Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Dispute Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Applicant¡¯s dispute with ICAO.

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¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant had all the information necessary to seek management evaluation of the contested decisions and that the time limit for seeking management evaluation started running on 31 March 2018, which meant that the 60-day deadline for submitting a management evaluation request was 30 May 2018. The Applicant sought management evaluation of the decisions only on 29 June 2018, 29 days out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant¡¯s claim that she was unable to ¡°deal with the issue until she was released from the medical facility¡± on 28 May 2018 was unsupported...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the requirements of ST/AI/2003/3 were not satisfied since the Applicant was not serving on a higher-level post or regularly performing functions at the P-5 level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant was serving on a post that was budgeted and classified at the P-4 level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further noted that there is no P-5 post within the Conference Management and Translation Unit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly held that the Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a Special Post Allowance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed all claims.

The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 5 February is vague and fails to articulate the precise administrative decision he is contesting. It ambiguously mentions the recruitment processes for Job Openings (JOs) 108789 and 109656, the termination of his continuing appointment and the lack of effort by the Organization to find him a new post. Since the application makes no mention of the selection processes for JOs 108789 and 109656, the Tribunal will not address it. Consequently, the Tribunal¡¯s review will focus solely on whether the claims against the termination of the Applicant...

The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so within the expressly stipulated timeframe. Where the management evaluation was requested late, the result was as if it were not requested at all.

Regarding the question of whether material facts were sufficiently established, the Tribunal concluded that they were sufficiently established except the allegations that the Applicant instructed other staff members to provide false information. The parties disputed whether the Applicant was a supervisor as charged. The Applicant did not fall under the category of ¡°supervisor ¡° as per the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON Security and Safety Service (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/SSS) SOP No 13. Undisputedly though, the Applicant carried out team leader functions and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/SSS Daily Orders which assigned the Applicant to provide ¡°security...

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...

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¢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.