Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.