Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal held that only the decision of 10 August 2016 was controlling because it informed the Applicant in no uncertain terms that his P-4 appointment was going to be voided. He requested management evaluation on 7 October 2016, which was well within the 60-day delay set out in staff rules 11.2(a) and 11.2(c). This claim was therefore receivable. Revoking the Applicant¡¯s appointment ab initio was disproportionate and thus illegal. Recovery of the Applicant¡¯s paid emoluments was accordingly without basis. The refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯s benefits attaching to service in Mogadishu at the...

With respect to the Applicant¡¯s challenge against his non-selection for JOs 2016/038 and 2016/026, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was put on notice on 19 December 2017 that he would not be selected for either of the JOs because he had failed the technical tests. Consequently, he had 60 days from 19 December 2017 or until 17 February 2018 to submit a request for management evaluation but did not submit his request until 26 June 2018. The fact that the Applicant erroneously sought a waiver of the management evaluation deadline approximately six months after the fact from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL Head...

The Tribunal found the application receivable because the Applicant filed a timely request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal was satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s documentation regarding technical issues with the e-Filing portal that he filed to support his claim of exceptional circumstances for filing his application late. Lastly, to the extent that the resignation of the Applicant was instigated by the Respondent or his agents, the Tribunal found that this was an administrative decision capable of being challenged. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had misrepresented his...

Considering that the sanctioning decision relied heavily on the finding that the Applicant had had five times over the limit established by the SOP from 2012, the interpretation of the reading of the breathalyser remained an issue. In this respect, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the evidence was clear and convincing. The Respondent rejected an explanation offered by the Military Police officer in charge of administering blood tests that the breathalyzer had recalculated the contents of alcohol found in the exhaled breath (BrAC) to relative alcohol contents in blood (BAC) and displayed the...

The final decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s continuing appointment has not yet been taken. In this case, the General Assembly had not endorsed abolition of the specific post encumbered by the Applicant, but, rather, one of the two which were subject to the comparative review. Retaining the Applicant in service was not foreclosed and may have been effected by either the Administration¡¯s own action or by the Tribunal¡¯s judgment, should the Applicant¡¯s case prevail on the merits. The contested decision did not have a direct impact on the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment as it merely...

At the time of the 9 March 2017 communication, the Applicant had been notified of the non-extension of his appointment neither had he received any individual communication regarding his separation entitlements. In short, his individual terms of appointment have not been affected and he had nothing to challenge yet. The first time when the individual decision may have transpired was on the occasion of receipt of a payslip which did not contain termination indemnity. That was the date of the contested decision indicated in the management evaluation. For a payslip to be accepted as such...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that on the date of the issuance of the disciplinary measure, as well as on the date when it was received by the Applicant, she remained subject to the Staff Regulations and Rules, which allow for the imposition of disciplinary measures. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the facts of the case demonstrate that the Applicant¡¯s actions were undertaken in a conflict of interest in violation of staff regulation 1.2(m). The actions also demonstrate lack of integrity in violation of staff regulation 1.2(b), which requires staff members to ¡°[¡­] uphold the highest standards of efficiency, competence and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the principal legal issue arising for consideration in the case was whether the Applicant¡¯s qualifications met the requirement of a recognized first level university degree as required by the job opening she was selected for. The Tribunal held that the Applicant did not meet the minimum educational requirements for positions at the P-2 level and was not eligible to be considered for a one-time amnesty for staff members under section 6 of ST/AI/2018/5. The Tribunal held that the Applicant did not demonstrate unfairness, unjustness, lack of transparency or inappropriate motive in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Administration bears the burden of establishing that an alleged misconduct for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member occurred. When termination is a possible outcome, misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. Is not the role of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conduct a de novo review of the evidence and place itself in the shoes of the decision-maker. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant partook in the misappropriation of the material, which belonged to the...

Absent a prior request for management evaluation, the Tribunal may not consider the merits of the case.