Judgment No. 3026
1. The Director-General's decisions of 9 April and 19 May 2009 are set aside, as is the earlier decision of 28 February 2008.
2. The OPCW shall pay the complainant the salary, emoluments and other alllowances, including pension contributions, that he would have received on the basis that his contract was extended to 4 July 2008, together with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from due dates until the date of payment.
3. The Organisation shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 2,000 euros
4. It shall also pay him costs in the amount of 1,000 euros.
5. The complaint is otherwise dismissed.
Failure on the part of the Organisation to give the complainant a fair opportunity to demonstrate improvement prior to deciding not to renew his fixed-term contract for unsatisfactory performance.
"It must be assumed that until 2006 the complainant's work was satisfactory as his contract was renewed from time to time, albeit that he was not subject to performance appraisal during the period he was employed on temporary assistance contracts."
complainant; work appraisal; performance report; period; satisfactory service; contract; appointment; short-term
"An opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur."
reasonable time; organisation's duties; work appraisal; performance report; notice; unsatisfactory service
It is well settled that “[a]n organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better” (see Judgment 1583, under 6(a)). Thus, “[a] staff member [...] is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service [and] to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which [his or her] future performance will be assessed” (see Judgment 2414, under 23). It is clear that the unsatisfactory aspects of the complainant’s performance were detailed in the mid-point review in his 2006 performance appraisal and detailed in a way that enabled him to know the areas in which he needed to improve his performance.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1583, 2414
duty to inform; probationary period; termination of employment; duty of care