Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
At the outset, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s sole challenge on appeal concerned the lawfulness of the sanction imposed on her, which merely repeated contentions she had already raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. For example, she argued that the imposition of fines was inconsistent with human rights and ILO directives on receiving pay for work delivered. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not expressly address this argument, it had no chance of success, as the applicable legal framework explicitly lists fines as one of the possible sanctions that may be imposed on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff members.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/041.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT: A School Principal of the Jerusalem Preparatory Boys School contested the decision of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA or Agency) to impose on her the disciplinary measures of: i) written censure; ii) fine equivalent to two months of her salary; and iii) deferment, for one year, of eligibility for promotion.These disciplinary measures were imposed for negligence, failure to report, and attempts to cover up an incident in which a teacher allegedly threw a water bottle at a student.
In its Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/041, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT dismissed the staff member¡¯s application and concluded that the contested decision was lawful.
Staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The role of the Appeals Tribunal is not to hear cases de novo, but rather to examine whether the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, erred in law, erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, or erred in procedure, such as to affect the outcome of the case.
The appeals process is of a corrective nature, and it is the burden of the dissatisfied party to demonstrate in what respect and for what reasons the impugned judgment was defective.
Neither the Dispute Tribunal nor the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is a constitutional court. Their limited jurisdiction empowers them to review individual administrative decisions that are alleged to be non-compliant with pertinent ¡°terms of appointment¡± and ¡°contract of employment¡±, which include ¡°all pertinent regulations and rules¡±. However, neither Tribunal is vested with the authority to examine whether the Staff Regulations and Rules themselves are inconsistent with higher norms or to strike them down.