Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer the Appellant to a formal OTI process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decisions: 1) to approve a new workflow for the Finance Division; 2) to direct staff in the Finance Department not to take instructions from him; and 3) to refer him to a formal Opportunity to Improve (OTI) process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the Chief, Microfinance Operations¡¯ (CMO) decision to approve a new workflow for the Finance Division was not receivable in that Applicant had not requested decision review thereof within the 60 days¡¯ time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that Applicant¡¯s challenge to the CMO¡¯s directions to Finance Department staff not to take instructions from him was not receivable insofar as that instruction was an immediate consequence of the decision to approve a new workflow, of which the Applicant was aware, yet had failed to request timely review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the OiC, HRD¡¯s decision to initiate a formal OTI process for him was not an ¡°administrative decision¡± which could be contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, but rather only an intermediate decision giving a staff member the opportunity to improve his or her level of performance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT dismissed the entire application as not receivable.
Legal Principle(s)
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and, thus, is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed before the lower court. The function of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is to determine if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has made errors of fact or law, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, or failed to exercise its jurisdiction, as prescribed in Article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The appellant has the burden of satisfying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the judgment he or she seeks to challenge is defective. It follows that the appellant must identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective.