�山����

The Applicant’s request for management evaluation of 5 February is vague and fails to articulate the precise administrative decision he is contesting. It ambiguously mentions the recruitment processes for Job Openings (JOs) 108789 and 109656, the termination of his continuing appointment and the lack of effort by the Organization to find him a new post. Since the application makes no mention of the selection processes for JOs 108789 and 109656, the Tribunal will not address it. Consequently, the Tribunal’s review will focus solely on whether the claims against the termination of the Applicant...

UNDT held that the request for management evaluation was not time-barred. UNDT held that the rules and procedures applied to establish the Applicant’s EOD date were due consequences of the fact that she had been reappointed in 2008. UNDT held that the choice of reappointment as modality of the Applicant’s move was borne out by personnel actions of separation and reappointment and acknowledged by her in the memorandum of understanding with respect to annual leave from 2008. Accordingly, UNDT held that the matter was outside the temporal jurisdiction of UNDT. UNDT held that the EOD date as...

The Respondent complied with the audi alterem partem principle, which ensures that a party adversely affected by an administrative decision has the right to know, the opportunity to comment on, and the ability to answer the case against him or her. The Applicant was well aware of the complaints that were lodged against him, was confronted with each claim and responded thereto, was repeatedly warned about his unprofessional behaviour and performance issues yet failed to heed to these warnings. The decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract due to poor performance was lawful. The Applicant’s...

The Tribunal considered that despite the Applicant’s characterization of the contested decision as a “written reprimand” in his request for management evaluation and in his application, there was never a reprimand issued by an authorized official and, thus, there was no administrative decision to contest. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal also noted that since the record related to the investigation of a complaint made against the Applicant was deleted from the Misconduct Tracking System (“MTS”), the Applicant’s claim in this...

Since the selection process did not yield a selection list, the Tribunal found that there was no administrative decision for the Applicant to contest. In the circumstances, the application was dismissed in its entirety as it was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal finds the Respondent’s application for interpretation as an attempt to have the Tribunal re-examine its Order, which is not a proper way to seek a reversal or modification of the Tribunal’s Order. As the Appeals Tribunal clearly stated, the exercise of interpretation under art. 30 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure is not an avenue for review or the basis for a fresh judgment. It goes without saying that the motion is not receivable and must be dismissed. The Administration provided some reasonable explanation for the contested decision, which is supported by evidence...

Since the Applicant withrew his claims, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the cases are closed.

Receivability The Tribunal found that the ASG, OHRM’s failure to take action on the Applicant’s complaint almost nine months after its filing, taking into account only the period that preceded the request for management evaluation, is a clear violation of the provisions of ST/SGB/2008/5. The Tribunal considered that the Administration’s failure to act on the Applicant’s complaint amounted to an implicit administrative decision that was subject to judicial review. The application was therefore considered receivable. Merits The Tribunal found that the failure to process the Applicant’s complaint...

The Tribunal noted the application of two salary scales in this case. One salary scale, effective from 1 January 2015, was applicable to all staff recruited to the General Services category at the Bangkok duty station on or after 1 March 2012. The other salary scale applied to those who were recruited prior to 1 March 2012. The Applicant’s terms of appointment were set by specific agreement and were not impacted in any manner by any decision which was implemented in January 2015 or were disclosed to him when he received his first payslip. He agreed to certain terms and conditions in the offer...

The Tribunal noted the application of two salary scales in this case. One salary scale, effective from 1 January 2015, was applicable to all staff recruited to the General Services category at the Bangkok duty station on or after 1 March 2012. The other salary scale applied to those who were recruited prior to 1 March 2012. The Applicant’s terms of appointment were set by specific agreement and were not impacted in any manner by any decision which was implemented in January 2015 or were disclosed to him when he received his first payslip. He agreed to certain terms and conditions in the offer...