ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > complaint dismissed

Judgment No. 3678

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him at the end of his probation period.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

probationary period; complaint dismissed

Consideration 1

Extract:

[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, an organisation owes it to its employees, especially probationers, to guide them in the performance of their duties and to warn them in specific terms if they are not giving satisfaction and are at risk of being dismissed. A staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of her or his service so that steps can be taken to remedy the situation. Moreover, she or he is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that she or he will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed (see Judgment 3128, under 5, and the case law cited therein). These are fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity (see Judgment 2529, under 15).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2529, 3128

Keywords

probationary period

Consideration 4

Extract:

The complainant [...] disputes the assessment of his performance during his probation period which led to his dismissal. It is firmly established in the case law that the Tribunal has only a limited power of review over such a decision. Thus, the decision will be set aside if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, if it rests on a mistake of fact or of law, or if there has been abuse of authority, inter alia (see, for example, Judgments 987, under 2, 1817, under 5, or 2715, under 5). But as far as the assessment of the merits of an official is concerned, the Tribunal will not substitute its own opinion for that of the executive head of the organisation or interfere with it unless it finds that that that person has drawn clearly wrong conclusions from the evidence.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 987, 1817, 2715

Keywords

performance report; judicial review

Consideration 6

Extract:

[M]isuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see Judgment 2116, under 4).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116

Keywords

misuse of authority; abuse of power

Consideration 8

Extract:

There are no grounds for allowing the complainant’s claim that he should be allowed “to prove by all legal means” the facts he alleges, since it is incumbent upon him to submit to the Tribunal in the course of the proceedings any evidence he considers to be material in support of his case (see Judgment 1248, under 7).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1248

Keywords

burden of proof

Consideration 2

Extract:

It is true that there is no evidence in the file to show that the Organization formally notified the complainant during his probation period that there was an objective risk that his appointment would not be confirmed at the end of that period. However, it is clear from the end-probation period report of November 2013, which was forwarded to him and on which he in fact commented, that his supervisor considered that his performance fell short of the expected level. In addition [...], the complainant was informed on several occasions during his probation period that he was not achieving the objectives which had been set for him in his induction interview. In these circumstances, the complainant must have been aware that he ran a serious risk of not having his appointment confirmed at the end of his probation period.

Keywords

organisation's duties; work appraisal; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; judicial review



 
Last updated: 21.09.2021 ^ top