Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the JAB¡¯s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant¡¯s failure to report to work and holding of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed. First, the Tribunal reasoned that the JAB did not engage in a critical analysis of the facts of the case and did not apply the law to the facts in order to ascertain whether the exercise of discretion was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the JAB Decision was arbitrary and did not meet the minimum requirements of providing a reasoned analysis. Second, on the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Administration did not notify the staff member of his shortcomings in sufficient time. Neither did It provide the staff member with explicit measures against which his performance would be evaluated. Third...