±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, although no performance evaluation process was legally required for termination, an appropriate procedure should have been followed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA failed to indicate that the contract would be terminated before its expiration date if the staff member did not improve his performance, and the lack of fair warning rendered the decision to terminate unlawfully. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal in part, rescinded the termination decision, and ordered reinstatement, with an in-lieu compensation of two months¡¯ net base salary.

ngl±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in law or fact in finding that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Appellant hit a student forcefully on the back during the 25 October 2016 distribution of school bags. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in relying on the testimony of the Donor Relations Officer (DRO), which is of high value. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that he was a neutral witness without any personal interest in the matter and he did not know the Appellant before. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals from both Mr. Sirhan and the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exceeded its competence and erred in fact and law by rescinding the decision to terminate Mr. Sirhan on medical grounds. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to convene a Medical Board more than one month after Mr. Sirhan¡¯s service-incurred injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in interpreting the Area Staff Rules as requiring ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to provide injured staff members adequate time for recovery before deciding to appoint a...

±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not exceed its competence when assessing whether the decision to convene a medical board was lawful. The decision to convene a Medical Board five months after the service-incurred-injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to convene a medical board less than five months after the Appellant¡¯s service-incurred injury was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law and exceeded its competence by challenging the authority of the Medical Board¡¯s conclusion without clear and convincing medical evidence, by placing...