±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was merit in the Appellant¡¯s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing and the production of documents since there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contentions regarding the application of the Palestinian Labour Law No. 7 (2000) and the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s error in calculating the time limits were misconceived. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regarding the procedure and timeline involved in challenging administrative decisions, former ±¬ÁÏÍøWRA Area Staff Rule 111. 3, which was in effect at the material time when the Appellant¡¯s contract as a teacher was terminated, was applicable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the need to submit new evidence or file additional pleadings and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was not required to set out its findings on every submission presented by the Appellant and the failure to do so did not amount to an error on the part of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the order of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to rescind the contested...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed the findings and conclusions of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment under appeal about the illegality of the closure of the investigation into the staff member¡¯s complaints. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had thoroughly conducted the judicial review of the challenged administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had conducted a legitimate exercise when it drew its conclusions from the investigation report. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularities, such as the failure to address the specific harassment complaint, several examples of abuse of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding...

±¬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

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant¡¯s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT...