�鶹��ý

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...