The Applicant failed to abide by several orders and did not respond to attempts from the Registry to contact him. Ther Tribunal, therefore, can only conclude that the Applicant is no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which must therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stands to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Respondent has minimally shown that the Applicant received a full and fair consideration. The Applicant was lawfully not selected for the Post, as her test result was below the passing score. The requirements the written test directly related to the responsibilities of the contested position. There was no indication of any alterations or discrepancies with the marking methodology. The Organization does not have a promotion system where managers are obligated to develop and train supervisees for promotion opportunities and assist them in career growth and, therefore, job applicants have no...
Given that the decision not to lift the Applicant’s immunity is not an administrative decision capable of judicial review, the request for compensation for any harm caused by such decision is consequently also beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence. The Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the Administration’s refusal of his claim for compensation. This part of his application is therefore not receivable under art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal’s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a).
By not seeking the Medical Director’s feedback in a timely manner, the Registrar failed to take into consideration relevant matters before making the contested decision. The decision-making process was vitiated by a defect that rendered the contested decision irrational. The delay in the handling the Applicant’s complaint was unjustified. The Administration lawfully acted within its discretion in fulfilling its obligations under sec. 6.4 of ST/SGB/2008/5. The contested decision is rescinded and remanded to the IRMCT. The IRMCT shall review, in consultation with DHMOSH, whether additional...
The Administration duly complied with the requirements of ST/AI/2010/5. The negative rating and adverse comments in the Applicant’s 2016-2017 ePAS would be read in light of the Rebuttal Report, which found the rating and comments to be without merit and designated a new rating of “successfully meets expectations”. To this end, the rationale behind sec. 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5 must be that any purported harm caused to the Applicant by the 2016-2017 ePAS would be mitigated by the corrective positive finding of the Rebuttal Panel. Tthe Applicant’s challenge is not receivable because the revision of...
The Tribunal understands that in light of HR’s emails, the Applicant could have reasonably understood by mistake that his contract would be further extended pending proceedings in his cases before the Dispute Tribunal. As the Applicant did not request management evaluation within that deadline and waited until 22 June 2019, his application is not receivable.
The evidence showed that the Applicant’s post was abolished and his fixed-term appointment was not extended for this reason. Therefore, the reason provided by the Administration for the non-renewal was lawful. The Applicant has adduced insufficient evidence that he was promised a renewal. The Applicant should have been aware that his fixed-term appointment expired automatically at the end of its term. The Administration properly notified the Applicant of the non-renewal of his appointment. While the notification of the decision not to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment did not state...
The investigation complied with the requirements set out in ST/SGB/2008/5 and the Applicant was afforded proper due process. The provisions of ST/SGB/2008/5 do not grant a right to staff members who bring complaints of prohibited conduct given to interview certain witnesses in order to confront his accusersand therefore finds no merit to this claim of an irregularity. The Fact-Finding Panel fully considered all relevant and material aspects of the Applicant’s complaint. In smaller entities in the Organization, a head of office may also be required to act as a Second Reporting Officer (“SRO”)...
The Applicant was not entitled to an increase in step, therefore, the Administration had the right to the correction of an error, and it did not constitute a retroactive application of rules and regulations. The Administration lawfully recovered the overpayment of entitlements resulted from an administrative error.
