Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that, pursuant to the Instruction Manual, a candidate for an advertised post was entitled to be apprised of the composition of the interview panel prior to the interview. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that by pointing out that she had been previously interviewed for the post and that there were ongoing proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding her challenge to a prior selection exercise, the staff member had put the Administration on notice of the importance she attached to the panel¡¯s composition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to conduct a fresh investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP and no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that pursuant to Article 30 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant¡¯s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to supplement his answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the Appellant¡¯s comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion as timely filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Secretary-General¡¯s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had very thoroughly considered the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error of law, fact, or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s suggestion that the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of regularity should be one of preponderance of evidence, was not correct and that the rebuttal of the presumption should occur only where clear and convincing evidence establishes that an irregularity was highly probable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s version did not support an inference of corruption of the process or that he was not fully and fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Appellant met all the educational, work experience, and language requirements of the position, he failed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that accounting for factors such as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID¡¯s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate¡¯s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claim in Appellant¡¯s Appeal was not initially brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the applicable procedural requirements were followed, and the evidence did not supersede the presumption of regularity of the administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Appellant was afforded full and fair consideration and that he failed to establish any bias by the members of the panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Appellant forewent the required procedures for filing complaints of discrimination and failed to provide evidence that he was the target of the restructuring exercise or that it...

On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that the non-selection decision was tainted by procedural irregularity and bias, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the presence of two directors from the Education Department on the interview panel did not offend Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s regulatory framework. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was possible to infer reasonably from the interview panel¡¯s analysis and its sympathetic view of the Appellant that, on the probabilities, it was not prejudiced against her on the basis alleged. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was evident from the seniority of the position and the role that the incumbent of the post would be required to...