|
|
 |
|
|
Probationary period (307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 661,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Probationary period
Total judgments found: 94
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4748
137th Session, 2024
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance evaluation; probationary period; termination of employment;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]n the present case, there is no evidence that the complainant was warned, during the probationary period, of the alleged flaws in his performance, which would have given him an opportunity to improve or to take steps to remedy the deficiencies. In its pleadings before the Tribunal, the IOC extensively referenced specific incidents in order to justify the negative appraisal, yet these were not referred to in the probationary report and the IOC has not established that its concerns about the complainant’s performance were brought to his attention in a timely manner. Having regard to the case law [...], the complainant’s first plea is well founded and the decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment must therefore be set aside, rendering further discussion of his second and third pleas unnecessary.
Keywords:
performance evaluation; probationary period; termination of employment;
Judgment 4673
136th Session, 2023
The Pacific Community
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment during her extended probation period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; probationary period; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4643
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract during the probationary period and seeks adequate compensation for the injury he alleges he suffered.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; probationary period;
Judgment 4542
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation during her probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance; probationary period;
Judgment 4513
134th Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to convert his appointment as a graduate when it expired and to terminate it.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; extension of contract; probationary period;
Judgment 4505
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In its case law, the Tribunal has held that “the purpose of probation is to permit an organization to assess the probationer’s suitability for a position” (see Judgment 4212, consideration 4). The Tribunal has also pointed out that an organisation enjoys wide discretion with regard to probation and that, for this reason, decisions taken in this context are subject to only limited review (see, for example, Judgment 4481, consideration 3). Thus, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a decision of this kind will only be set aside if it is taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it is based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was an abuse of authority. Moreover, where the reason given for refusal of confirmation is unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will not replace the organisation’s assessment with its own (see, in particular, Judgments 1418, consideration 6, 2646, consideration 5, 3913, consideration 2, and aforementioned 4212, consideration 4). In its case law, the Tribunal has also determined the principles applicable to an organisation’s obligations in respect of the probationary period. In particular, “an organisation must establish clear objectives against which performance will be assessed, provide the necessary guidance for the performance of the duties, identify in a timely fashion the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance so that remedial steps may be taken, and give a specific warning that the continued employment is in jeopardy” (see Judgments 2788, consideration 1, and aforementioned 4212, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1418, 2646, 2788, 3913, 4212, 4481
Keywords:
discretion; probationary period; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is true that the Tribunal’s case law states that a probationer must be given a timely warning if her or his employment is in jeopardy and a specific warning that continued employment is in jeopardy (see Judgments 3240, consideration 21, and 3866, consideration 10). However, in this case, as the Appeal Board found in its report, the evidence shows that the complainant’s attention was indeed directed to his unsatisfactory performance and the need to improve his competencies. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3440, consideration 16, “[a] probationer is quite aware that unsatisfactory performance would occasion the termination of her or his appointment”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3240, 3440, 3866
Keywords:
probationary period; warning;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; probationary period;
Judgment 4481
133rd Session, 2022
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend her appointment at the end of her period of probation.
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision not to confirm the appointment of a probationer is a discretionary one and is subject to limited review. The Tribunal will set the decision aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or 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 clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts. The case law also states that the decision not to confirm a probationer’s appointment may be set aside if it was made in breach of her or his contract, of the organization’s own regulations and rules, or of applicable general principles of law as enunciated by the Tribunal. It also states that 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3440, consideration 2).
Regarding the ambit of the discretion to confirm the appointment of a probationer, the Tribunal’s case law states that the competent authority will determine on the evidence before it whether or not to confirm the appointment and must be allowed the utmost measure of discretion in deciding whether someone it has recruited shows, not just the professional qualifications, but also the personal attributes for the particular post in which she or he will be working. Only where the Tribunal finds the most serious or glaring flaw in the exercise of the Director-General’s discretion will it interfere (see, for example, Judgment 2599, consideration 5). The Tribunal also recalled, for example, in Judgment 4282, consideration 2, that the reason for probation is to enable an organisation to assess the probationer’s suitability for a position. For this reason, it has recognised that a high degree of deference ought to be accorded to an organisation’s exercise of its discretion regarding decisions concerning probationary matters, including the confirmation of appointment, the extensions of a probationary term, and the identification of its own interests and requirements.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2599, 3440, 4282
Keywords:
discretion; probationary period;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; probationary period;
Judgment 4450
133rd Session, 2022
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment at the end of her probationary period for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, international organizations have wide discretion in taking decisions concerning staff performance appraisals. Therefore, such decisions are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will intervene only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgments 4010, consideration 5, 4062, consideration 6, 4170, consideration 9, and 4276, consideration 7). With specific regard to probationary periods, the Tribunal has said that the purpose of probation is to permit an organization to assess the probationer’s suitability for a position, and, accordingly, a high degree of deference ought to be accorded to an organization’s exercise of its discretion regarding decisions concerned with probationary matters. In the course of making this assessment, an organization must establish clear objectives, provide the necessary guidance for the performance of the duties, identify the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance in a timely manner, so that remedial steps may be taken, and give a specific warning where continued employment is in jeopardy. Moreover, a probationer is entitled to have objectives set in advance (see Judgment 4282, considerations 2 and 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4010, 4062, 4170, 4276, 4282
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation; probationary period; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Organization met its general duties regarding the probationary period. Namely it: (i) established clear objectives; (ii) provided the necessary guidance for the performance of the duties; and (iii) identified the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance in a timely manner, so that remedial steps might be taken.
