±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly identified several procedural irregularities in the contested decision. Pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Department of Internal Oversight Services (DIOS) Technical Instruction 02/2016 on ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s Investigation Policy (DTI 02/2016), the investigation should have been authorized within 10 days of the Intake Committee¡¯s report; yet here, the authorization to investigate took 11 months to be given. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that this delay was so excessive that it would distress an average person.

Analyzing the evidence presented by the staff member regarding the...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that Mr. Qasem's application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT challenging the decision to place him on administrative leave with pay was filed untimely and was therefore not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, his application contesting the decision to conduct various investigations of him was not receivable ratione materiae in the absence of a request for decision review.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was an error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s methodology of fixing...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in its award of in-lieu compensation. It appropriately considered Mr. Fanous¡¯ chance of selection for the post when it stated that it considered there was no guarantee of a future selection. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT applied a context-specific lump sum amount. It considered the likelihood of selection and Mr. Fanous¡¯ salary at the time. It made a determination that was fair and just in the present case but also took a principled approach that considered all relevant considerations.

As to Mr. Fanous¡¯ request for moral damages, with regard to the First and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s...

The Commissioner-General appealed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Ms. Abou Salah¡¯s subsequent correspondence, as well as correspondence written on her behalf...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA staff members. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Appellants that there is no ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dahoud.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that the disability benefit paid to Mr. Dahoud in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.7(1) was different from the termination indemnity paid to certain staff members in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.9.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that despite the Medical Board's conclusion that he had an 8 per cent permanent impairment, this does not necessarily lead to a finding of permanent and total disability, as required by Area Staff Rule 109.7(7), so as to receive the supplemental benefit. Nor does this medical...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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...