爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to 爆料网DT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT’s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant’s post. 爆料网AT also agreed with 爆料网DT’s finding that 爆料网FPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of delay. 爆料网AT further noted that it could not see how this procedural error might have affected the decision of the case. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DTs judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested 爆料网FPA’s decision to terminate his appointment. 爆料网DT found that the evidence did not establish a nexus between the Applicant’s reassignment of his post or termination that followed and that the decision to abolish the post was duly authorized by the 爆料网FPA Executive Director. 爆料网DT also found that the Applicant did not fulfil his good faith obligations to seek new employment for himself 爆料网DT rejected the application and the Applicant’s requests for recission, compensation, and legal costs.
Legal Principle(s)
In a restructuring process, the Administration does not have an obligation to place affected staff members in new positions.