Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant¡¯s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration¡¯s evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not given an opportunity to call witnesses at trial and prior to that was not able to discuss with his supervisor the reason for his transfer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case when it limited the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that due process required that a staff member must know the reasons for a decision so that he or she can act on it and the complainant was left in an unfair position in terms of attempts to resolve the dispute when deprived of the opportunity to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/108 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/109 jointly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that Ms Frechon was incapable of further service, based on the findings of the Medical Board, was not tantamount to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT having stepped into the shoes of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Medical Director. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no grounds to disagree with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that Ms Frechon¡¯s contract was, in fact, terminated for medical reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedure which should have been invoked was that set out in ST/AI/1999/16. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in rescinding the decision to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no reason to disagree with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, except for the Appellant¡¯s own assertion, it found no evidence to show that he was a genuine whistle-blower. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not a case of retaliation following a report of possible misconduct, but instead a disagreement between the Appellant and management regarding work matters which was properly addressed in the context of the performance assessment process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract was not retaliatory but based on his performance rating which had been reviewed and confirmed after a rebuttal opportunity was given to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to have all appeal-related documents removed from her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA official service file. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding no irregularity in the decision-making process under judicial review and consequently dismissing the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had to persuade it that there were flaws in the contested administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, the proceedings that led to it, or in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment, which would warrant vacating the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not raised new arguments...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submissions were largely a reiteration of his arguments before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that there was no indication that the non-renewal decision or other incidents amounted to harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it concluded that the behaviours at stake, even when viewed together, did not point to any kind of prohibited conduct in the sense of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the advice given to the Appellant regarding uncertified sick leave was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegation that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appeal only addressed the award of material damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was entitled to one year¡¯s gross base salary apart from sick leave for the period of his certified illness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of twelve months¡¯ gross base salary for material damages as a result of the non-renewal was not disproportionate, taking into account his service from 2003 to 2011. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had thoroughly examined the governing principles in awarding damages and followed the jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed...

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...