Keywords:
organisation's duties; probationary period;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; probationary period; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 4407
132nd Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award her moral damages higher than 20,000 Swiss francs for the moral injury she alleges to have suffered as a result of the personal prejudice and bias she endured during her probation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
bias; complaint dismissed; moral injury; probationary period;
Judgment 4282
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; probationary period;
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
It is useful to recall the general principles that govern setting aside a decision to dismiss a staff member of an international organization whose performance during a probationary period is considered inadequate. It was relevantly restated in consideration 4 of Judgment 4212 that the purpose of probation is to permit an organization to assess the probationer’s suitability for a position, and, for that reason, the Tribunal has consistently recognized that a high degree of deference ought to be accorded to an organisation’s exercise of its discretion regarding decisions concerning probationary matters. This includes the confirmation of appointment, the extensions of a probationary term, and the identification of its own interests and requirements. Accordingly, it has been consistently stated that a discretionary decision of this nature will only be set aside “if taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority”. In Judgment 4212, the Tribunal also reaffirmed that “where the reason for refusal of confirmation is unsatisfactory performance, [it] will not replace the organisation’s assessment with its own”.
It is also useful to reiterate an international organization’s obligations regarding a staff member’s probation period that are well settled in the case law. For example, in Judgment 4212, consideration 5, the Tribunal stated that such a period is to provide an organisation with an opportunity to assess an individual’s suitability for a position. In the course of making this assessment, an organisation must establish clear objectives against which performance will be assessed; provide the necessary guidance for the performance of the duties; identify in a timely fashion the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance so that remedial steps may be taken; and give a specific warning where continued employment is in jeopardy. It was also stated in Judgment 3678, consideration 1, that a probationer is “entitled to have objectives set in advance so that she or he will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3678, 4212
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation; probationary period;
Judgment 4215
129th Session, 2020
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.
Considerations 12 & 18
Extract:
It is well established that an organisation which requires a staff member to undergo a probation period on his appointment must, in particular, set objectives for him so that he knows what criteria will be used to assess his performance, assess his merits following the proper procedure and, if it finds his performance unsatisfactory, inform him in sufficient time for him to attempt to remedy the situation, and warn him in specific terms if there is a risk that his appointment will not be confirmed at the end of his probation (see, for example, on these various points, Judgments 1741, considerations 15 and 16, 2529, consideration 15, 2788, consideration 1, 3240, consideration 21, 3845, consideration 8, and 3866, considerations 5 and 10).
[...]
Lastly, [...] although the complainant was informed of his alleged shortcomings, the evidence shows that he was not warned in specific terms, as required under the Tribunal’s case law, of the risk that his appointment would not be confirmed at the end of his probation period.
