±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant¡¯s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s exercise...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in declining the Appellant¡¯s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment could not be assessed as hasty, premature, or arbitrary, with particular reference to the Medical Board process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any opportunity of the Appellant¡¯s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion in consolidating the cases lawfully and appropriately. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the impugned decision was taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew certain fixed-term appointments on a full-time basis but to reclassify them to part-time appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants¡¯ claim that their acquired rights were violated was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion to consolidate the cases lawfully and appropriately. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational to abolish the posts and reclassify them from full-time to part-time posts at that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants¡¯ contention that their acquired rights were violated had no merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, although no performance evaluation process was legally required for termination, an appropriate procedure should have been followed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA failed to indicate that the contract would be terminated before its expiration date if the staff member did not improve his performance, and the lack of fair warning rendered the decision to terminate unlawfully. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal in part, rescinded the termination decision, and ordered reinstatement, with an in-lieu compensation of two months¡¯ net base salary.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s role to review...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT acknowledged that the imposed disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity is one of the most severe disciplinary measures that the Agency can impose on a staff member. Nevertheless, it decided that, given the Appellant¡¯s misconduct in committing corporal punishment to a disabled and highly vulnerable child, and the Agency¡¯s clear zero-tolerance policy towards corporal punishment, the disciplinary measure imposed on the Appellant appeared to be neither absurd nor arbitrary; nor was there any evidence that the measure taken had been tainted by...