Having reviewed the motion, the Tribunal found that it raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction which it addressed sua sponte and found the application not receivable ratione materiae. The application did not fall under any of the stipulated exceptions to obtaining a management evaluation as a first step to invoking the powers of the internal justice system.
Receivability The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants had requested management evaluation and received a response on 3 October 2017. 2) Staff rule 11.2(b) was inapplicable because ICSC is not a technical body. 3) Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slip of August 2017. 4) The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay...
The facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established because the Applicant rendered himself publicly drunk over several hours, embroiled in a bar fight, was twice detained by the local police, went out to a bar after curfew drove a 蘑菇视频 vehicle while he was legally drunk based on MINUSCA’s zero tolerance policy refused to stop and exit the 蘑菇视频 vehicle when signaled by MINUSCA Security Officers, including his superior drove in a dangerous manner. The established facts legally amounted to misconduct because the Applicant’s actions, which included public drunkness, becoming...
The Tribunal found that the contested decision in this case was clearly not based on direct organisational authority and it concerned an area protected from employer interference, the internal affairs of a Staff Union. It did not produce a sufficiently direct legal consequence to the legal order of the Applicant as a staff member.
Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1)Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants had requested management evaluation and received a response on 3 October 2017. 2)Staff rule 11.2(b) was inapplicable because ICSC is not a technical body. 3)Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slip of August 2017. 4)The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay...
On the first issue of placing of the note on the Applicant’s personnel file, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not dispute that the Respondent complied with ST/AI/292 which governs placement of adverse materials on personnel files. The Applicant conceded that the Respondent acted within the law. The Applicant also provided his comments on the note. On that basis, the application on the first issue was found not receivable as it did not disclose any administrative decision that had any direct legal consequences on the Applicant’s contract or terms of his employment. On the second issue...
The Tribunal held that the facts arose from the Applicant’s former employment relationship with 蘑菇视频HCR. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application to be receivable.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant identified the contested decision as “misconduct allegations” made against her. It was clear that the Administration was yet to take a decision whether or not to discipline her. Allegations of misconduct are only a prefatory act, from which no direct consequences stem for the terms of the Applicant’s employment. Accordingly, the application was found not receivable for want of a reviewable administrative decision and it was dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that the assertion that the Applicant was entitled to automatic appointment since he had a continuous appointment and was on the roster for Senior Transport Officer, P-5 was without basis. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the obligation under staff rule 9.6(e) is only triggered where there has been a decision to terminate a staff member’s appointment due to the abolition of a post or the reduction of staff. The Tribunal found that the provisions of staff rule 9.6(e) were not applicable to the circumstances of this case and could therefore not be complied with...
The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had not established that there was any bias or impropriety which had any impact on the decision not to renew his appointment. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had not provided any information which would assist in production of relevant information and the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to embark upon a full investigation of the matter and could only rely on what had been made available pursuant to its case management powers. Accordingly, the application was rejected.
