±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests ¡°to clarify¡± the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ABD¡¯s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order¡¯s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly assessed the Agency¡¯s application of the experience level requirements applicable to the Appellants. Specifically, regarding the teachers contesting their classification at Grade 9, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s review of the Area Staff Post Description, which required five years of teaching experience at Grade 9 for classification at Grade 10.As the Appellants classified at Grade 9 did not meet this requirement, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly concluded that they were appropriately classified at Grade 9.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

It found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020.While Ms. V¡¯s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member¡¯s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member¡¯s transfer request had been approved by the West Bank Field Office but the Jordan Field Office had subsequently informed that the request could not be accommodated due to a commitment to the roadmap on hiring daily-paid workers in fixed-term posts.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General had demonstrated the efforts made by both Field Offices to process the transfer request and the Agency¡¯s burden to show that the request had been given full and fair consideration was satisfied. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had not discharged the burden of...

The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY¡¯s conduct, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS. The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence. The fact that the three witnesses...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member¡¯s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member¡¯s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.

Nevertheless...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant¡¯s attorney¡¯s personal circumstances.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan¡¯s exceptional circumstances¡ªincluding severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member had no legitimate expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment, as there was no evidence that the Administration had made any express promise that would have created such an expectation. On the contrary, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Administration had properly informed all affected staff, including the former staff member, of the last date of the MADAD Project and advertised 15 clerical posts internally, inviting staff to apply for alternative positions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that these actions should be viewed in light of the continuous efforts...