Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.

The Tribunal found that the facts of the case created a situation in which a fair-minded observer would have concluded that there was a real possibility that the presence of that senior official on the interview panel would lead to a reasonable perception of bias. It was thus unreasonable for that Panel member not to, at least, have raised the matter of a perceived conflict of interest with the panel and, ultimately, not to have recused himself from sitting on it. However, since there was no evidence that the presence of the senior manager had an impact on the outcome of the selection process...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not comply with his obligation to make reasonable and good faith efforts under staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d) to find the Applicant an alternative post. Termination of appointment: A termination of a contract of employment by reason of restructuring of the workplace is lawful provided that the Organization discharges fully its duty and obligations towards the displaced staff member in accordance with the applicable law; the latter, in the case of termination of a permanent appointment for abolition of post, is staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Duty of...

In the Applicant¡¯s view, the Hiring Manager¡¯s alleged favoritism of the candidate finally selected was evidenced by the 19-month delay in advertising the post and a change in the standard language of the experience requirements, without which the successful candidate would have been ineligible. However, the evidence showed that said factors did not have a significant impact on the candidate¡¯s eligibility. Moreover, the slight lowering of the experience criterion was not originated by the Hiring Manager and, while he delayed the advertising he did so to ensure his alternative employment in case...

The Dispute Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful and rejected the application. Application of ST/AI/2010/5 on Performance Management and Development System: This administrative instruction does not apply to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, which is a separately administered fund, as it has not explicitly accepted its applicability, as per ST/SGB/2004/9 on Procedures for the promulgation of administrative issuances. Obligation to provide an opportunity to improve performance prior to non-renewal: Absent any specific provision in the applicable rules, the Organization has no legal obligation to take any...

Finding that the Applicant had been notified about the respective administrative decisions on 12 August 2014, and not in September 2014 as argued by the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, dated 6 November 2014, was not submitted timely. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case and that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable. Management evaluation: the requirement of timely filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an...

Finding that the Applicant had been notified about the respective administrative decisions on 12 August 2014, and not in September 2014 as argued by the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, dated 6 November 2014, was not submitted timely. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case and that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable. Management evaluation: the requirement of timely filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an...

Appealable decision: The modalities of a written test in the context of a competitive selection cannot be contested as such as they do not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. However, the final non-selection can be challenged on the grounds that the selections criteria or the assessment conditions were improper.Written test: The administration of a written test is a lawful means of assessing the technical skills of candidates in a selection process. The methodology for such a test must not necessarily replicate the internal...

Appealable decision: The modalities of a written test in the context of a competitive selection cannot be contested as such as they do not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. However, the final non-selection can be challenged on the grounds that the selection criteria or the assessment conditions were improper.Written test: The administration of a written test is a lawful means of assessing the technical skills of candidates in a selection process. The methodology for such a test must not necessarily replicate the internal...

The Tribunal found the application not receivable pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(i) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute because it was not filed within 90 days of the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation.

Scope of application: It is an essential and inherent part of the duties of a Judge to clarify, interpret and comprehend what the claim is to identify what is in fact being contested. Time limits (receivability ratione materiae): Time limits do not begin to run anew simply because and when an Applicant is provided with a reasonable belief that there are grounds to request management evaluation of a decision that was notified at an earlier stage. Administrative decision (receivability ratione materiae): In case of post abolition, the decision to (re)advertise the post is not an administrative...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the first case (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2015/038) was not receivable due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to comply with the relevant time limit for the filing of her request for management evaluation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the second case (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2015/038) was also not receivable as the Applicant¡¯s argument that her earlier evaluation request (to which she received no reply) should be considered as the applicable management evaluation request would have resulted in her application being time-barred by several months.

After conducting case management and issuing a number of orders, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant had identified four decisions and/or issues for consideration: (a) a decision in 2010 in which she was denied the full period of annual leave that she had requested; (b) an implied decision or decisions not to provide her with a job description in a timely manner; (c) an implied decision or decisions not to reduce her workload despite awareness on the part of management that she was suffering from health issues; and (d) whether she should be awarded compensation for the effect of the...

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 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.

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...

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...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found no impropriety in connection with the successful candidate¡¯s lateral moves. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that whether or not the successful candidate had two lateral moves was not determinative in this case as the Applicant was not recommended for the post for reasons unconnected to the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal provided guidance to the Applicant at a case management discussion and issued a clear warning that he risked facing an order for costs under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute if he was unable to present an effective challenge to the legal contentions set out in the Respondent¡¯s reply. The Applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his case and filed further submissions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing to contest the decision because (a) not being eligible to apply for the post, he had no stake in the administrative decision; and (b) he...

No request for management evaluation The Tribunal finds that the Applicant relies on a request for management evaluation that contested a different decision to the decision contested in his application. Indeed, the request for management evaluation that he relies upon was submitted prior to the date of the decision contested in his application.No standing as staff representativeThe Tribunal takes cognizance of the fact that the General Assembly considered and rejected a proposal to grant staff associations standing to bring applications before the Dispute Tribunal. The Applicant¡¯s arguments...