Judgment No. 197
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Considerations
Extract:
"There is no statutory provision or general rule of law that makes it mandatory for the organization to retain a staff member on probation in its service for at least a year if, before the year has expired, the competent authority has come to the conclusion that the staff member concerned is unsuitable for the post to which he was assigned."
Keywords
organisation's duties; period; probationary period; termination of employment
Considerations
Extract:
"[I]t is within the Director-General's discretion on receiving an appeal [...] to decide whether, in order to establish the facts, it is necessary to give a personal hearing to the person concerned or whether the arguments and documents supplied by him and the information given by the chief of his unit are sufficient to allow a decision to be taken."
Keywords
right to reply; work appraisal; probationary period; discretion
Considerations
Extract:
Reports on each staff member must be made in the first place by his immediate supervisor, who is the best qualified to make an appraisal. This principle cannot be applied "in some units which, because of their nature, activities or the very form of their organization, a small number of officials are associated in a specific common task. It may be conducive to the efficiency of such units for the chief to report directly on all the staff members with whom he is in close and continuous collaboration in the exercise of their duties."
Keywords
competence; work appraisal; rating; probationary period; probation report; supervisor
Considerations
Extract:
The Director-General "took the view that [the complainant, a probationer,] did not have the necessary qualifications for the post to which he was assigned [...] [His] decision was not tainted by illegality or based on incorrect facts [...], he did not fail to take account of essential facts, and did not draw from the evidence conclusions that are clearly false. The Tribunal's power to review the substance of this case is limited to the foregoing four points, and it cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the head of the organization."
Keywords
work appraisal; probationary period; qualifications; judicial review; discretion
| 
