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 71 - 80 of 91
    2019-爆料网AT-960, Abdeljalil

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s case was fully and fairly considered by 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT found no error of law in 爆料网RWA DT’s decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. 爆料网AT held that the non-extension of the limited duration contract was a result of the elimination of her post due to a lack of funds, which constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her appointment. 爆料网AT held that, by applying objective criteria in the reduction of the staffing levels, 爆料网RWA adhered to the principles of equality...

    2019-爆料网AT-942, El Shaer

    爆料网AT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member’s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, 爆料网AT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, 爆料网AT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, 爆料网AT held...

    2019-爆料网AT-911, El-Arqan

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT committed an error of fact in stating that the OPT Allowance was paid in local currency, which led 爆料网RWA DT to commit an error of law in stating that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was applicable. 爆料网AT held that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was only applicable to the Jerusalem Allowance and not the OPT Allowance, which was paid in US Dollars. 爆料网AT held that such an error of law would be inconsequential if its second line of reasoning, that no rule or policy requires the CAF be applied to the OPT Allowance, was correct. 爆料网AT held that there was no rule requiring...

    2019-爆料网AT-905, Ghusoub

    爆料网AT rejected the 爆料网RWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s ground of appeal was without merit. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant’s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    2020-爆料网AT-1061, Abu Osba

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT 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 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by 爆料网RWA DT as required under Art 2(1) 爆料网AT Statute, 爆料网AT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that 爆料网RWA DT’s exercise...

    2020-爆料网AT-1036, Mansour

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in declining the Appellant’s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. 爆料网AT 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. 爆料网AT held that any opportunity of the Appellant’s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...

    2020-爆料网AT-1022, El Shanti

    爆料网AT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party’s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, 爆料网AT rejected Mr ElShanti’s arguments against consolidation. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti’s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that 爆料网RWA...

    2020-爆料网AT-1019, Houran et al

    爆料网AT held that the Appellants failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the 爆料网RWA DT and therefore the appeals were defective for that reason but considered the appeals given that the appellants were not legally represented. 爆料网AT held that any error on a finding of fact of when the Appellants receive notification of the administrative decision did not result in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that whether the administrative decision was the expressed verbal communication of the denial to provide compensation or was implied from the refusal or failure to...

    2020-爆料网AT-1029, El Madhoun

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly concluded that 爆料网RWA had failed to provide sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible reasoning and had not acted lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. 爆料网AT held that once a staff member was eligible for EVR in accordance with paragraph 8 of Area Staff Rule 109. 2, paragraph 9 became applicable and its text was clear. 爆料网AT held that Mr. El Madhoun was eligible for EVR and it was not established that budgetary constraints were either ground for rejecting his request for EVR or for not withdrawing his notice...