爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of 爆料网DT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General’s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网AT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management evaluation of a request for SPA where there had not, in fact, been such a request in the first place. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred and exceeded its competence in purporting to review the issue of a SPA payment, in the absence of Mr Survo ever having first requested SPA and thereafter having properly sought management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that the receipt of the SPA issued by 爆料网DT and the remedy ordered by 爆料网DT did not have a valid legal or factual basis. 爆料网AT dismissed Mr Survo’s appeal, upheld the appeal of the Secretary-General, and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment with the exception of the part which related to the issue of the SPA, which was vacated.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Survo contested the decisions not to select him for two P-5 level posts and the decision not to reclassify his P-4 level post to the P-5 level. 爆料网DT found that the non-selection of Mr Survo for one of the posts and the refusal to reclassify his post were both not receivable and that his non-selection for the other post was receivable, but without merit. 爆料网DT remanded the issue of whether Mr Survo was eligible for a special post allowance (SPA) to the Administration for full and fair consideration. 爆料网DT rejected Mr Survo’s claims concerning abuse of authority.
Legal Principle(s)
爆料网DT has broad discretion as to how it conducts its proceedings. In order to establish that the judge erred in not admitting evidence, it is necessary to establish that the evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. While 爆料网DT has the inherent authority to individualise and define the administrative decision impugned by a party in a specific case, the 爆料网DT is not at large in this regard.