The Tribunal held that the Applicants had produced no evidence to support the premise that heterosexual couples would be awarded more days of leave than same-sex couples. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the claim of unequal treatment had not been proven by the Applicants. Accordingly, the application was denied.
The Applicant was required to submit his application in 90 days. When counting from 12 October 2022, the period ended on 9 January 2023. The Applicant submitted his application on 10 January 2023. In the circumstances the application was deemed not receivable ratione temporis.
The application was dismissed.
The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.
The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.
The Applicant in this case did not request a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.
The Tribunal found that it was not unreasonable nor unlawful to require the Applicant to work from the office for two days per week. The Administration, therefore, properly exercised its discretion in declining the Applicant’s request to work from home for the entire work week. The Tribunal took note that the Applicant had been able to work remotely on a full-time basis from March 2020 to December 2022 and that there was an operational need for the Applicant to return to work. The Director reasonably, weighed this operational fact against allowing the Applicant to telecommute for the entire...
The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member’s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.
Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff...
The record demonstrated that the Applicant refused to complete her supervisees’ performance evaluation and delayed the contract extension process. The Applicant refused to perform key managerial functions.
While it may be true that she was not given an opportunity to explain her actions, the remedies under section 10.1 ST/AI/2010/5 are only aimed at rectifying performance short comings and are not punitive. It was therefore not necessary to conduct some form of investigation in which a staff member would be required to explain her actions.
While the Applicant had a duty and a right to...
