Termination of employment (389, 390, 391, 393, 395, 396, 398, 843, 969,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Termination of employment
Total judgments found: 377
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 | next >
Judgment 3098
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; termination of employment;
Judgment 3097
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; inquiry; investigation; short-term; termination of employment;
Judgment 3090
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; termination of employment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal may rule on any employment relationship arising between an organisation and its staff, whether under the terms of a contract or under Staff Regulations. If a decision to appoint an employee, or to terminate his or her employment, is challenged on the grounds that it affects the rights of the person concerned which the Tribunal is competent to safeguard, the Tribunal must rule on the lawfulness of the disputed decision. It is immaterial whether the employee in question was recruited under a contract and whether that contract was for a fixed term. (See Judgment 1272, under 9.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; contract; duration of appointment; official; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3085
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
[I]t is true that deficiencies in the complainant’s performance were noted in the PMDS appraisals. However, as to the alleged assistance that was given to the complainant to improve her performance, other than broad assertions on the part of her supervisor that this was done, there is no evidence of any specific guidance or suggestions given to the complainant by Dr V. in terms of concrete steps or measures that the complainant should take to improve her performance in those areas of identified deficiencies and against which improvement in performance could be monitored and measured. Again, given its importance in assessing the overall suitability of the staff member, it would be expected that the specific directions and expectations would be documented. Equally, it would be expected that the guidance Dr V. provided to the complainant would also be documented.
Keywords:
judicial review; organisation's duties; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3081
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; misconduct; serious misconduct; suspension; termination of employment;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 52
Extract:
[T]he Director-General’s decision of 3 July 2009 must be set aside, both with respect to the decision of 30 November 2007 and the complainant’s claim of harassment. In view of the restructuring of ILO/AIDS this is not an appropriate case in which to order reinstatement. However, the complainant is entitled to notional reinstatement for a period of 12 months from 1 January 2008 with the consequence that the ILO should pay her the salary, allowances and other benefits, including pension and health insurance contributions, that she would have received if her contract had been extended to 31 December 2008. The complainant must give credit for the amounts actually earned by her during the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008. As the complainant was in fact employed until the end of October 2008, the Tribunal will award interest on the resulting balance at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from 1 November 2008 until the date of payment.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; reinstatement; termination of employment;
Judgment 3070
112th Session, 2012
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed (see Judgment 2414, under 23). Precedent also has it that the procedure used for drawing up a performance appraisal forming the basis of a dismissal decision must always be adversarial (see, in particular, Judgments 2468, under 17, and 2515, under 18)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 2515
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; criteria; date; duty to inform; organisation's duties; purpose; right; termination of employment; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3055
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; complaint allowed; decision quashed; separation from service; termination of employment;
Judgment 3033
111th Session, 2011
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[A]ny decision to terminate an employee's contract must be clear and precise and must comply with the applicable formal requirements. Moreover, like any decision unfavourable to an official, it cannot take effect before the date on which he or she is notified of it (see Judgment 1531, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1531
Keywords:
cause of action; date of notification; decision; effect; formal requirements; organisation's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 3026
111th Session, 2011
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is well settled that “[a]n organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better” (see Judgment 1583, under 6(a)). Thus, “[a] staff member [...] is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service [and] to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which [his or her] future performance will be assessed” (see Judgment 2414, under 23). It is clear that the unsatisfactory aspects of the complainant’s performance were detailed in the mid-point review in his 2006 performance appraisal and detailed in a way that enabled him to know the areas in which he needed to improve his performance.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1583, 2414
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; probationary period; termination of employment;
Judgment 3010
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
Abolition of post and termination of contract following restructuring / Failure by the Organization to consult the joint advisory body (Appointment and Promotion Board) prior to terminating the complainant's contract .
"[T]he purpose of a provision requiring referral of the proposed termination of a contract to an advisory body is, as stated in Judgment 2352, 'to allow that body to ensure that all the conditions for taking such a step are met, with a view to submitting a recommendation to the executive head'".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2352
Keywords:
advisory body; condition; contract; decision; executive head; provision; purpose; recommendation; termination of employment;
Judgment 2922
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he procedure leading to titularisation was never undertaken in the case of the complainant. It may be concluded from the foregoing that the complainant did not have the status of an established official within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the [ILO] Staff Regulations. It follows that she is not justified in claiming that there has been a violation of the formal and procedural rules applicable to the termination of the appointment of an established official [...]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 2.1 of the ILO Staff Regulations
Keywords:
breach; formal flaw; formal requirements; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment; titularization; written rule;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; en banc review; misconduct; plenary judgment; termination of employment;
Judgment 2854
107th Session, 2009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 18-20
Extract:
The complainant asserts that the decision to terminate his contract is tainted with procedural irregularities and amounts to a disguised disciplinary measure.
"In Judgment 2090 the Tribunal explained that the provisions of the Federation's Staff Regulations dealing with termination do not authorise the arbitrary termination of contracts and added, under 5, that 'there must be no breach of adversarial procedure [...] nor abuse of authority, nor obvious misappraisal of the facts'. The same applies to Article 11.4 of the Staff Regulations which deals with termination at will. Further, a decision taken pursuant to the latter must be taken in the interests of the Federation. Thus, a decision purportedly taken under Article 11.4 of the Staff Regulations in the interests of the Federation will be set aside if it constitutes a disguised disciplinary measure. A decision of that kind is not taken in the interest of the Federation but for the purpose of avoiding the procedural requirements that must be observed in the case of disciplinary measures.
