Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

. The Applicant claimed that the reason for the contested decision was not disclosed to her until the management evaluation stage and that the reason given was not supported legally or factually. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF was obliged to provide the Applicant with a reason for the non-renewal of her contract when she requested it. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that according to the performance ratings provided prior to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract, her performance, as a matter of law, cannot be regarded as unsatisfactory based on secs. 5.2 and 10.2 of CF/AI/2010-001 (Administrative instruction...

Of the 153 candidates who applied for the post, five were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...

Of the 128 candidates who applied for the post, three were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because, in regard to the initiation of an investigation against the Applicant, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. Furthermore, the Applicant had been granted appropriate interim relief in relation to the alleged denial of her request to be granted an appropriate transfer or paid administrative leave. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal against the decision to conduct an alleged ¡°secret and retaliatory¡± investigation was receivable, but dismissed the...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was receivable.

The Applicant applied for a P-3 level temporary position advertised in October 2011. As part of the selection process, he was required to sit a written test. However, the Administration refused to accept his answers to the test on the basis that they were submitted after the specified deadline, which the Applicant disputed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant filed it more than eight months after the expiration of the applicable time limit for filing with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and that the Applicant failed to provide an adequate basis to support a finding of...

The Applicant specifically submits that the staff rules state that ¡°[c]ontinuity of service shall not be considered broken by periods of special leave¡± and the Respondent may not therefore deny his eligibility on the ground that his six months of special leave without pay resulted in him not having been employed for a continuous period of five years The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinds the contested decision and finds that the Applicant is eligible for consideration for permanent appointment.

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

The Applicant considers that the disclosure requirements did not apply to him. The Respondent failed to establish that the Applicant was required to file a financial disclosure statement for 2006. The Tribunal rescinds the Applicant¡¯s written reprimand. Any record of it is to be removed from the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant had failed to file it within 90 calendar days of receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation, as required by art. 8.1(d) of the Statute. The Applicant also failed to refer to any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delayed filing of his application and that would warrant a waiver or extension of the applicable time limits.