Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the first time the Appellant¡¯s claim for implementation of the sanction (an apology to the Appellant) was raised was on appeal and that it was therefore not receivable, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not barred from requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to enforce its letter of censure. On the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s order denying the Appellant¡¯s request for moral damages since there was no evidence of harm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant filed two applications which contested: (1) the decision to transfer him permanently to the Cash for Work Programme; and (2) the disciplinary measures imposed on two staff members following the outcome of the investigations into the Applicant¡¯s complaints against them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA found that the Applicant¡¯s first application had become moot to the extent that the decision to permanently transfer him had already been rescinded. On the second application, contesting the disciplinary measures imposed on two staff members, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that since the Applicant had not raised any further claim about the lack of apology, the apology was no longer an issue between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT dismissed the Applicant¡¯s contention that the disciplinary measures were disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT dismissed the applications and made no award of damages.
Legal Principle(s)
Once a disciplinary measure had been imposed on the staff member, the victim of retaliation is entitled to know whether it is commensurate in gravity with the misconduct.