Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

Regarding the non-selection for the Programme Budget Officer post, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the impropriety in the decision making. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had also failed to put forward any specific evidence substantiating her claim of discrimination, bias, and retaliation to warrant a reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings. Regarding the cancellation of the Administrative Officer post, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had provided sufficient evidence to show that the cancellation of the post was based on Organisational and budgetary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member¡¯s conversion to permanent appointment did not give Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-416. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not open to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to make findings on the specific category of misconduct and that she did not receive notice of the specific charge of theft prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that disciplinary cases were not criminal and that there was no need to give notice of a specific charge of theft because the charge against the Appellant was taking, without authorisation, a staff member¡¯s property. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant did not dispute having taken a bicycle without the owner¡¯s permission, but that she claimed she did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding regarding the application of ST/AI/2002/3, namely that as the provisions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Separation Policy contravened the ones in ST/AI/2002/3, the latter should apply, was an error of law and fact as ST/AI/2002/3 was not applicable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the timing of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s permanent contract for unsatisfactory service meant that a new procedure should have been initiated based on the new period of reference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be unreasonable to require the Administration to restart the termination...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the five years¡¯ experience requirement was arbitrary and not based on any proper consideration, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent any proper legal or factual basis upon which to impugn the five years¡¯ experience requirement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no function in substituting its judgment for that of the Administration in determining the criteria for the selection of S-3 officers, and in doing so, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deeming the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence against the Appellant uncovered by the investigation was so overwhelming that the only reasonable conclusion available to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Noting that the evidence that he was in possession of the stolen card and that he used it to refuel his own private vehicle was not contested by the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his explanation of how he came into possession of the stolen card and how he came to use it was incapable of belief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the established facts amounted to serious...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey¡¯s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

On the Appellants¡¯ request for an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants¡¯ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the definition of...