Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that by the Commissioner-General had been ordered to take a new decision with respect to the staff member¡¯s request in view of the increase in his managerial and budgetary duties and responsibilities.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Commissioner-General had not been specifically ordered to upgrade his post or to grant him a special allowance; the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had deemed it to be within the discretion of the Commissioner-General to decide whether or not he should be compensated.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Commissioner-General had issued a new decision, thoroughly reviewing the staff member¡¯s duties and responsibilities and found that the increase in Mr. Loubani's managerial and budgetary duties was minimal and did not justify granting him a special allowance. In this situation, it had been erroneous of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to grant Mr. Loubani's motion for execution of its earlier judgment, because the latter judgment had already been properly executed.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erreonously found that the Commissioner-General had engaged in abuse of process and there should have been no award of costs against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and reversed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2022/030.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member filed an application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT for execution of its prior judgment.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2022/030, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT ordered the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to execute the prior judgment by upgrading the staff member¡¯s post or granting him an appropriate special allowance, and to pay him costs for manifestly abusing the proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that, in the prior judgment, it had held that he should be compensated in view of a ¡°remarkable increase¡± in his responsibilities, and his new post description included new responsibilities. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT noted that it could reasonably only have been understood that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA was to take a new decision upgrading his post or granting him an appropriate special allowance.
Legal Principle(s)
It is within the discretion of the Agency to decide whether a staff member should be compensated for additional job duties; the Tribunal may only give guidance with regard to the circumstances that the Agency should consider when taking a new decision.