Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even though the Commissioner-General had mistakenly reimbursed the fine to Mr. El-Haj after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment, since the fine was subsequently reimposed, the appeal was not moot.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in order to find that a staff member¡¯s conduct was ¡°serious misconduct¡± so as to warrant a more serious sanction, the Commissioner-General had to provide reasons for this determination. In this case, the Commissioner-General provided no reasons, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that reasons were not necessary because it was manifestly obvious that the breach was serious. Pursuant to the Agency¡¯s Guidance on the Disciplinary Process and Considerations for the Imposition of a Proportionate Disciplinary Response, Mr. El-Haj¡¯s actions on Facebook did not meet the criteria for a ¡°serious¡± breach of the Agency¡¯s neutrality rules. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that Mr. El-Haj¡¯s Facebook post constituted misconduct, but not serious misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision to rescind the contested fine of two months¡¯ salary, because this amount of fine is only for serious misconduct.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2023/053, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal granted the application of Mr. El-Haj, a staff member who challenged the disciplinary measure of a fine equivalent to two months¡¯ salary, which had been imposed for an alleged violation of the Agency¡¯s neutrality rules when he shared a video on Facebook. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT considered that the Agency had not established that Mr. El-Haj¡¯s actions constituted serious misconduct under the relevant Area Personnel Directive.
The Commissioner-General appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
An administrative decision which adversely impacts on a staff member¡¯s status must be reasoned in order for the Tribunals to have the ability to perform their judicial duty to review. The harmful administrative decision must be fully and adequately motivated.