Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s request was not properly considered in that irrelevant factors were taken into consideration whereas relevant factors were not. In particular, no proper consideration was given to the individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception. Further, the reasoning supporting the decision was flawed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that no reasonable explanation was provided as to why the granting of this exception would have been prejudicial to other staff. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded the Applicant the sum of USD3,000 as compensation for loss of chance of...

rocedurally flawed because the ASG/OCSS failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the HCC Note and to comment on any perceived concerns regarding his performance. It was also unclear from the written decisions what specific conclusions the ASG/OCSS had reached about the Applicant¡¯s responsibility for the issues raised in the HCC Note. In addition, the Tribunal was not convinced that the contested decisions would have been justified notwithstanding the breaches of due process and procedure.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not file a request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Therefore, his application was dismissed as manifestly not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the five cases are not receivable due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including with regard to the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that in the cases concerning separation (Cases No. 011 and 028), the Applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of expiration of time for a response to his management evaluation request. Pursuant to Neault 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345, MEU¡¯s belated...

The Judgment does not give rise to any uncertainty in terms of its execution or its binding effect under art. 32 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. the meaning of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/087 leaves no reasonable doubt as to the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to the Tribunal¡¯s decision, and thus does not require clarification.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, although the JO was canceled and re-issued, there were still outstanding relief claims for adjudication, therefore, the application was not moot. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for removal of the Representative of the Secretary-General (¡°RSG¡±) for the Investments of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF from the recruitment process, finding that this request pertained to the re-issued job opening. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s request to refer the case for accountability and his claims for legal costs and moral damages. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the decisions to issue a Notice of Counsel and to require the Applicant to undergo remedial training did not affect his legal rights. The decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction was procedurally flawed because, contrary to the Department of Safety and Security Manual of Instruction on Use of Force Equipment Including Firearms (¡°DSS Weapons MOI¡±), the Chief of the SSS did not state the expected duration of the measure. The Tribunal rescinded the decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction without indicating the expected duration and ordered the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within the prescribed time period. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the ¡°suspension¡± of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant¡¯s late filing of her application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...

The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Respondent¡¯s submission that because the Ethics Office is independent, its acts and/or omissions are not subject to judicial review. However, the Tribunal found that, given the current state of the jurisprudence, it had no option but to accept that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal judgments in Wasserstrom 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-457 and Nartey 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-544, the matters contested in the applications are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review.

Performance Notice The Tribunal finds that this Notice was not reflected in the Applicant¡¯s ePAS and was not placed on the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File. The Tribunal concludes that the Performance Notice issued to the Applicant has not, in and of itself, affected his legal rights. Having found that his legal rights were not affected by the decision to issue the Performance Notice, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the Applicant¡¯s other submissions in relation to this issue. Complaint of harassment and discrimination The Tribunal considers that, having received allegations of...