Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and considered his grounds of appeal. With respect to the claimed errors of procedure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s arguments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that the Appellant suffered prejudice by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT admitting the Commissioner-General¡¯s late reply, failing to translate the reply into Arabic, failing to lift the confidentiality order, or by failing to hold an oral hearing. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the Appellant had an unhealthy working relationship with other colleagues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant¡¯s allegation of bias was not substantiated, yet it found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law and made a manifest error of fact in determining that the transfer was free of infirmity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the pre-judgment, concerning the Appellant¡¯s future performance as a teacher, was a breach of his terms and conditions of employment sufficient, in and of itself, to merit an award of moral damages. Conversely, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not adduce evidence of financial loss before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and dismissed his appeal in that regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal in part, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment in part and awarded the Appellant compensation in the amount of three months¡¯ net base salary.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to transfer him to another school. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that this decision was not a disciplinary measure, rather it was made in the interest of the agency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT also held that the Applicant failed to prove his claim that he suffered stress or incurred financial expense as a result of his transfer such as would merit an award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
Left deliberately blank