Keywords:
probationary period; work appraisal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; probationary period; work appraisal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s settled case law, an organisation enjoys broad discretion in deciding whether to confirm a staff member’s appointment at the end of a probation and consequently, this decision is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has, in particular, stated on numerous occasions that where the reason for non-confirmation is unsatisfactory performance, it will not replace the organisation’s assessment with its own. It is, however, for the Tribunal to ascertain whether the decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1418, consideration 6, 2646, consideration 5, 2977, consideration 4, 3440, consideration 2, 3844, consideration 4, and 3913, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1418, 2646, 2977, 3440, 3844, 3913
Keywords:
probationary period;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant must have known that the Secretary General was not satisfied with his performance, he was not given the necessary time to remedy this situation. To underline this point, it suffices to recall that the decision to end the complainant’s appointment was taken on 25 April 2013, that he was notified of it – according to his uncontested account – on 30 April and that it took effect on 1 May, whereas the complainant had taken up his duties just a few weeks previously on 1 March 2013, and his probation period was due to end on 30 June. The complainant thus had very little time to prove his worth and, above all, was given no opportunity to take appropriate action in response to the criticisms directed at him. This is made still clearer by the emails submitted by the Organisation showing that the Secretary General’s criticisms of the complainant were, for the most part, not made until the fortnight immediately preceding the decision of 25 April. The fact is that when the complainant received the decision, he was presented with a fait accompli, which blatantly contradicts the requirement laid down in the case law that in such a situation a staff member must be granted sufficient time to enable him to improve his performance.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; probationary period; termination of employment;
Judgment 4212
129th Session, 2020
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his contract at the end of the probation period for unsatisfactory service.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
[I]t is useful to recall that the purpose of probation is to permit an organization to assess the probationer’s suitability for a position. For this reason, the Tribunal has consistently recognized:
“[...] that a high degree of deference ought to be accorded to an organisation’s exercise of its discretion regarding decisions concerning probationary matters including the confirmation of appointment, the extensions of a probationary term, and the identification of its own interests and requirements. The Tribunal stated in Judgment 1418, under 6, that a discretionary decision of this kind will only be set aside ‘if taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority’. It also reaffirmed that ‘where the reason for refusal of confirmation is unsatisfactory performance, [it] will not replace the organisation’s assessment with its own.’”
(Judgment 2646, consideration 5; see also, for example, Judgments 3913, consideration 2, 3844, consideration 4, and 3085, consideration 23).
As well, an international organization’s obligations regarding a staff member’s probation period are well settled in the case law. For example, in Judgment 3866, consideration 5, the Tribunal observed:
“In Judgment 2788, consideration 1, the Tribunal identified the applicable principles as follows:
‘[I]t is useful to reiterate certain principles governing probation that are of particular relevance to the present case. Its purpose is to provide an organisation with an opportunity to assess an individual’s suitability for a position. In the course of making this assessment, an organisation must establish clear objectives against which performance will be assessed, provide the necessary guidance for the performance of the duties, identify in a timely fashion the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance so that remedial steps may be taken, and give a specific warning that the continued employment is in jeopardy (see Judgment 2529, under 15).’”
Lastly, as stated in Judgment 3678, consideration 1, a probationer is “entitled to have objectives set in advance so that she or he will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1418, 2529, 2646, 2788, 3085, 3678, 3844, 3866, 3913
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; probationary period;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; probationary period;
Judgment 3962
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to downgrade her, reassign her to another position and place her on an additional period of probation.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
[T]he provisions of Article 13 [of the Service Regulations] were clear. A probationary period occurs in the three circumstances specified in the Article. None were the position the complainant was in at the time of, and as a result of, the decision of 7 January 2015 as implemented in early 2015 nor at the time of the impugned decision. Accordingly, the EPO was not entitled to place the complainant on probation and quite plainly was not entitled to say she could be dismissed under Article 13(4)(b). The decision to place the complainant on probation was unlawful.
[...]
The provision does not transmogrify incompetence into conduct in respect of which disciplinary action might be taken and a disciplinary measure imposed (see Judgment 918, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 13 of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 918
Keywords:
patere legem; probationary period; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 3913
125th Session, 2018
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment at the end of her probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; probationary period; termination of employment;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] notes that the basic principles governing probation have been consistently stated, for example, in Judgment 2646, consideration 5, as follows:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls that the reason for probation is to enable an organisation to assess the probationer’s suitability for a position. For this reason, it has recognised that a high degree of deference ought to be accorded to an organisation’s exercise of its discretion regarding decisions concerning probationary matters including the confirmation of appointment, the extensions of a probationary term, and the identification of its own interests and requirements. The Tribunal stated in Judgment 1418, under 6, that a discretionary decision of this kind will only be set aside ‘if taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority’. It also reaffirmed that ‘where the reason for refusal of confirmation is unsatisfactory performance, [it] will not replace the organisation’s assessment with its own’.” [...]
This case law was recently confirmed in Judgment 3844, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1418, 2646, 3844
Keywords:
discretion; probationary period;
Consideration 16
Extract:
In any event, there is no principle that prevents an organisation from deciding not to confirm the appointment of a probationer who is on sick leave.
