±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find any fault with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal of both ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT gave full consideration to the Appellant¡¯s claim that the transfer was a disguised disciplinary measure following allegations of her corporal punishment of students. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was evidence that, prior to her transfer, the Chief, Field Education Programme had dismissed these allegations as unsubstantiated and it was not until almost two months after the transfer that the Jordan Field Office authorised an investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT therefore correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both of the Appellant¡¯s cases in their judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not persuaded that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to close the cases arising from the Appellant¡¯s complaints was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision was justified based on careful consideration of the Appellant¡¯s arguments and evidence gathered during the investigation. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the characterization of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment as a disciplinary measure tainted the process to such a significant degree that it rendered the decision...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant¡¯s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. The Appellant¡¯s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the evidence showed that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/100, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that a ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the ±¬ÁÏÍø Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reiterated that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant¡¯s post). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the...