Judgment No. 4748
Decision
1. The impugned decision and the decision of 21 June 2019 terminating the complainant’s appointment are set aside.
2. The IOC shall pay the complainant material damages in the amount of 20,000 euros.
3. The IOC shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 5,000 euros.
4. The IOC shall pay the complainant 3,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; probationary period; termination of employment; performance evaluation
Consideration 7
Extract:
The [organization] violated its duty of care by failing to maintain a properly functioning appeal system, in breach of the applicable rules established by Articles 50 and 64 of the Staff Regulations [...]. Denying the complainant the opportunity to exercise his right to an effective internal appeal denied the fundamental safeguards provided by that right. Neither administrative inefficiency nor a lack of resources can excuse this failure. This is particularly important in a case involving the termination of employment, such as the present. If the appeal reveals that the termination decision was flawed, then, if it has been dealt with in a timely way, steps can be taken to reverse the effects of the termination, including reinstating the employee. As time passes, that outcome becomes increasingly difficult, for practical purposes, to achieve.
Keywords
internal appeals body; right of appeal; organisation's duties; duty of care
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
probationary period; termination of employment; performance evaluation
|