"The Tribunal identified a hidden sanction in Judgment 2659 as 'a measure which appears to be adopted in the interests of the Organization and in accordance with the applicable rules, but which in reality is a disciplinary measure imposed as a penalty for a transgression, whether real or imaginary'. The Tribunal also pointed out in that judgment that '[t]he true disciplinary nature of an administrative measure that constitutes a hidden sanction is not always apparent' and that, accordingly, it is 'necessary to examine the particular circumstances in each case'.
"There are a number of matters in the present case that indicate that the decision to terminate the complainant's contract was a disciplinary measure. In this regard, the complainant was requested not to report to his office, his access to electronic files and to e-mail was terminated and he was allowed access to the Federation's building only to collect his personal belongings. Further, the letter of termination [...] referred to the complainant's refusal to accept the Secretary General's instructions and said that his 'defiance of [the Secretary General's] instructions [might] constitute grounds for termination for valid reasons with immediate effect'. The Secretary General had already stated in July 2006 that he considered the complainant had been guilty of misconduct [...] and had then warned him of the consequences of noncompliance with his formulation of principles [...]. Additionally, the Secretary General's letter [...] referred to the 'seriousness of [the] matter and the potential consequences it [might] entail'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2090, 2659
Keywords:
definition; disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure; judicial review; termination of employment;
Consideration 23
Extract:
The complainant asserts that the decision to terminate his contract is tainted with procedural irregularities and amounts to a disguised disciplinary measure.
"In a case such as the present one where termination constitutes a hidden disciplinary sanction and reinstatement is not appropriate, compensation should be assessed on the basis of what would have occurred if proper procedures had been followed."
Keywords:
compensation; disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure; judicial review; reinstatement; termination of employment;
Judgment 2849
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 20-22
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed for misconduct.
"The question remains whether the sanction of dismissal was warranted in the circumstances. In Judgment 207 the Tribunal held that it is not its role to substitute one disciplinary sanction for another unless the penalty imposed is clearly out of proportion with the gravity of the offence. The Tribunal further commented in Judgment 2656, under 5, that '[...] lack of proportionality is to be treated as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure even though a decision in that regard is discretionary in nature [...]. In determining whether disciplinary action is disproportionate to the offence, both objective and subjective features are to be taken into account and, in the case of dismissal, the closest scrutiny is necessary (see Judgment 937).'"
"In the present case, the Director-General rejected the Appeals Committee's recommendation that a lesser sanction be imposed. [The] Director-General [...] observed that 'it is well established in law that unsatisfactory conduct and unsatisfactory performance are different matters with different administrative consequence'. While the Director-General's observation is correct, it does not follow that exemplary prior service is not a relevant mitigating factor in the determination of a proper sanction."
"It must be noted, however, that in the present case it was not a matter of a single transgression within the context of an otherwise unblemished career. The Director-General properly considered the incompatibility of the complainant's conduct with his role as a representative of the FAO and considered the nature of the actions of misconduct in deciding that, when taken together they justified a dismissal from service. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will not interfere."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 937, 2656
Keywords:
discretion; general principle; judicial review; misconduct; proportionality; termination of employment;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed for misconduct.
"It is well established in the Tribunal's case law that where misconduct is denied, the onus is on the Administration to prove the misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, staff members are to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgment 2786, under 9)."
"Although the complainant argues otherwise, the evidence gathered [...] clearly establishes misconduct beyond reasonable doubt."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; general principle; misconduct; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 2830
107th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated following a reorganisation.
"The Tribunal finds that the Organization has not shown that it actually did its utmost to find a post matching the complainant's qualifications. Furthermore, before simply terminating his appointment, the Organization ought to have ascertained whether he was prepared to accept a post at a lower grade to that which he had previously held (see Judgment 1782, under 11). It was not up to the complainant to prove that he was able to remain in the Organization's service in some capacity; it was up to the Organization to prove the contrary."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1782
Keywords:
burden of proof; condition; grade; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; post; qualifications; reassignment; reorganisation; termination of employment;
Judgment 2786
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"It is to be noted that, in cases of dismissal, the staff member must be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgment 635, under 10). Further, when misconduct is denied, it is for the Administration to prove it and to prove it beyond reasonable doubt (see Judgment 969, under 16)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 635, 969
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 2773
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
[W]ith regard to the issue of whether the measure of dismissal duly reflects the seriousness of the offences committed, the Tribunal points out that according to firm precedent, as recalled in particular in Judgments 207 and 1984, the disciplinary authority has discretion in determining the severity of a sanction justified by a staff member’s misconduct, provided that the principle of proportionality is respected. In view of the serious nature of the above-mentioned acts, and although the complainant had always been complimented on his professional abilities throughout his career, the Director-General of the FAO clearly did not exceed his discretionary authority in deciding to dismiss the complainant. The principle of proportionality has not therefore been breached.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1984
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality; termination of employment;
Judgment 2745
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"'Constructive dismissal' is a phrase used to signify that an organisation has breached the terms of a staff member's contract in such a way as to indicate that it will no longer be bound by that contract."
Keywords:
breach; condition; contract; definition; implied decision; official; organisation; termination of employment;
Judgment 2732
105th Session, 2008
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"Staff Regulation 9.2(c) states that the Director General may at any time terminate an appointment of a staff member serving a probationary period if, in his opinion, it would be in the interest of the Organization. This provision, however, does not displace the well-established principle that 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 in risk of dismissal' (see Judgments 1212 and 2529). As well, a probationer is entitled to a timely warning so that measures can be taken to remedy the situation (see Judgment 2414).
In the present case, given the nature of the complainant's functions, a period of seven days to demonstrate improvement was clearly inadequate. Accordingly, the decision to terminate her contract must be set aside."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IOM Staff Regulation 9.2(c)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1212, 2414, 2529
Keywords:
decision; executive head; notice; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; probationary period; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 | next >
|
