±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB not to submit the staff member¡¯s appeal to the Standing Committee contravened his rights under the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations by depriving him of access to the appeals process and was a serious violation of his due process rights. Noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisdiction was limited to hearing appeals of decisions of the Standing Committee and that the staff member¡¯s case had not been reviewed by the Standing Committee, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and remanded it to the Standing Committee.

The issue for determination by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel of record before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in the absence of any published ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, despite its Registry¡¯s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant¡¯s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s regulatory...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-297. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that his non-renewal was a disguised disciplinary measure and that thus, management evaluation was not required, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the argument had no merit and that the Appellant could not evade the statutory obligation of management evaluation by characterising the dispute decision as a disciplinary matter. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any error of law...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the staff member¡¯s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...