Judgment No. 88
1. The Tribunal records the offer of the Organization to pay the complainant a sum of U.S. $10,120.43 including interest, such payment constituting the fall discharge of the obligations arising out of Judgment No. 69 dated 11 September 1964.
2. The complaint is dismissed.
"It is not inconceivable that an official might be so deeply affected by the termination of his appointment as to fall ill and to become incapacitated for work for a certain length of time. In the present case, however, the complainant could in any event have expected the termination of his appointment [at the end of the probationary period] and [...] failing quite exceptional circumstances, he had no grounds for maintaining that his dismissal led to the deterioration of his health and to incapacity for work after that date."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 69
injury; probationary period; termination of employment; illness; incapacity; cause
"The certificate issued to the complainant [...] deals with the nature and length of his service and with his abilities and conduct. It complies fully with the requirements of [the applicable provision] and does not need to be supplemented, particularly as the complainant himself has not requested any amendment of it although it has been in his hands for nearly three months."
formal requirements; work appraisal; certificate of service; probationary period
"Both parties having agreed to the settlement of the complainant's claims by means of the payment of compensation, the Tribunal's task is confined to fixing the amount of such compensation. In any event, the complainant is entitled only to compensation for the injury actually caused to him by the rescinded decision."
complainant; organisation; settlement out of court; competence of tribunal; amount; reckoning; offer; compensation; right
Summary of facts
"In its Judgment [No. 69] quashing the decision not to confirm the appointment of the complainant at the end of the probationary period on the grounds of failure to comply with the recognised procedure and infringement of the right to be heard, the Tribunal invited the organization to reopen the case, to enable the complainant to exercise his rights, and to consider whether he should be reinstated. At the same time it reserved the complainant's right to claim compensation whether or not he was reinstated." The complainant was not reinstated and he requests the Tribunal to fix compensation.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 69
case sent back to organisation; right to reply; probationary period; reinstatement; termination of employment; procedural flaw; refusal; material damages