Â鶹APP

The issue in this case is whether EG and SEG consist of two independent benefits that can be granted in combination.

Pursuant to sec. 6.1(a) of ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1, the overall maximum amount of SEG shall be equal to the upper limit of the top bracket of the global sliding scale applicable to the education grant scheme. The law does not allow an interpretation where EG and SEG can be ¡°stacked¡±.

Indeed, the difference between EG and SEG is in the percentages of reimbursement that eligible staff members are entitled to receive. This difference in reimbursement percentage addresses the...

Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal

The general verbal statement made by the CITO/ASG did not constitute an express promise to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. It lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. The jurisprudence further requires a promise to renew a fixed-term appointment to be in writing.

There is no evidence of a firm commitment to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. While the Applicant sought to rely on the CITO/ASG¡¯s verbal statements in March...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. He argued that the Dispute Tribunal may only issue an Order for execution under art. 12.4 of its Statute where a judgment required a time limit for execution and such execution had not been carried out.

The Tribunal considered that while Judgment Applicant UNDT/2022/055 did not provide for its execution within a certain period of time, it was reasonable to infer that in the absence of an appeal, said judgment should have been executed within a reasonable time, after the expiry of the 60-day time limit to file an...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application.

The Tribunal noted that the application filed on 2 March 2022 via email was essentially the same as that filed on 16 April 2022 via the eFiling portal. Consequently, in line with Practice Direction No. 4, para. 11, the Tribunal found that the present application was receivable.

Merits

In the present case, this Tribunal examined the following issues:

a. Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established according to the applicable standard.

The Tribunal examined the evidence on...

To determine the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a. Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant¡¯s records for the performance cycles of 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021. The Applicant received a rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 cycles and a rating of ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± for the 2020-2021 cycle.

The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant¡¯s performance evaluations...

Rescission and in lieu compensation under art. 10.5(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute

Considering that the evidence provided by the Respondent showed that the duration of most of the former renewals of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment including the last regular renewal was for a duration of one year and that there is no expectation of renewal for a fixed-term appointment, the Tribunal determined that the amount of in lieu compensation must be equal to one year¡¯s net base salary.

Compensation for harm under art. 10.5(b) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute

The Tribunal reviewed the...

The Applicant claims that several events of prohibited conduct occurred between 2018 and 2022 affecting him. However, he did not follow the procedural path under Bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) and ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) for the handling of formal reports of prohibited conduct and the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into such allegations.

There is no evidence that the Applicant ever...

The Tribunal decided on its own initiative and in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, to adjudicate the present application by way of summary judgement.

The Tribunal noted that in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The Applicant filed her application on 5 March 2023 indicating that the contested decision was made in October 1995, that is, more than 27 years earlier. Consequently...

In determining the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a) Whether the Applicant's performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant¡¯s records for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 performance cycles.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and noted that during the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was advised on multiple occasions to improve his work ethic and productivity. At the end of the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was assessed as...

The challenge against the decision to place the Applicant on a PIP and the outcome of the review of MEU of the contested decisions is not receivable.

The Administration failed to respect the procedural standards expected from the Â鶹APP in proceedings leading to the imposition of a written reprimand. The above-mentioned deficiencies raise doubts about the appearance of impartiality of the investigation and the decision-making process and are thus sufficient to taint the contested decision. Accordingly, the Administration¡¯s decision to issue to the Applicant a written reprimand and...