Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal of both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave full consideration to the Appellant¡¯s claim that the transfer was a disguised disciplinary measure following allegations of her corporal punishment of students. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was evidence that, prior to her transfer, the Chief, Field Education Programme had dismissed these allegations as unsubstantiated and it was not until almost two months after the transfer that the Jordan Field Office authorised an investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT therefore correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both of the Appellant¡¯s cases in their judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to close the cases arising from the Appellant¡¯s complaints was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision was justified based on careful consideration of the Appellant¡¯s arguments and evidence gathered during the investigation. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the characterization of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment as a disciplinary measure tainted the process to such a significant degree that it rendered the decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant¡¯s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. The Appellant¡¯s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the evidence showed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/100, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reiterated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant¡¯s post). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the...