Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct. Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that ATR¡¯s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s actions did not constitute misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it had been established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the staff member had failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which concerned another staff member under investigation for misrepresenting his place of accommodation.

It found that the staff member had deliberately withheld information and provided generic, vague, and misleading responses during his initial OIOS interview regarding the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor ¡°de facto entitlement¡± to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly exercised its discretion in excluding the former staff member¡¯s allegations of racism within the CAF and his claim that his counsel was treated unfairly during the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing, as well as in denying his request to call the investigator to testify. Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the facts underlying the alleged misconduct had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, particularly in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Regarding V01¡¯s allegations, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly explained away...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the contested decision was lawful. It concluded that the preliminary assessment of the former staff member¡¯s complaint revealed no sufficient grounds to indicate that his FRO¡¯s alleged unsatisfactory conduct could amount to misconduct, and, as a result, there was no likelihood that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified the decision subject to judicial review and properly considered and rejected, as a preliminary matter, Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s misconduct was established and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate under the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that fraud and collusive practices are considered areas of high concern and that misconduct committed by a person in a position of trust, such as a member of the Provident Fund Loans Committee, warrants a severe sanction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the Administration lawfully imposed the disciplinary measure of demotion by one grade with deferment for three years of promotion eligibility and gender?sensitivity training. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the governing legal framework, including Staff Rule 1.2(f) and ST/SGB/2008/5, in determining that the staff member¡¯s conduct, an inappropriate remark referencing nudity and a stroking gesture, physical intimidation of a colleague, and leering at female staff, constituted sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

The...