Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-416. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not open to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no reasonable or objective analysis of Mr Luvai¡¯s submissions to management, prior to his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, regarding his non-selection for the posts could lead to a conclusion that the revocation of his firearm licence was sufficiently linked to the non-selection decisions such as to deem the matter as receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in fact and law in deciding otherwise and that, in purporting to adjudicate on the revocation of Mr Luvai¡¯s firearm licence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed both appeals by the Secretary-General in judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-418. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law when it accepted one of the possible reasonable interpretations of Staff Rule 5.3(e) and decided that the SLWOP did not affect the continuous duration of the staff member¡¯s appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the assertions made by the Secretary-General, the staff member had in fact an expectation of being granted a permanent appointment and that the evidence had been produced at the special hearing on 4 March 2013. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to identify an administrative decision, having a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights, capable of being reviewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not challenging a specific administrative but had asked Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to overturn a policy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that V01 had not been placed under oath before giving her interview and that she did not sign the transcribed version of her interview statement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that V01¡¯s transcribed statement, in which she said that the Appellant had raped her and engaged in sex with her, was neither reliable nor trustworthy; it was solely hearsay and insufficient, by itself, to prove the charge that the Appellant engaged in sexual activity with a minor. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that similarly the other written documents were replete with hearsay and multiple hearsays and were neither trustworthy nor sufficient to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to interfere with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed and to meet his statutory burden of proving non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion, that the assault committed was not misconduct and that the Organisation¡¯s jurisdictional competence did not extend to the physical assault of a non-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member even where the assault is perpetrated by a staff member, was based on reasoning which was unsupported by law or the facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, not only the issue had not been raised in the case presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, but such a proposition had also no foundation in the staff regulations, staff rules, administrative instructions, or jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to make findings on the specific category of misconduct and that she did not receive notice of the specific charge of theft prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that disciplinary cases were not criminal and that there was no need to give notice of a specific charge of theft because the charge against the Appellant was taking, without authorisation, a staff member¡¯s property. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant did not dispute having taken a bicycle without the owner¡¯s permission, but that she claimed she did not...