Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the factors that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT considered as warranting exceptional compensation, were indeed exceptional, either individually or collectively. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s permanent staff status, his long service, his difficulties in finding subsequent employment, his status as a refugee, the unproven nature of the sexual harassment allegations, and the delays in his case, were not the type of circumstances that would warrant an exceptional compensation award. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in awarding in-lieu compensation above the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in consolidating the seven cases. The consolidated cases involved unique administrative decisions, and those decisions involved neither a common administrative policy nor a common set of facts. The nature of the misconduct attributed to the staff members was not similar among the cases. The cases concerned staff from different Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA field offices. The disciplinary measures taken were not identical among the cases, but included a wide range of penalties. The standards of proof for the misconduct alleged in case varied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was evident from a perusal of the appeal brief that Mr. Hammad did not argue that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error of fact or law. He merely presented the same arguments that he had already made in his application for revision before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and failed to demonstrate how the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal should be regarded as timely because the initial submission in Arabic was received within the prescribed time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the fact-finding committee acted in an objective and responsible manner in conducting its investigation and assessing the charges. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting a finding of misconduct, which was not successfully rebutted by the Appellant, which alone was a sufficient basis for the impugned decision. Given the established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB¡¯s recommendation not to accept the Appellant¡¯s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant¡¯s services were unsatisfactory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to terminate the staff member for misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized the fact that the staff member, as a guard, held a position of trust that he had failed to respect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that where termination of service is connected to any type of investigation of a staff member¡¯s possible misconduct, it must be reviewed as a disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the imposed sanction of separation was not disproportionate to the offense. Related judgments: 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-018 (Mahdi)

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both the ASC and APD bestow discretion on the Agency to pay an AAA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the two instruments, the ASC and the APD, were easily reconcilable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ASC deals with the specific situation where an Area staff member acts in an International professional post, while the ADP deals with all other cases of acting appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no manifest intention or inevitable construction that the Agency intended to abrogate the specific policy in the ASC. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in its finding that the ASC had not been implicitly abrogated...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...