Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s claims with regard to the issue of lien and loan were without merit. With respect to the issue of placement on special leave without pay, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant should have been placed on sick leave on half salary and half annual leave for a period of up to three months. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered the Respondent to make appropriate adjustments, including any related payments and adjustments to benefits and entitlements, to reflect the placement of the Applicant on three months of sick leave on half pay combined with half-day of annual leave commencing 22...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decision was based on improperly imposed conditions not stipulated under staff rule 4.18 and thus lacked proper legal basis. Further, it was arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable. Therefore, the contested decision was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, had the discretion been properly exercised on the stipulated conditions, the Applicant would have been reinstated in service and shall be treated as such. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered rescission of the contested decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered that the Applicant be deemed as reinstated in service and that proper adjustments be made...

The Respondent claimed costs for unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect of the delay in submitting the PF4 form, ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant the outstanding interest payment pursuant to Tolstopiatov Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/012, and refused the Respondent¡¯s claim for costs. Enforcement of Judgment Order: The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay interest on the money which had not been fully paid under Tolstopiatov Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/012 at the rate of the US Prime Rate plus 5 percent for the relevant time period. Costs: Whilst the Tribunal would discourage...

The Applicant stated that had the post been advertised, she would have applied and would have been found to fulfill the eligibility requirements. The Applicant subsequently filed a notice stating that, having been advised concerning the receivability issues in her case by her new counsel, she wished to withdraw her application. In light of what the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT construed to be an equivocal withdrawal, it sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The Applicant having stated that she was withdrawing the matter fully...

The application is filed within the statutory deadline and is therefore receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s contract was not terminated but, instead, it was not renewed after its date of expiration. As termination indemnity was payable to staff members upon termination of their appointment and not in cases of non-renewal, the Applicant was not entitled to such payment. With respect to the interest on reimbursement for unused annual leave days, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, while that reimbursement amount was held by the Organization pending completion of the Applicant¡¯s separation paperwork, it accrued interest which is payable to the Applicant. With respect to the payment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s contract was not terminated but, instead, it was not renewed after its date of expiration. As termination indemnity was payable to staff members upon termination of their appointment and not in cases of non-renewal, the Applicant was not entitled to such payment. With respect to the interest on reimbursement for unused annual leave days, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, while that reimbursement amount was held by the Organization pending completion of the Applicant¡¯s separation paperwork, it accrued interest which is payable to the Applicant. With respect to the payment...

At no time following the decision of the rebuttal panel did the Applicant seek an informal resolution of her case which could have suspended the applicable time limits in this matter.

The Applicant had been assured of her eligibility, short-listed, interviewed, recommended for the position, and copied on subsequent communications, following which the Administration decided that she was not eligible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to disregard part of the Applicant¡¯s work experience because it was obtained prior to her Master¡¯s degree was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that the decision to disregard, in its entirety, the Applicant¡¯s experience between February 2004 and April 2006 because it was deemed by OHRM to be equivalent to the G-5 or G-6 level, was unlawful...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated several hurdles to the receivability of the present application, including with respect to receivability ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae, although the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that on the papers filed some of these issues would ordinarily warrant further examination had the application not been manifestly inadmissible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was manifestly inadmissible because the Applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement of submitting a request for management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing an application with...