Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding...

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

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant¡¯s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to differ from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no room for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to substitute its decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency¡¯s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rightly rejected the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant¡¯s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as...