Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn in its entirety, including on the merits, with no right of reinstatement. The Applicant having confirmed that she was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of her application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The Tribunal reasoned that when seeking to challenge a policy, it was imperative that an applicant was specific in identifying how that policy had adversely affected him. A broad brush suggestion that a particular policy was discriminatory was not sufficient for purposes of litigation. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not in the bisuness of reviewing policies within the Organization, except where an Applicant clearly demonstrated that a specific decision had been made, which was adverse to his or her interests, in furtherance of that policy.; In light of the above, the Tribunal concluded...

Failure to file a reply: The Tribunal held that when a Reply is due in accordance with art. 10.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules, the Respondent is required to comply with his obligation. He may not choose to file a Motion to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue or any other motion in lieu of his Reply. Subsequently, the only available remedy for the Respondent who fails to file a reply within the prescribed timeline is to seek leave of the Tribunal to be entitled to take part in the proceedings. Summary judgment: Noting that under art. 19 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules, a party is entitled to judgment...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not suffered any material or moral prejudice. With regard to OSLA¡¯s refusal to provide her with legal assistance, the Tribunal found that the decision is not illegal since there was a conflict of interest . The Applicant is a staff member of OSLA and her application before the Tribunal concerns a written reprimand issued by her immediate supervisor, the Chief of OSLA.

As regards her e-Pas reports, the Tribunal found that the ratings resulting from the rebuttal processes had replaced the initial ratings and that hence the e-Pas reports cannot be annulled. Concerning the inclusion in the OSF of documents arising from the rebuttal processes relating to her e-Pas reports, the Tribunal found that only the documents specified in ST/AI/2002/3 and ST/AI/2010/5 are to be included in her OSF. It also found that the irregularities in relation to her e-Pas reports were of such gravity as to render them meaningless and that they are thus not be included in her OSF. The...

As regards the Applicant¡¯s request for rescission of the contested decision, the Tribunal found that it was irreceivable insofar as decisions to extend a staff member¡¯s appointment are not decisions adversely affecting a staff member and thus are not subject to appeal. As regards the Applicant¡¯s request for a two-year renewal, the Tribunal further found that there were no legal provisions stipulating a particular duration of a fixed-term appointment.

The Tribunal found that the decision to consider the Applicant as ineligible was legal and did not violate any of his rights.

Following the Tribunal¡¯s judgment on receivability (Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/149) and inter partes discussions, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw his application, confirming that he was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement or appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of his application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The Applicant was informed of the decision to not renew his contract, based on the ¡°serious weaknesses in his performance¡± on 27 October 2008. Consequently, any request for administrative review of the decision to not renew his contract should have been filed within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.The Applicant, due to the very negative review and comments contained in his PER, was on notice of the potentially inaccurate information contained therein its receipt in August 2009. The 15 June 2010 transmittal of the OIA investigation report, while potentially providing the...

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant¡¯s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant¡¯s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/DSS¡¯ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

Due process: The evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance for the 2008/2009 reporting cycle was not carried out in accordance with the established procedures and materially discredits the Respondent¡¯s case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON had an obligation to defer the non-renewal decision until the rebuttal process had been completed but failed to do so. This was a violation of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Bad faith: The negative relationship between the Applicant¡¯s former FRO and SRO was contributory to the non- renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant¡¯s SRO demonstrated ill-motive and unethical...

. 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 Tribunal considered that an employer does not have an unqualified right to refuse to accept a resignation and rejected the Applicant¡¯s submissions on receivability. The receivability of any application before the Tribunal is subject to the statutory requirement of article 8.1(c) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, which is categorical that where required, an Applicant must submit a request for management evaluation of a contested decision.

The Respondent contended that the allegations of sexual harassment had been established after a proper investigation, that the disciplinary measures were appropriate and proportionate and that the Applicant had agreed to the imposition of these disciplinary measures. The Tribunal found that: (1) The OHRM had mischaracterized the Applicant¡¯s offence as ¡°sexual harassment¡± rather than ¡°harassment¡± and failed to follow its own procedures in ¡°the Guidelines on consideration for conversion to permanent appointment of staff members of the Secretariat eligible to be considered¡±; (2) There was a...

It is not disputed by either party that the Applicant was not employed by the Organization during the one week period between the curtailment, requested by himself, of his employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA and his appointment at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHQ. Furthermore, the Applicant ¡°does not seek to challenge the 2005 decision creating the break in service, but, [in light of the Tribunal¡¯s decision in Gomez], the later decision not to consider him eligible for conversion to permanent appointment on the basis of that earlier decision¡±. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant was ineligible for consideration for conversion to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration reconstituted the fact-finding panel in January 2013, following the filing of the application, which was therefore moot. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, even if the application were not moot, it would not be receivable as the Applicant did not comply with the requirement of first requesting management evaluation prior to filing her application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the argument that the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing her application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on account of her being a former staff...

Improper motives: The Tribunal held that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract was motivated by improper motives in view of the fact that: (i) the Applicant¡¯s relationship with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), under whose leadership the Applicant was working, was hostile; and (ii) the HC and the Applicant¡¯s deputy, who had unsuccessfully competed for the Applicant¡¯s post, had gone to great lengths to undermine him and to tarnish his reputation with OCHA leadership.

Performance: The Tribunal held that while the Applicant may have made mistakes, shown an excessive zeal, or may have...

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...