±¬ÁÏÍø

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the JAB¡¯s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant¡¯s failure to report to work and holding of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed. First, the Tribunal reasoned that the JAB did not engage in a critical analysis of the facts of the case and did not apply the law to the facts in order to ascertain whether the exercise of discretion was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the JAB Decision was arbitrary and did not meet the minimum requirements of providing a reasoned analysis. Second, on the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the Administration did not notify the staff member of his shortcomings in sufficient time. Neither did It provide the staff member with explicit measures against which his performance would be evaluated. Third...