爆料网

Termination (of appointment)

  • Abolition of position
  • Agreed termination
  • Disciplinary sanction
  • Health reasons
  • Raisons de santé
  • Standard of proof
  • Summary dismissal
  • Unsatisfactory service
    • Showing 161 - 170 of 303
    2019-爆料网AT-900, El Sadek

    With respect to the Appellant’s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. 爆料网AT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before 爆料网RWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as “fully meets” expectations, and therefore this...

    2019-爆料网AT-898, Amarah

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of 爆料网RWA against judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2018/004. 爆料网AT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that 爆料网RWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before 爆料网RWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, 爆料网AT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

    2020-爆料网AT-1053, Gido

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Gido and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to hold that Mr Gido’s appointment was not terminated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly rejected Mr Gido’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. 爆料网AT held that Mr...

    2020-爆料网AT-1051, Garbo

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Garbo and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to hold that Mr Garbo’s appointment was not terminated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly rejected the Appellant’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. 爆料网AT held...

    2020-爆料网AT-1050, Hamdan

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Hamdan and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to hold that Mr Hamdan’s appointment was not terminated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to reject Hamdan’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. 爆料网AT held...

    2020-爆料网AT-1042, Nugroho

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in its finding that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s continuing appointment was unlawful as its purported basis (insufficient funds) did not exist. 爆料网AT held that it was not necessary for it to deal with the issue of whether 爆料网DT erred in its finding that the Administration failed to comply with its obligation of retention. 爆料网AT held that the abolition of the post due to financial reasons did not subsist for judicial review. On the Secretary-General’s argument that 爆料网DT had erred in finding Mr Nugroho...

    2020-爆料网AT-1077, Domitila Icha

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. 爆料网AT held that, regarding the question of whether 爆料网DT failed to address the Appellant’s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that 爆料网DT erred in fact or in law about this issue. 爆料网AT held, however, that 爆料网DT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

    2020-爆料网AT-1072, Nadeau

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

    2020-爆料网AT-1061, Abu Osba

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by 爆料网RWA DT as required under Art 2(1) 爆料网AT Statute, 爆料网AT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that 爆料网RWA DT’s exercise...

    2020-爆料网AT-1057, Nsengiyumva

    On the Appellant’s claim that the 爆料网DT Judge was biased, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant’s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, 爆料网AT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. 爆料网AT...