Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to terminate the staff member for misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized the fact that the staff member, as a guard, held a position of trust that he had failed to respect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that where termination of service is connected to any type of investigation of a staff member¡¯s possible misconduct, it must be reviewed as a disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the imposed sanction of separation was not disproportionate to the offense. Related judgments: 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-018 (Mahdi)

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was a procedural error to allow the Commissioner-General to participate in the proceedings and to file a late reply without a written order, but that the Appellant was not prejudiced by that error and the error did not violate his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s failure to object to the Respondent¡¯s late reply before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not prevent him from raising on appeal the question of procedural error. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it did not permit him to file a rejoinder to the Respondent¡¯s reply, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s exercise...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although no performance evaluation process was legally required for termination, an appropriate procedure should have been followed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA failed to indicate that the contract would be terminated before its expiration date if the staff member did not improve his performance, and the lack of fair warning rendered the decision to terminate unlawfully. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part, rescinded the termination decision, and ordered reinstatement, with an in-lieu compensation of two months¡¯ net base salary.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT acknowledged that the imposed disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity is one of the most severe disciplinary measures that the Agency can impose on a staff member. Nevertheless, it decided that, given the Appellant¡¯s misconduct in committing corporal punishment to a disabled and highly vulnerable child, and the Agency¡¯s clear zero-tolerance policy towards corporal punishment, the disciplinary measure imposed on the Appellant appeared to be neither absurd nor arbitrary; nor was there any evidence that the measure taken had been tainted by...