Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The issue for determination by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel of record before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in the absence of any published Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Appellant of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2015/003. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in any way when it dismissed her application finding it to be moot, an outcome which was a natural consequence of the administrative rescission of the impugned decision, circumstances that contemplated the staff member¡¯s claim and rights, solving the previous irregularity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s request to amend her application to seek compensation for material and moral damages was filed after she had received notification of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...

The Appellant did not raise any challenges as to the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment, but rather his appeal related to the procedure adopted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in hearing his complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction in the exercise of its power, such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Noting that two Orders clarified the aim of the hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no prejudice caused to the Appellant by the failure to provide him with a description of the relevance of the witnesses¡¯ testimony. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the Secretary-General¡¯s position that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIL staff members were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed restructuring from the beginning of the process, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIL National Staff Association representative participated in the discussion on the Guidelines for the comparative review process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not speculate on the chances that each of the posts might not have been abolished if there had been consultations with the National Staff Association. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the change in the composition of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, despite its Registry¡¯s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant¡¯s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s regulatory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and do...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal of Ms Salem. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural errors did not amount to an abuse of power. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that absent an abuse of power, the compensation for moral damages had to be vacated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal, rejected the cross-appeal, and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment in its entirety.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...