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

Constructive dismissal (843,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Constructive dismissal
Total judgments found: 3

  • Judgment 4383


    131st Session, 2021
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her a performance improvement plan (PIP).

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    In Judgment 4231, under 10, citing Judgment 2745, under 13, for example, the Tribunal stated that constructive dismissal signifies 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. A staff member may treat that as constituting constructive dismissal with all the legal consequences that flow from an unlawful termination of the contract, even if she or he has resigned. In Judgment 2435, under 17, the Tribunal stated that the notion of constructive dismissal is a convenient expression to indicate that an employer has acted in a manner inconsistent with the further maintenance of the employment relationship entitling the employee, if she or he so elects, to treat the employer’s actions as terminating the employment. In the event that the employee so elects – usually by tendering her or his resignation – consequential rights and obligations are determined on the basis that it was the employer, not the employee, who terminated the employment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2435, 2745, 4231

    Keywords:

    constructive dismissal;



  • Judgment 4231


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment and to place him on special leave with pay until his contract expired.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant’s plea that the non-extension of his appointment was a disguised disciplinary measure amounting to constructive dismissal is unfounded. In the first place, the notion of constructive dismissal is inapplicable in the present case. The FAO opted not to extend his contract on its expiry. Constructive dismissal, on the other hand, signifies 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. A staff member may treat that as constituting constructive dismissal with all the legal consequences that flow from an unlawful termination of the contract, even if she or he has resigned (see Judgments 2745, consideration 13, and 2967, consideration 9). Moreover, in the Tribunal’s view, the circumstances which culminated in the non-extension may lead to conjecture (but are not proof) that the decision may have been a hidden sanction. This is given the contents of the exchanges in his progress report of 8 June 2013 to the Deputy Director-General for Operations, his letter of 5 May 2014 to the Director-General; the latter’s reply of 9 June 2014 and the complainant’s response of 17 June 2014 culminating in the letter of 4 July 2014, which contains the contested decision. However, as the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 2907, consideration 23, for example, “the existence of a hidden disciplinary measure cannot be inferred from mere conjecture and could not be accepted unless it were proven”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2745, 2907, 2967

    Keywords:

    constructive dismissal; disguised disciplinary measure;



  • Judgment 4086


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    [T]he alleged failure to provide the subject job description [did not] amount to constructive dismissal, as WIPO did not thereby breach the complainant’s contract in such a way as to indicate that it would no longer have been bound by it (see, for example, Judgment 2745, under 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2745

    Keywords:

    constructive dismissal; contract; post description;


 
Last updated: 28.09.2021 ^ top