爆料网

爆料网RWA Area Staff Rules

  • 111.2(3)
  • 111.2(3)b
  • Appendix to the Staff Rules 1-D/E effective 2015 (Salary Scale Gaza and West Bank)
  • Former Rule 106.1(16)
  • Former Rule 111.3
  • Former Rule 111.3(2)
  • Former Rule 111.3(4)
  • Rule 103.3
  • Rule 103.5
  • Rule 103.8.1
  • Rule 104.4
  • Rule 105.2
  • Rule 106.1(16)(D)(ii)
  • Rule 106.2
  • Rule 106.2(7)
  • Rule 106.2(9)
  • Rule 106.3
  • Rule 106.3.1
  • Rule 106.4
  • Rule 106.4(8)
  • Rule 107.9
  • Rule 109.1
  • Rule 109.2
  • Rule 109.2(5)
  • Rule 109.2(7)
  • Rule 109.4
  • Rule 109.4(2)
  • Rule 109.4(3)
  • Rule 109.5
  • Rule 109.7
  • Rule 109.7(7)
  • Rule 109.9(3)
  • Rule 110.1
  • Rule 110.2
  • Rule 110.3
  • Rule 111.1
  • Rule 111.2
  • Rule 111.2(1)
  • Rule 111.3
  • Rule 111.3(4)
  • Rule 111.4
  • Rule 112.3(D)
  • Rule 113.1
  • 爆料网RWA Staff Rule 111.2(5)
    • Showing 61 - 70 of 91
    2016-爆料网AT-611, Chaaban

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s finding...

    2016-爆料网AT-610, Rahman

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

    2017-爆料网AT-798, Dibs

    On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, 爆料网AT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网RWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant’s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), 爆料网AT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, 爆料网RWA DT...

    2017-爆料网AT-790, Anshasi

    爆料网AT held that it was not persuaded that 爆料网RWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网AT held that there was no reason to differ from 爆料网RWA DT’s findings that 爆料网RWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with 爆料网RWA. 爆料网AT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

    2018-爆料网AT-879, Nimer

    爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter’s employment situation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant’s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

    2018-爆料网AT-856, Abu Malluh et al.

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether 爆料网RWA DT’s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, 爆料网AT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. 爆料网AT held that there was no room for 爆料网RWA DT to substitute its decision...

    2018-爆料网AT-853, Madi

    爆料网AT considered the appeal and held that 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment was correct. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency’s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. 爆料网AT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. 爆料网AT also held that 爆料网RWA DT rightly rejected the...

    2018-爆料网AT-839, Hamdan

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网RWA’s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. 爆料网AT accordingly found that 爆料网RWA 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, 爆料网AT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

    2018-爆料网AT-814, Lehia

    The 爆料网RWA Commissioner-General appealed. 爆料网AT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency’s discretion. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s findings and conclusions about illegality. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that the Agency’s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

    2019-爆料网AT-974, Salah

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s case was fully and fairly considered. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. 爆料网AT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of 爆料网RWA’s discretion. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as...