought to have requested management evaluation by 20 June 2020. She however, submitted her request on 18 January 2021, almost seven months later, and outside the 60-day period. The request for management evaluation was time-barred and thus the application was not receivable.
The Tribunal finds that, contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, the Applicant’s allegation that she was performing Administrative Assistant functions at the relevant time is supported by her 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 e-PASes, Personal History Profile and Letters of Appointment which were the relevant documents for purposes of the comparative review process (“CRP’). The Applicant has successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity by proving through clear and convincing evidence that the CRP was unlawful. The administration violated its own regulations and rules governing its conduct. The...
The Tribunal held that with respect to the decisions of June 2018 on deductions on account of child support and 24 September 2018 on recording the Applicant’s status as “divorced”, the application is not receivable. The Tribunal rescinded the decision of 18 September 2018, because as admitted by the Respondent in his response to Order No. 190 (NBI/2020), this administrative decision had been issued in error. All other pleas were rejected.
The Tribunal finds that the recovery of CHF2,838 constituting financial loss occasioned to the Respondent through the Applicant’s private phone calls is not a relevant consideration to the determination of the proportionality of the sanction. This is because the recovery is not a disciplinary measure within the meaning of staff rule 10.2(b)(ii) which expressly clarifies that recovery of monies owed to the Organisation is a not a disciplinary measure. The Applicant has failed to show that he deserves a more lenient sanction than the one imposed. His impecuniosity, resulting from the sanction is...
The Applicant has not shown that the negative employment decision had any direct adverse consequences on her contract. The Applicant’s argument that the decision was used by the Administration not to renew her temporary employment is without merit. She has not adduced any evidence to substantiate her claim. On the contrary the Respondent has shown that the temporary employment expired at the end of the maximum 364 days offered in the contract. The Applicant has failed to convince the Tribunal that the decision not to renew her temporary employment was a direct consequence of the decision from...
The Tribunal finds that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have not been established. The decision is rescinded in accordance with art. 10(5)(a) of this Tribunal’s Statute. The Respondent may opt to pay compensation in lieu of rescission comprising her salary from the date of termination to the date when the Applicant would have retired from service. The Applicant has proved that she suffered moral damages and is awarded of two years’ net base salary as damages for moral harm. The Applicant has also proved that she was over deducted by USD20, 987.91 causing her financial...
The Tribunal dismissed the application for the following reasons: the facts had been established to the requisite standard of clear and convincing evidence because the Applicant failed to provide any evidence to contradict the Respondent’s fundamental findings on the objective and subjective elements of the impugned conduct; the established facts qualified as misconduct because the Applicant failed to act with the diligence required of staff applying for education grant entitlements pursuant to ST/AI/2011/4; the sanction was not disproportionate because it was not the most severe sanction for...
Although the Organization’s payment of the Applicant’s final entitlements into the wrong bank account was a serious irregularity, the Tribunal concluded that the irregularity did not obliterate the fact that the Organization discharged its final payment obligation toward the Applicant because the payment was made into the Applicant’s account on record. This mistake did not cause financial damage to the Applicant but rather resulted in a reduction of his personal liabilities. Further, the Applicant had had several opportunities to authorize the return of the funds to the Organization, and thus...
The Tribunal found that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarized, was implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person and the right to challenge this decision, founding the claim on specific grounds related to the Administration’s assessment of the facts. The jrusiprudence acknowleges the right of the complainant to have a summary of the report is recognized too, and it is confirmed that only under exceptional circumstances...
