±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.

Similarly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2025/001.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months¡¯ non-payment of his salary. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months¡¯ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

On the merits, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly identified the Agency¡¯s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Slayyeh did not file a proper appeal of the impugned Judgment but rather was bringing a new claim for compensation that had not been submitted to the Dispute Tribunal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he could not introduce on appeal an issue not previously presented to the first instance tribunal as it is a violation of the due process rights of the other party and does not comply with the two-tier system of administration of justice.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the remedies available under Article 10(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute allow the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to rescind the contested decision or order...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that none of the reasons provided by Mr. Hejab, considered individually or collectively, were convincing enough to consider his case exceptional, so as to warrant the award of higher compensation than set by Article 10(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it is not unusual for an older staff member, particularly one who is close to retirement, to have difficulty in finding another job. Likewise, although there are difficult economic conditions where he lives, this is also not the type of factor that warrants compensation in excess of the statutory norm.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it found Ms. Fakhouri¡¯s application was receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that despite being a staff member, the decision with which Ms. Fakhouri took issue was one which related to the terms of a potential contract not as a staff member but as an independent contractor and therefore the contested decision was not one that was appealable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute makes clear that appeals can be brought against administrative decisions where such decisions relate to the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment. But the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member¡¯s transfer request had been approved by the West Bank Field Office but the Jordan Field Office had subsequently informed that the request could not be accommodated due to a commitment to the roadmap on hiring daily-paid workers in fixed-term posts.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General had demonstrated the efforts made by both Field Offices to process the transfer request and the Agency¡¯s burden to show that the request had been given full and fair consideration was satisfied. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had not discharged the burden of...