51ÁÔÆæ

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...

Given that the Applicant believed that he had to receive the decision directly from the USG/DM he ought reasonably to have concluded that there was an implied decision not to commission a fact-finding enquiry long before his request for management evaluation on 25 April 2017, two years and seven months after he was notified by OIOS that they had referred his complaint to the USG/DM. The interests of both staff members and the decision maker/s are best served by a contemporaneous record of the fact that there was a review under the guidance or delegated authority of the responsible official and...

Any irregularity in the selection process had no impact on the selection status of the Applicant because, no matter what, she had no foreseeable chance of promotion.

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...

Although each claim was being dealt with separately, given the resolution agreed between the parties, the Tribunal ordered that these claims be subject to an order for combined proceedings. There being no matter for judicial consideration and determination in these cases, the cases were closed.

Receivability What is the contested decision? The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the decision to grant her a permanent appointment, as argued by the Respondent. Rather, the Applicant contested the decision not to ¡°provide her with an effective remedy¡± after having been granted a permanent appointment with retroactive effect to 30 June 2009, namely not being given employment against the permanent appointment or, in the alternative, not being granted compensation equivalent to the termination indemnity. Does the principle of ¡°res judicata¡± apply? The Applicant requests to be...

Merits: The evaluation criteria in the comparative review matrix on record, against which the suitability of job candidates was appraised, did not correspond to the mandatory and desirable/advantageous qualifications, and in light of these anomalies alone, the Respondent failed to minimally demonstrate that the Applicant received full and fair consideration. Considering that the documents on record do not include any specific analysis with supporting documentation as to how the selected male candidate¡¯s qualifications were clearly superior vis-¨¤-vis the Applicant, the Applicant has proved...

The Applicant¡¯s appeal against her own selection for the TJO is not receivable because it is time-barred under staff rule 11.2(c). As no reasonable remedy would be available for the Tribunal to rectify the situation to the relevant applicant¡¯s advantage, the appeal would only be of speculative interest. In the present case, the Applicant basically appeals against herself being selected for and appointed to a job, which is evidently an administrative decision to her advantage. Consequently, the Applicant¡¯s appeal of the decision to recruit her against the TJO is not receivable as it does not...

Preliminary matters Loss of Applicant¡¯s professional emails (potential evidence): One of the Applicant¡¯s main arguments was that allegedly exculpatory evidence in her case (emails from and to the Applicant) had been lost which affected her due process rights, thus rendering the investigation unfair and improper. The Tribunal found that the alleged email evidence was not destroyed wilfully. Rather, it was destroyed as a consequence of the negligence of a number of people. The Tribunal noted that the investigators have a very high duty to locate and preserve evidence. The investigators are also...