±¬ÁÏÍø

The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to Mr. Qasem¡¯s exclusion from consideration for the Acting Head position, that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that none of the factors that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT considered as warranting exceptional compensation, were indeed exceptional, either individually or collectively. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s permanent staff status, his long service, his difficulties in finding subsequent employment, his status as a refugee, the unproven nature of the sexual harassment allegations, and the delays in his case, were not the type of circumstances that would warrant an exceptional compensation award. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in awarding in-lieu compensation above the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in consolidating the seven cases. The consolidated cases involved unique administrative decisions, and those decisions involved neither a common administrative policy nor a common set of facts. The nature of the misconduct attributed to the staff members was not similar among the cases. The cases concerned staff from different ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA field offices. The disciplinary measures taken were not identical among the cases, but included a wide range of penalties. The standards of proof for the misconduct alleged in case varied.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Safi failed to discharge his burden in identifying in what respect and for what reasons the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in its Judgment. Mr. Safi merely reiterated the same arguments that he had presented in his application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT stated that it is not its role to reexamine the staff member¡¯s case anew, and accordingly, his appeal must fail. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT drew reasonable inferences from its extensive fact-finding exercise and delivered a well-reasoned judgment.

The appeal was dismissed, and Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2023/011 was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had ordered each party to nominate a psychiatrist, who in turn were to designate a third psychiatrist to review whether the staff member¡¯s mental condition at the time he committed the burglary, sentencing for which had been the grounds for his separation in the interest of the Agency.The Commissioner-General failed to comply with this instruction, without explanation, thereby leaving the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT with no medical information about AAW's condition at the time of the burglary.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Commissioner-General had clearly and manifestly abused the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the staff member¡¯s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

Accountability Referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had requested to be reclassified at Grade HL7 in her e-mail dated 2 January 2017 and her subsequent communications had been reiterations of that request.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration should compensate the actual loss of income the staff member incurred from the moment her reclassification should have been implemented. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøWRA DT had appropriately considered the time limit of six months reasonable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred in law or fact in holding that she should be paid the difference in salary and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT therefore held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was evident from a perusal of the appeal brief that Mr. Hammad did not argue that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed any error of fact or law. He merely presented the same arguments that he had already made in his application for revision before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and failed to demonstrate how the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, nor any finding by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...