爆料网

爆料网RWA International Staff Regulations

  • Regulation 1.2
  • Regulation 10.2
  • Regulation 11.1(A)
  • Regulation 6.1
    • Showing 1 - 7 of 7
    2023-爆料网AT-1335, Vijay Neekhra

    The 爆料网AT found no errors in the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment and dismissed the appeal. The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网RWA DT correctly held that Mr. Neekhra’s due process rights were not violated by an undue delay in the investigation proceedings; that Mr. Neekhra’s actions to copy-paste excerpts from internal/external sources without proper citation was a violation of the Agency’s regulatory framework and constituted misconduct; and that the disciplinary measures of a written censure and deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion were proportionate to the offense. The 爆料网AT dismissed the...

    2013-爆料网AT-371, Brisson

    爆料网AT noted that there had been a policy change in 1997 which meant that staff members who requested pension as a result of an accident suffered in the service of the Organisation post-1997 were granted it with the proviso that it would only be paid until they retired. 爆料网AT held that, as the Appellant’s accident occurred long after the policy change in 1997, the changed policy was applicable. 爆料网AT held that as the Appellant had reached retirement age at the time of the incapacitating injury, his appeal had to be dismissed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2014-爆料网AT-436, Walden

    爆料网AT considered appeals by both the staff member and the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that the fact was undisputed that the staff member knowingly presented non-existent credentials despite questioning the ethics of accepting the document with his qualifications. 爆料网AT held that termination was not disproportionate to the offence, taking into account that the staff member’s recruitment, in the first instance, was predicated on the existence of a degree subsequently established to be without merit and which never would have qualified him for selection by the Organisation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA...

    2015-爆料网AT-603, Niedermayr

    爆料网AT held that it was disingenuous for 爆料网RWA to suggest that the Appellant’s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant’s due process entitlements. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of 爆料网RWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant’s application for assignment. 爆料网AT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate...

    2015-爆料网AT-529, Riano

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of judgment Nos. 爆料网RWA/DT/2013/035 and 爆料网RWA/DT/2014/004. 爆料网AT held that there was no basis to support the Appellant’s claim of legitimate expectations and/or rights for the renewal of his contract. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that 爆料网RWA DT erred with respect to the amount awarded for al damages. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT evaluated all the evidence before it and made a reasoned assessment as to the amount of anxiety and stress suffered by the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that it would not lightly interfere with the determination of 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT held...

    2017-爆料网AT-718, Bagot

    爆料网AT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General’s cross-appeal was receivable. 爆料网AT agreed with the findings of 爆料网RWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. 爆料网AT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

    2021-爆料网AT-1131, Mohammed Sirhan

    The staff member submits that the “decisive fact” which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the 爆料网RWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a “decisive fact” that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...