Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Dispute Tribunal has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of judicial review. When defining the issues of a case, the Dispute Tribunal may consider the application as a whole. The obligation for the Administration to undertake efforts to find an alternative post only extends to a situation where a staff member’s appointment is terminated and not where it is not renewed. If a staff member with standing admits that s/he was verbally notified about the contested decision, then the time limit for management evaluation starts to run from that moment and not from the time of a subsequent follow-up written notification. The decisive moment of notification for purposes of Staff Rule 11.2(c) is when all relevant facts were known, or should have reasonably been known. The situation is different from one involving an informal or casual verbal communication or one where the content of the verbal communication is disputed and the facts do not support a reasonable basis upon which to make the necessary findings of ‘clear and unambiguous’ and ‘sufficient gravitas’. Even if the Respondent failed to summarize his submissions on abolition of post, the Dispute Tribunal is, nevertheless, required to examine its jurisdiction sua sponte. The decision to abolish a certain post is not receivable and the appealable decision is rather the final decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. It is the latter decision, following on from the abolition, that constitutes the administrative decision subject to judicial review.