Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

From both the testimonies and the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, it found as established that the dire financial situation at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP KCO, as it related to the ¡°11888 fund¡±, was the reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant did not produce any evidence allowing the Tribunal to conclude that at the time of the contested decision, the ¡°11888 fund¡± still had funds to allow the Organization to renew her contract. While it is not contested that an incident occurred during the mission to Rwanda in 2014, the Tribunal does not find that the testimonies and...

The parties disagreed as to the date the contested decision was notified to the Applicant and the Tribunal had to determine which of the communications triggered the running of the 60-day time limit to request management evaluation.; It was uncontested by the Applicant that he was informed, unequivocally, by his manager on 28 October 2015, that his contract was going to be terminated effective 31 January 2016 and that he was being placed on special leave with full pay as of 1 November 2015. He was also unequivocally informed on that date that he would no longer have access to his emails and...

Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants¡¯ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General¡¯s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants¡¯ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly¡¯s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization¡¯s duty to provide access...

Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants¡¯ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General¡¯s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants¡¯ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly¡¯s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization¡¯s duty to provide access...

Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants¡¯ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General¡¯s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants¡¯ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly¡¯s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization¡¯s duty to provide access...

Receivability: the Applicant could not separately challenge the decisions to abolish his post and to create a new one. This does not mean that the Applicant, while contesting his separation from service, cannot raise arguments touching upon prefatory steps taken in the process leading to such decision and which contributed to it. The need for the Tribunal to go beyond the examination of the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is particularly acute in the present case, where the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s ARR(O) post and to create a new one cannot be dissociated from the...

The decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment is often closely linked to the Organization¡¯s broader discretion on how to organize its services. In that respect, the Tribunal notes that in times of scare resources, managers bear particular responsibilities for making sound management decisions, which implies making an assessment of services needed at a given time in a given department, and to avoid to unnecessary expenditure of public money with which they are effectively entrusted. Any post facto assessment of these matters is only relevant to the extent that it is able to demonstrate...

Discretion of investigators: Duly authorised investigators have a discretion to determine the information that they deem relevant to gather and probe further. However, such discretion is not unfettered. Investigations must be conducted in a fair, balanced and impartial manner.

Admissibility and value of evidence: Circumstantial evidence, as well as hearsay, are admissible in the Organization¡¯s internal justice system. However, their probative value is more limited than that of direct evidence. Mere statements of witnesses holding that the Applicant had engaged in other instances in behavior...

Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2015/129

Contingency of the Applicant¡¯s FTA: return of Mr. C. to post No. 501057

Under sec. 6.7 of ST/AI/2010/3, in cases of secondment, a lien against a specific post shall only be granted for up to two years, after which it shall be surrendered. No discretion is granted to the Administration for extending the lien beyond the two years. Quite distinctly, para. 7 of ST/AI/404 allows the Administration to extend the mission assignment beyond the two years period, and continue blocking a specific post in the parent department, provided there is a specific written agreement to...

The Tribunal found that the Organization¡¯s inaction to resolve the failure to timely pay to the Applicant the amount due constituted an implied decision, which, in turn, was an appealable administrative decision subject to scrutiny, regarding the period of delay, even if the amount due had eventually been paid. The Tribunal ruled that the Applicant had a contractual right to receive her salary and to receive it in a timely manner. Technical problems following the deployment of a new ERP system are not a justification for a denial of such an entitlement. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded...

Full and fair consideration: In the absence of concrete, convincing evidence, the mere fact that it is possible, theoretically, to alter/tamper a written test will not suffice for the Tribunal to conclude that an Applicant¡¯s candidature was not given full and fair consideration. Also, where no one of the people involved in the administration of the test had a motive to manipulate it, the Tribunal will not find that the decision had been influenced by extraneous factors. The burden of proof in these matters lies on the Applicant. Good management practice: The Administration should take measures...

Request for management evaluation: A request for management evaluation has a precise and specific meaning in the framework of the internal justice system. It is the first step in formal contestation of an administrative decision and, as such, a communication conveying discontent to management will amount to a management evaluation request. Management evaluation is a formal process involving a request to the competent authority, which is specifically empowered to look into a contested decision to evaluate and consider whether it has been made pursuant to the administrative issuances of the...

Disclosure: The Respondent¡¯s disclosure obligation in proceedings concerning appointment and promotion is twofold. Firstly, the Respondent shall produce evidence to satisfy his own burden to minimally show that the staff member¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. Secondly, the Respondent shall disclose any document in his possession that is relevant to the determination of the Applicant¡¯s case, as presented in his or her application. This duty of candour that falls on the Respondent is necessary to ensure that staff members have access to justice. When the Respondent fails to...

The Applicant failed to identify the administrative decision she is contesting and from the Tribunal¡¯s examination of the documents received, it is not possible to clearly define the administrative decision that she wishes to contest. Furthermore, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of an administrative decision, if any. It follows that the present application is not receivable, ratione materiae, and the Tribunal is not competent to adjudicate the matter. The above is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply, and...

The Tribunal found that, although the decision to appoint a new panel emanated indeed from the Administration, it did not amount to an appealable administrative decision because it was merely preparatory in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review it. Discretionary and not discretionary decisions: The well-established definition of administrative decision does not even mention¡ªlet alone require¡ªany given degree of discretion among the elements characterising it. Administrative decisions may be discretionary or not discretionary, and this does not affect their...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis as both the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation and his application before the Tribunal were time-barred. Receivability: A new administrative decision that supersedes the contested decision cannot be submitted to the Tribunal¡¯s review through additional submissions in the case under consideration. It ought to be challenged through another application before the Tribunal. The deadline to file a request for management evaluation starts from the moment the staff member was made aware of the...

The Tribunal found established that the Hiring Manager had a certain bias against candidates who, like the Applicant, were already working at the Division when she joined it as its Director. However, this bias did not crystallise so as to have had an impact on the Applicant¡¯s candidature as all candidates¡¯ tests were rated on an anonymity basis by four panel members. The Administration made a minimal showing that the procedure had been proper by following a protocol designed to ensure the candidates¡¯ anonymity until after the written test was graded and, hence, the burden of proving that the...

The Tribunal found that the case was one of termination of mandate, rather than of abolition of post under the relevant rules; hence, the decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment was illegal. It further decided that even if one were to follow the Respondent¡¯s argument that it was post abolition, such abolition needed the approval of the Board of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICRI which had not been obtained. Finally, following the argument that it was post abolition, the Tribunal noted that the Administration clearly failed to comply with its obligation to make reasonable and good faith efforts under...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights had been respected, that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established and amounted to misconduct, and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the offence, and rejected the application. Misconduct: Under the relevant rules, misrepresentation, forgery or false certification in connection with an official claim or benefit¡ªwhich can include failure to disclose a fact material to that claim or benefit¡ªcan be ¡°wilful, reckless or grossly negligent¡±. Gross negligence is defined as ¡°an extreme or aggravated...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it does not have jurisdiction to review the medical opinion expressed by the Medical Services Division, as requested by the Applicant, and dismissed the application in its entirety. Procedure for challenging a decision taken pursuant to Appendix D: A claimant may either challenge a decision taken by the Secretary-General upon recommendation from the ABCC by seeking reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D or by appealing it before the Dispute Tribunal. However, the two avenues offer different prospects. Reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D: The reconsideration...