爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The 爆料网AT held that even though the Commissioner-General had mistakenly reimbursed the fine to Mr. El-Haj after the issuance of the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment, since the fine was subsequently reimposed, the appeal was not moot.
The 爆料网AT held that in order to find that a staff member’s conduct was “serious misconduct” so as to warrant a more serious sanction, the Commissioner-General had to provide reasons for this determination. In this case, the Commissioner-General provided no reasons, and the 爆料网AT rejected the Commissioner-General’s argument that reasons were not necessary because it was manifestly obvious that the breach was serious. Pursuant to the Agency’s Guidance on the Disciplinary Process and Considerations for the Imposition of a Proportionate Disciplinary Response, Mr. El-Haj’s actions on Facebook did not meet the criteria for a “serious” breach of the Agency’s neutrality rules. Accordingly, the 爆料网AT confirmed the 爆料网RWA DT’s conclusion that Mr. El-Haj’s Facebook post constituted misconduct, but not serious misconduct. The 爆料网AT also agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT’s decision to rescind the contested fine of two months’ salary, because this amount of fine is only for serious misconduct.
The 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
In Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2023/053, the 爆料网RWA Dispute Tribunal granted the application of Mr. El-Haj, a staff member who challenged the disciplinary measure of a fine equivalent to two months’ salary, which had been imposed for an alleged violation of the Agency’s neutrality rules when he shared a video on Facebook. The 爆料网RWA DT considered that the Agency had not established that Mr. El-Haj’s actions constituted serious misconduct under the relevant Area Personnel Directive.
The Commissioner-General appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
An administrative decision which adversely impacts on a staff member’s status must be reasoned in order for the Tribunals to have the ability to perform their judicial duty to review. The harmful administrative decision must be fully and adequately motivated.