Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

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...

The Appeals Tribunal analyzed the text of Appendix D, from the 1966 version, and concluded that: (a) widows are eligible to receive compensation at a rate of two-fifths of a deceased staff member¡¯s annual salary; (b) if the deceased staff member is survived by more than one widow, the compensation shall be split evenly between the widows; (c) all pension benefits paid through the staff member¡¯s Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF entitlement shall be deducted from the compensation paid under Appendix D; and the deduction shall not reduce the amount of Appendix D compensation otherwise payable to less than 10 per cent of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests ¡°to clarify¡± the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ABD¡¯s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order¡¯s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred by failing to grant the remedy under Article 10(5)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute after it had found that the disciplinary decision was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by refusing to rescind the contested decision on the grounds that the staff member had abused the judicial process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for determination of the appropriate remedy.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the former staff member had manifestly abused the judicial process by filing forged documents before that Tribunal. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressed serious concern about the lack of a sufficient record of reasons supporting the choice of the selected candidate over the staff member at the time of the contested decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that gender and geographical considerations were unevenly applied in the selection exercise, positively assessing the British male while ignoring or discounting that the staff member was an Indian female. Contrary to Staff Regulation 4.4, in which the fullest regard should be given to internal candidates, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ experience was used to disadvantage her. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant had engaged in abuse of authority by intimidating a staff member to file a false complaint of sexual harassment against another staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT weighed the conflicting testimonies and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that she had a motive to solicit the false complaint.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly assessed the Agency¡¯s application of the experience level requirements applicable to the Appellants. Specifically, regarding the teachers contesting their classification at Grade 9, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s review of the Area Staff Post Description, which required five years of teaching experience at Grade 9 for classification at Grade 10.As the Appellants classified at Grade 9 did not meet this requirement, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly concluded that they were appropriately classified at Grade 9.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further...