Â鶹APP

The Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal was fair and supported by the facts in evidence. The Administration was justified in deciding not to extend the Applicant¡¯s temporary appointment for poor performance. There was no justification to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond the maximum 364 days. The Applicant filed a complaint of harassment after she had received the request for management evaluation. She was therefore not able to show a link between her complaint and the decision not to renew her appointment given that the decision occurred months before the filing of the complaint. There...

Under Sanwidi, it is not for the Tribunal to review the wisdom of the USG/DGACM¡¯s decision among other all viable options, but rather to assess the legality by which the decision was reached. In the given circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the decision to transfer the Applicant was not ¡°arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or extraneous factors¡± with reference to Chemingui, or that ¡°relevant matters [were] ignored and irrelevant matters considered¡± or the decision was ¡°absurd or perverse¡± as per Sanwidi. By itself, the Tribunal therefore finds no issue in the transfer decision...

It follows from the case record that the reasons for rejecting the Applicant¡¯s return-to-work plan on 13 May 2019 were only presented to the Applicant in the Respondent¡¯s reply submitted by Counsel for the Respondent. This was evidently a procedural error. The scope of this irregularity was exacerbated by the statutory requirement of sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3, which demands ¡°the manager ¡­ to establish that the requested accommodations represent a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace¡± (italics added). The Applicant¡¯s manager was not Counsel for the Respondent before the Dispute...

At the time of the management evaluation, the contested decision had not been implemented and, therefore, had not had any impact on the Applicants¡¯ terms of employment. The contested administrative decision did not, therefore, constitute a reviewable administrative decision.

A very basic tenet of due process in a disciplinary case is that each of the relevant facts and allegations of misconduct must be presented to the accused person in such manner that s/he can easily understand them and is thereby afforded a fair and just opportunity to defend herself/himself. If not, the Administration cannot subsequently sanction a staff member against the backdrop of any such fact and/or allegation (in line herewith, see ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process), in particular para. 8.3). Further, this is a matter of access to justice...