±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-416. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not open to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no reasonable or objective analysis of Mr Luvai¡¯s submissions to management, prior to his application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, regarding his non-selection for the posts could lead to a conclusion that the revocation of his firearm licence was sufficiently linked to the non-selection decisions such as to deem the matter as receivable by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in fact and law in deciding otherwise and that, in purporting to adjudicate on the revocation of Mr Luvai¡¯s firearm licence, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed both appeals by the Secretary-General in judgment No. 2014-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-418. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of law when it accepted one of the possible reasonable interpretations of Staff Rule 5.3(e) and decided that the SLWOP did not affect the continuous duration of the staff member¡¯s appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, contrary to the assertions made by the Secretary-General, the staff member had in fact an expectation of being granted a permanent appointment and that the evidence had been produced at the special hearing on 4 March 2013. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to identify an administrative decision, having a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights, capable of being reviewed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was not challenging a specific administrative but had asked ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to overturn a policy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that V01 had not been placed under oath before giving her interview and that she did not sign the transcribed version of her interview statement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that V01¡¯s transcribed statement, in which she said that the Appellant had raped her and engaged in sex with her, was neither reliable nor trustworthy; it was solely hearsay and insufficient, by itself, to prove the charge that the Appellant engaged in sexual activity with a minor. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that similarly the other written documents were replete with hearsay and multiple hearsays and were neither trustworthy nor sufficient to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to interfere with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving ±¬ÁÏÍøDT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed and to meet his statutory burden of proving non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

On the issue of receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion, that the assault committed was not misconduct and that the Organisation¡¯s jurisdictional competence did not extend to the physical assault of a non-±¬ÁÏÍø staff member even where the assault is perpetrated by a staff member, was based on reasoning which was unsupported by law or the facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, not only the issue had not been raised in the case presented to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, but such a proposition had also no foundation in the staff regulations, staff rules, administrative instructions, or jurisprudence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had failed to make findings on the specific category of misconduct and that she did not receive notice of the specific charge of theft prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that disciplinary cases were not criminal and that there was no need to give notice of a specific charge of theft because the charge against the Appellant was taking, without authorisation, a staff member¡¯s property. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant did not dispute having taken a bicycle without the owner¡¯s permission, but that she claimed she did not...