Judgment No. 3440
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for unsatisfactory performance at the end of her probationary period.
non-renewal of contract; privileges and immunities; complaint dismissed
"A firm line of precedents of the Tribunal have established that a decision not to confirm an appointment at the end of a probationary period is subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not interfere with that decision unless it was made without authority, or in breach of a rule of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or amounted to an abuse of authority, or if mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts. In short, notwithstanding the nature of the decision, it may be set aside if the decision was made in breach of the complainant’s contract, PAHO’s own regulations and rules or applicable general principles of law as enunciated by the Tribunal. The general principles are intended to ensure that an international organization acts in good faith and honours its duty of care towards probationers and to respect their dignity."
"[B]y its nature, a probationary period is one of trial in which it is determined whether a person is capable of carrying out the duties of a post. A probationer is quite aware that unsatisfactory performance would occasion the termination of her or his appointment."
"There is no written rule or general principle of law that supports the complainant’s assertion that the decision to terminate her employment was unlawful because PAHO should first have given thought to transferring her to some other post. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2646, under 14, to conclude that a staff member who performs poorly on probation will always be entitled to a transfer prior to being dismissed undermines the whole purpose of probationary terms."
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2646