Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

At the outset, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s sole challenge on appeal concerned the lawfulness of the sanction imposed on her, which merely repeated contentions she had already raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. For example, she argued that the imposition of fines was inconsistent with human rights and ILO directives on receiving pay for work delivered. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not expressly address this argument, it had no chance of success, as the applicable legal framework explicitly lists fines as one of the possible sanctions that may be imposed on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff...

The staff member who was on a roster of suitable candidates for the Senior Service Desk Officer (SSDO) post was informed that the SSDO post was reclassified to the IT Service Delivery Officer (ISDO) post and the job description had changed to the degree that his membership in the SSDO roster was not applicable to the ISDO post. He expressed interest in applying for the ISDO post but did not apply.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member was not the incumbent of the SSDO post at the time of reclassification. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reclassification of the SSDO post to the ISDO post had not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law and in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it failed to properly consider Section 66 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Personnel Directive No. PD/A/4/Part II/Rev. 7/Section I, which is geared toward ensuring gender balance, and when it took the irrelevant consideration of the recommendation of the third candidate into account, leading it to erroneously set Ms. Al Dawoud¡¯s chances for selection at 50 per cent instead of 100 per cent. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Section 66 expresses a preference for selection of candidates who are in the under-represented...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether it had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against interlocutory orders of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal, whether the impugned orders fell within the narrow exceptional category of appealable interlocutory decisions, and whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its powers in issuing the contested directions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that its role is not to intervene in case?management matters, but to determine whether an interlocutory order is exceptionally appealable because it is ultra vires, dispositive of an...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.

Similarly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that the decision to close the investigation into the former staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful.It found that the account of the incident in which B allegedly rubbed against her presented an equivocal case of sexual harassment, and that it was therefore open to the investigator and to the decision-maker to conclude that the case was of insufficient strength to pursue against B.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the two other incidents invoked by the former staff member ¨C B allegedly walking to her side in a corridor and offering her to drink...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/001.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...