Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were violated when his computer hard drive was seized in violation of sec. 8.5(a) of ST/STGB/2004/15. However, by giving him notice and inviting him to be present when the ICT data were being accessed the Administration accorded him his due process rights in accordance with sec. 8.5(b)(i) of ST/STGB/2004/15; The JAB¡¯s review of his case was unconscionably delayed and procedurally flawed. The Respondent bears responsibility for this; The JDC process was proper and fair. The consideration by the investigation panel and the Report of the JDC were soundly based...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant satisfied the test that the decision appeared to be prima facie unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant satisfied the urgency test. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the decision would leave five days, from the date of the Judgment, for the Applicant to obtain temporary employment for a period of three months. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that a stay in the implementation of the decision, albeit for the limited period of an additional 25 calendar days, until the management evaluation is due on 7 November 2011, would serve the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Respondent to carry out a proper...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Panel on Discrimination and other Grievances, which was the body mandated to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint, failed to act expeditiously in bringing the Applicant¡¯s case to conclusion, finish its investigation, and issue its final report, as required by ST/AI/308/Rev.1. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization failed to properly address the Applicant¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination and was thus in breach of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not prove that any actual economic loss warranting compensation was caused to him...

The process leading up to the termination decision. A human resources office, such as OHR, has the obligation to ensure that its administrative decisions are taken on a proper factual basis and, if necessary, make the necessary enquiries to ensure this to protect the affected staff member¡¯s rights. OHR failed to inform the Applicant and the relevant medical advisors about the consequences of her being declared disabled by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC and about her possible alternatives. OHR also failed to delay the examination of the Applicant¡¯s case by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC. All these circumstances breached the Applicant¡¯s rights...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of irreparable damage and particular urgency. The application for suspension of action was rejected.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant failed to provide any explanation to the Tribunal as to the reasons for filing the present application 25 calendar days after the email of 28 October 2011 and nine working days before the examination. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the urgency in the present matter was created by the Applicant, who did not act timeously in filing the present application with sufficient urgency.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT identified several deviations in the performance evaluation procedures, but found that some of them resulted from the Applicant¡¯s actions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that no harm warranting compensation was caused to the Applicant, including to her career, by the identified deviations in the performance evaluation process as the Applicant separated from service for medical reasons. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the decision to reassign the Applicant within the same department was lawful. The application was rejected.

Abolished posts: The onus is on the Respondent to show that the Organization acted correctly towards the Applicant as a permanent appointee on an abolished post and to demonstrate what good faith steps it took, in accordance with its legal and policy obligations, to assist her with finding alternative employment.Manifest abuse of process: A withdrawal of an admission of liability upon which the parties have relied may result in a finding of manifest abuse of process warranting award of costs.Outcome: Relied ordered: (i) 9 months¡¯ net base salary (breach of rights and loss of chance of...

The Applicant filed an application, ostensibly under art. 12.2 of its Statute (regarding corrections), in relation to Di Giacomo Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/168, by which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed his case as falling outside its jurisdiction. With regard to the present application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant, in fact, sought revision of Di Giacomo under art. 12.1 of the Statute, as well as correction under art. 12.2 of the Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the present application as Di Giacomo was under appeal before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which was therefore seized of the matter.

The Applicant also contested the adequacy of compensation paid to her for having been placed in a hostile work environment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration was obliged, at the expiration of the three years, to make a decision to either separate the Applicant or to grant her a permanent appointment. The Administration¡¯s reliance on former staff rule 112.2(b) (on exceptions to staff rules) to further extend her probationary contract was improper as the procedural requirements of that staff rule were not met as the Applicant did not agree to the extension. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the...