Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claim was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that (1) the Commissioner-General has broad discretionary authority in disciplinary matters; (2) the facts on which the Appellant¡¯s termination was based were established; (3) the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct; and (4) there was no substantive or procedural irregularity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant¡¯s termination was legal and not disproportionate to the offenses. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA decision.
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 noted that the Appellant was asked to present updated medical information to support her request for a review of her case and failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no prejudice existed against the Appellant, since she had an opportunity to present updated medical evidence within the scope of the review of her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Standing Committee decision.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB¡¯s decision denying the staff member¡¯s request for restoration of her first participation period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the amended Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s Regulations only allowed for restoration of a participant¡¯s most recent period of contributory service and that the staff member had requested restoration of a participation period which was not the most recent one.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...
