Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found no fault in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment be vacated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and upheld its findings that the Agency was entitled, under the provisions of paragraph 2 of FTI 01/2016, to fill the concerned post by means of a lateral transfer of current staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with, and upheld, the ruling that it was not within the remit of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to pronounce on the exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion in deciding on the lateral transfers unless there is evidence that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or unlawfully. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the consolidated applications. With respect to the first issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant had failed to establish that the decision not to confirm his appointment as TDSE Advisor and to transfer him to his previous post was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to examine the relevant facts and to apply legal and regulatory provisions to his performance evaluations during his probationary period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also noted that the review of the Appellant¡¯s performance assessments...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the first time the Appellant¡¯s claim for implementation of the sanction (an apology to the Appellant) was raised was on appeal and that it was therefore not receivable, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not barred from requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to enforce its letter of censure. On the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s order denying the Appellant¡¯s request for moral damages since there was no evidence of harm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/070 by the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error when it concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had failed to consider the Applicant¡¯s personal and humanitarian reasons in the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that relevant matters (personal and humanitarian reasons) had been ignored in the exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made several findings on the appeal. First, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it did not hold a case management or substantive hearing on the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the first instance Judge is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the administrative action was not a disguised disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the USG had the authority to transfer the appellant to a different unit to address a political situation. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the abolition of post was not a reviewable administrative decision. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ruled there was no evidence of improper motives regarding the non-renewal of the staff member¡¯s appointment. The staff member¡¯s main contention on appeal was that his post should have been subject to a Comparative Review Process (CRP) instead of being identified as a ¡°dry cut.¡± A ¡°dry cut¡± happens when a post is unique and can therefore be abolished without a comparative review. The staff member claims his post should have undergone a CRP because there were other P-5 political...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the staff member that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Regarding Contested Decision #1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed and found the evidence on the record supports the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the administrative action was lawful and rational in furtherance of the operational needs of the Organization. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclusion that the administrative decision was not tainted by improper motives, and that the staff member had failed to meet her burden of proof of proving otherwise. Finally, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclusion that the additional commute of 17 km was not overly onerous, yielding to a disproportionate measure by the Administration.