Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that Mr. Qasem's application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT challenging the decision to place him on administrative leave with pay was filed untimely and was therefore not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, his application contesting the decision to conduct various investigations of him was not receivable ratione materiae in the absence of a request for decision review.

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...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff members. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters¡¯ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellants that there is no Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that the decision-maker had not exercised his discretionary power properly, in that the Agency had unlawfully paid Ms. Jarallah an SPOA of 25 per cent instead of an SOA of 35 per cent which was stipulated in her contract of employment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that a valid and binding contract of employment existed between Ms. Jarallah and the Agency. An integral part of Ms. Jarallah's letter of appointment was the Job Description contained in the vacancy announcement with a reference to the 35...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dahoud.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the disability benefit paid to Mr. Dahoud in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.7(1) was different from the termination indemnity paid to certain staff members in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.9.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that despite the Medical Board's conclusion that he had an 8 per cent permanent impairment, this does not necessarily lead to a finding of permanent and total disability, as required by Area Staff Rule 109.7(7), so as to receive the supplemental benefit. Nor does this medical...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2022/022.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT shared the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided that mistakes in the way the summary dismissal decision was communicated to the appellant did not affect the fact that the real decision had ultimately been taken by the competent person in the Commissioner-General and not by any delegated authority.

It was undisputed that Mr. Mohammad was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence produced against him after the re-opening of the investigation (two interviews of student B¡¯s mother and student B). However, neither in his appeal nor in his initial application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did he point out any...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its determination.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that in accordance with the Area Staff Rules, which provided for the application of the last published interest rate up to and including the month immediately preceding payment to the calculation of a staff member¡¯s Provident Fund benefits. Given that the staff member made his request on 23 December 2020, the applicable legal instrument in the present case was PFS/19/2020 issued on 12 December 2020, and not PFS/20/2020 issued on 13 January 2021 as...