Keywords:
probationary period; sick leave; termination of employment;
Judgment 3866
124th Session, 2017
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to confirm her appointment at the end of her probationary period.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Appeal Board’s finding that there was no flaw because there were no provisions in the Employee Handbook fails to have regard to the well-settled case law that a probationer must be given a timely warning that her or his employment is in jeopardy.
Keywords:
case law; probationary period;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; probationary period; termination of employment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Global Fund acknowledges that objectives were not established at the start of the complainant’s employment but points to other considerations in an attempt to overcome this requirement. It points, in particular, to the fact that the complainant was a consultant with the Global Fund immediately prior to her appointment. This consideration is irrelevant and ignores the fact that at the time of the appointment there was a material change in the complainant’s status. It cannot be assumed that the duties, the responsibilities and reporting requirements would remain the same. The Global Fund’s position also disregards the fact that not only did the complainant become an employee but an employee on probation. The documents and information the Global Fund identifies, including the vacancy notice, are general in nature and do not identify the complainant’s objectives that served as a yardstick to measure performance. Additionally, the fact that the performance objectives setting only occurs for all staff members at a particular time does not absolve the Global Fund from its obligation to set the objectives at the start of the probationary period.
Keywords:
probationary period;
Judgment 3845
124th Session, 2017
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant agreed quite freely to sign the new contract including the clause which he now alleges is unlawful, and it was not unjustified, to say the least, to stipulate a trial period, given that the newly agreed appointment was for a period of just over six years.
Keywords:
contract; probationary period;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently found that an organisation which employs staff members on a probationary basis must not only provide guidance, instructions and advice on carrying out duties; it must also set objectives for such staff members so that they know what criteria will be used to appraise their performance. It must, in good time and in clear language, inform a staff member of any aspects of her or his performance that are deemed unsatisfactory and warn her or him of the risk of dismissal after the probationary period so that both parties can take appropriate steps to remedy the situation sufficiently early. These requirements flow from the general principles applicable in international civil service law, in particular the principle of good faith, the duty of care and the employer’s duty to respect the dignity of its employees (see Judgments 3481, under 6 and 7, 3482, under 11, and 3678, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3481, 3482, 3678
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; probationary period;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; probationary period; termination of employment;
Judgment 3844
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period for unsatisfactory performance and conduct.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that “[a]ccording to the case law [...], the Tribunal is competent to review the lawfulness of any decision by the Director-General to terminate a staff member’s probation. In particular, it may determine whether that decision is based on errors of fact or law, or whether essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or whether clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or, lastly, whether there has been an abuse of authority. The Tribunal may not, however, replace with its own the executive head’s opinion of a staff member’s performance, conduct or fitness for international service (see Judgment 318, considerations). Other cases mention, as further grounds on which the Tribunal will review such decisions, a formal or procedural flaw, or lack of due process (see, for example, Judgments 13, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183 and 1246) which, it has been noted, must be substantial to invalidate an end-of-probation termination decision.” (See Judgment 2427, consideration 2.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 13, 318, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183, 1246, 2427
Keywords:
discretion; probationary period;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; probationary period; termination of employment;
Judgment 3843
124th Session, 2017
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract at the end of his probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; probationary period; termination of employment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
It is consistent case law that the decision to confirm or terminate a contract on completion of a probationary period is a discretionary decision. The Tribunal will not intervene except in cases where the decision was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgments 2646, under 5, 3440, under 2, and 3678, under 4, among others). Furthermore, the Tribunal will not replace an organization’s assessment with its own in cases where unsatisfactory performance is the basis for the refusal of confirmation (see Judgment 2916, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2646, 2916, 3440, 3678
Keywords:
discretion; probationary period;
Judgment 3766
123rd Session, 2017
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her contract during her extended probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; probationary period; termination of employment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that although the complainant’s probationary period had been extended for a three-month period [...], that extension was suddenly curtailed [...], i.e. only 26 days after it had been put in place. Furthermore, it is clear that the abrupt termination of the complainant’s contract, which was decided on the same day that a stormy meeting took place between the complainant and her supervisor, was a consequence of that meeting. Even supposing that the termination was solely motivated by the complainant’s unsatisfactory performance, as the Organization maintains, and not by a desire to punish her behaviour, the Tribunal observes that it was plainly unlawful to terminate her contract before the end of the extension period that had just been granted to her without having first conducted a proper appraisal of her work. The decision [...] must therefore be set aside for this reason alone, without there being any need to examine the other pleas pertaining to it.
Keywords:
probationary period;
Judgment 3678
122nd Session, 2016
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him at the end of his probation period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; probationary period;
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 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:
judicial review; organisation's duties; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
