Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had merely made unsubstantiated general claims about having the requisite skills and experience for his post to be retained.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that, as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held, the staff member had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of regularity that arose from the minimal showing of a rational basis for the decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the record confirmed that there was a genuine restructuring that led to the retrenchment of 29 staff members.

The record...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant¡¯s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant. Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal. It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant has failed to discharge her burden and has not demonstrated that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any of the errors outlined in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. It concluded that the Appellant relitigated arguments that failed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal and expressed her general disagreement with the impugned Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision was a valid and lawful exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. It found that the Agency reviewed and considered the Appellant¡¯s request for telecommuting in accordance with the legal framework, i.e. Area...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed Mr. Okwakol¡¯s appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order, finding that Mr. Okwakol¡¯s complaints about what the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided it would admit into evidence and what submissions it would consider in deciding his substantive case, were remediable as part of his appeal on the merits if they were wrongly decided.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to admit the audio-recording made by the SEA victim because this evidentiary material was relied upon by the Administration in taking the decision to impose the disciplinary measure of separation from service. The audio-recording needed to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that by the Commissioner-General had been ordered to take a new decision with respect to the staff member¡¯s request in view of the increase in his managerial and budgetary duties and responsibilities.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Commissioner-General had not been specifically ordered to upgrade his post or to grant him a special allowance; the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had deemed it to be within the discretion of the Commissioner-General to decide whether or not he should be compensated.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration¡¯s decision not to set up a fact-finding investigation panel against Mr. Yavuz¡¯s FRO and SRO was lawful, as the incidents described in Mr. Yavuz¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds they had engaged in prohibited conduct (harassment, abuse of authority) but fell in the realm of workplace disagreements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Yavuz did not show that the incidents mentioned in his complaint with regard to the conduct of his FRO and SRO were in any way motivated by any of the characteristics or traits (or similar) listed in Section 1...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately. It found that in this way, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT on 12 August 2022. Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was problematic because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed as not receivable Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order denying his motion to strike an audio-recording and certain pleadings submitted by the Secretary-General. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that these matters could be addressed in Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the judgment on the merits of his application.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly admitted the audio-recording of the meeting between the alleged victim, Mr. Loto and others, as the recording assisted in resolving any evidential conflict about what transpired at this meeting, in which payment to the victim was discussed...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its determination.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that in accordance with the Area Staff Rules, which provided for the application of the last published interest rate up to and including the month immediately preceding payment to the calculation of a staff member¡¯s Provident Fund benefits. Given that the staff member made his request on 23 December 2020, the applicable legal instrument in the present case was PFS/19/2020 issued on 12 December 2020, and not PFS/20/2020 issued on 13 January 2021 as...