±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT on her application for a suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct not to conclude that the Appellant had initiated the physical fight. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was entitled to conclude the evidence of a witness was not clear and convincing, given inconsistencies. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT determined correctly that a prior altercation could not provide propensity evidence to corroborate witnesses¡¯ accounts of the physical fight because the prior altercation was not investigated properly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had been unduly influenced into signing the settlement agreement, but that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals from both Mr. Sirhan and the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exceeded its competence and erred in fact and law by rescinding the decision to terminate Mr. Sirhan on medical grounds. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to convene a Medical Board more than one month after Mr. Sirhan¡¯s service-incurred injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in interpreting the Area Staff Rules as requiring ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to provide injured staff members adequate time for recovery before deciding to appoint a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mousa. On matters of procedure, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the additional documentary evidence presented on appeal was inadmissible as Mr. Mousa had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and had failed to seek leave to present such additional evidence as he was required to do in terms of Article 2(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that that while Mr. Mousa had been disciplined for working while on sick leave from the Organization and without valid authorization, he on appeal again focused on the allegations of malpractice which had...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the present case does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the identification of candidates was available to the assessors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Krioutchkov has failed to rebut the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding regarding the legality of the CRB process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law, and its judgment is consistent with the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT jurisprudence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and found that the evidence on the record supports the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the staff member¡¯s absence from 18 January 2017 to 26 July 2018 was unauthorized, as she did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for her failure to report to work. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the refusal of the Medical Services Division (MSD) to certify the staff member¡¯s sick leave request after 18 January 2017 was reasonable and that the MSD was the competent technical body to evaluate medical certifications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the staff member had the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in assessing the evidence presented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its finding that i) it would seem that the Appellant¡¯s situation with his former FRO had actually been resolved since they no longer worked together; ii) the Appellant¡¯s eventual temporary reassignment would appear to have been a very reasonable further solution to bring him out of an office environment in which he obviously continued to feel uncomfortable, and iii) it would fall within the Administration¡¯s discretion whether to enact any of the three measures proposed by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT preliminarily held that only facts occurred from early 2005 to 7 November 2007 were to be taken into consideration with regard to the allegations of harassment leveled by the Applicant. Consequently, reported actions and decisions dating back to 2004, in particular the non-promotion of the Applicant in 2004, were excluded from the present Judgment. Regarding the remainder of the application, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations that he was subjected to harassment by the Organization and that the latter bore responsibility for...