Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB not to submit the staff member¡¯s appeal to the Standing Committee contravened his rights under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations by depriving him of access to the appeals process and was a serious violation of his due process rights. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisdiction was limited to hearing appeals of decisions of the Standing Committee and that the staff member¡¯s case had not been reviewed by the Standing Committee, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and remanded it to the Standing Committee.

The issue for determination by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel of record before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in the absence of any published Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, despite its Registry¡¯s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant¡¯s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s regulatory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-297. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that his non-renewal was a disguised disciplinary measure and that thus, management evaluation was not required, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the argument had no merit and that the Appellant could not evade the statutory obligation of management evaluation by characterising the dispute decision as a disciplinary matter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of law...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the staff member¡¯s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...