Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was an error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s methodology of fixing...

The Commissioner-General appealed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that insofar as the Agency's decision of 25 April 2019 rejecting the request for an SPOA might not have been unequivocal, that decision was reiterated in the e-mail of 17 June 2019 leaving no doubt that the Agency had decided then to pay Ms. Abou Salah an SPOA of 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent, possibly in breach of her contract. The fact that other persons subsequently sought to intervene on her behalf did not change that.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Abou Salah¡¯s subsequent correspondence, as well as correspondence written on her behalf...

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding...