爆料网

爆料网RWA Personnel Directives

  • Area Staff Personnel Directive No. A/4/Part II, Rev. 8/Section I
  • IPD 1/10
  • IPD/I/104.4
  • IPD/I/112.6/Rev.1
  • PD 1/4/Part I/Rev.1
  • PD A/10
  • PD A/10/Rev.1
  • PD A/10/Rev.3
  • PD A/17
  • PD A/2/Part.II/Rev. 4
  • PD A/23
  • PD A/3
  • PD A/4/Part II/Rev.7
  • PD A/4/Part VII/Rev.7
  • PD A/5/Part II
  • PD A/5/Rev.7/Part II
  • PD A/6/Amend.12/Part III
  • PD A/6/Amend.72
  • PD A/6/Part II/Amend.2
  • PD A/6/Part VI
  • PD A/60
  • PD A/9
  • PD A/9/Rev.10
  • PD I/104.2
  • PD No.A/3/Rev.1/Part XI/Amend.5
  • PD/A/1/Rev.1/Par1/Section 1
  • PD/A/4/Part II/ Rev.7/Section 1
    • Showing 11 - 20 of 53
    2024-爆料网AT-1467, Qasem Qasem

    The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to Mr. Qasem’s exclusion from consideration for the Acting Head position, that the 爆料网RWA DT erred in finding Mr. Qasem’s application not receivable. The Appeals Tribunal however found that in the circumstances of this case, it was in the interest of judicial economy to review the case on the merits without remand. The Appeals Tribunal found that while the Administration had unlawfully excluded Mr. Qasem’s application from consideration, this irregularity had no impact on the selection decision. Considering Mr. Qasem’s performance, administrative and...

    2023-爆料网AT-1402, Faten Hatim Al Dawoud

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT’s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

    The 爆料网AT found that there was an error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the 爆料网RWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

    The 爆料网AT was of the view that the 爆料网RWA DT’s methodology of fixing...

    2022-爆料网AT-1299, Hiba Mohamad Abou Salah

    The Commissioner-General appealed.

    The 爆料网AT held that insofar as the Agency's decision of 25 April 2019 rejecting the request for an SPOA might not have been unequivocal, that decision was reiterated in the e-mail of 17 June 2019 leaving no doubt that the Agency had decided then to pay Ms. Abou Salah an SPOA of 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent, possibly in breach of her contract. The fact that other persons subsequently sought to intervene on her behalf did not change that.

    The 爆料网AT found that Ms. Abou Salah’s subsequent correspondence, as well as correspondence written on her behalf...

    2022-爆料网AT-1297, Eman Abed & Osama Abed

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the 爆料网RWA staff members. The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters’ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency’s regulatory framework. The 爆料网AT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

    The 爆料网AT agreed with the Appellants that there is no 爆料网RWA...

    2022-爆料网AT-1296, Deema Jarallah

    爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT correctly concluded that the decision-maker had not exercised his discretionary power properly, in that the Agency had unlawfully paid Ms. Jarallah an SPOA of 25 per cent instead of an SOA of 35 per cent which was stipulated in her contract of employment.

    爆料网AT found that a valid and binding contract of employment existed between Ms. Jarallah and the Agency. An integral part of Ms. Jarallah's letter of appointment was the Job Description contained in the vacancy announcement with a reference to the 35...

    2023-爆料网AT-1350, Ismail Said Abu Hatab

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing. It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the 爆料网RWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

    With regard to the Appellant’s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

    2023-爆料网AT-1353, Nisreen Abusultan

    The 爆料网AT held that the Appellant has failed to discharge her burden and has not demonstrated that the 爆料网RWA DT committed any of the errors outlined in Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. It concluded that the Appellant relitigated arguments that failed before the 爆料网RWA Dispute Tribunal and expressed her general disagreement with the impugned Judgment.

    The 爆料网AT held that the contested decision was a valid and lawful exercise of the Agency’s discretion. It found that the Agency reviewed and considered the Appellant’s request for telecommuting in accordance with the legal framework, i.e. Area...

    2022-爆料网AT-1290, Nael Mohammed Fares Jibril

    Mr. Jibril appealed.

    As regards the request for an oral hearing, the 爆料网AT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

    The 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...

    2023-爆料网AT-1322, Ronahi Majdalawi

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

    爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abedv. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-爆料网AT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, 爆料网AT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

    2022-爆料网AT-1194, Jafar Hilmi Wakid

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT accepted 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT made fundamental errors of...