Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 2.1(b)

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 1 - 5 of 5
    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1481, Asmaa Abdullah Nassir Al-Timimi

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not meet the burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective, instead merely arguing that the decision was not fair. On the contrary, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in not renewing her fixed-term appointment, the Administration acted lawfully and fairly.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Administration¡¯s decision was part of a genuine restructuring which involved, among other measures, reprioritizing existing resources through reassignment, redeployment, and reclassification of staff, including the redeployment of the former staff member¡¯s position from...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1370, AAC

    After requesting additional findings of fact from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found problematic the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1340, Mubashara Iram

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in holding that there had been clear and convincing evidence that the staff member harassed other staff members over a substantial period of time, and that this behaviour constituted serious misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the seven allegations that Ms. Iram used abusive language, made insulting remarks, shouted and bullied individuals, engaged in inappropriate touching, and made unwelcome contacts with individuals at their homes after working hours. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s due...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-579, Achkar

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT inferred that the Appellant claimed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the legal conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1036, Mansour

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in declining the Appellant¡¯s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment could not be assessed as hasty, premature, or arbitrary, with particular reference to the Medical Board process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any opportunity of the Appellant¡¯s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...