±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that none of the factors that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT considered as warranting exceptional compensation, were indeed exceptional, either individually or collectively. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s permanent staff status, his long service, his difficulties in finding subsequent employment, his status as a refugee, the unproven nature of the sexual harassment allegations, and the delays in his case, were not the type of circumstances that would warrant an exceptional compensation award. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in awarding in-lieu compensation above the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in consolidating the seven cases. The consolidated cases involved unique administrative decisions, and those decisions involved neither a common administrative policy nor a common set of facts. The nature of the misconduct attributed to the staff members was not similar among the cases. The cases concerned staff from different ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA field offices. The disciplinary measures taken were not identical among the cases, but included a wide range of penalties. The standards of proof for the misconduct alleged in case varied.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was evident from a perusal of the appeal brief that Mr. Hammad did not argue that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed any error of fact or law. He merely presented the same arguments that he had already made in his application for revision before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and failed to demonstrate how the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal should be regarded as timely because the initial submission in Arabic was received within the prescribed time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the fact-finding committee acted in an objective and responsible manner in conducting its investigation and assessing the charges. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting a finding of misconduct, which was not successfully rebutted by the Appellant, which alone was a sufficient basis for the impugned decision. Given the established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB¡¯s recommendation not to accept the Appellant¡¯s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant¡¯s services were unsatisfactory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to terminate the staff member for misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized the fact that the staff member, as a guard, held a position of trust that he had failed to respect. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that where termination of service is connected to any type of investigation of a staff member¡¯s possible misconduct, it must be reviewed as a disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the imposed sanction of separation was not disproportionate to the offense. Related judgments: 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-018 (Mahdi)

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that both the ASC and APD bestow discretion on the Agency to pay an AAA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the two instruments, the ASC and the APD, were easily reconcilable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ASC deals with the specific situation where an Area staff member acts in an International professional post, while the ADP deals with all other cases of acting appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no manifest intention or inevitable construction that the Agency intended to abrogate the specific policy in the ASC. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct in its finding that the ASC had not been implicitly abrogated...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find any fault with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...