Probationary period (307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 661,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Probationary period
Total judgments found: 94
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 3674
122nd Session, 2016
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; probationary period;
Judgment 3672
122nd Session, 2016
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his extended trial period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; probationary period;
Judgment 3651
122nd Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment upon the expiry of his probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; probationary period;
Judgment 3482
120th Session, 2015
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract with immediate effect during his trial period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; duty of care; probationary period; respect for dignity; termination of employment;
Judgment 3481
120th Session, 2015
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract with immediate effect during his trial period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; due process; probationary period; termination of employment;
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
"[I]t is appropriate to recall that, according to the case law, there is no general principle of law that requires an international organisation to retain a staff member in its service throughout that person’s trial period if, before that period expires, the competent authority has come to the final conclusion that the staff member concerned is unsuitable for the post to which he or she was assigned (see, in particular, Judgment 197, first paragraph). [...]
[I]t is trite law that an organisation must give its staff members, especially those undergoing a trial period, guidance, instructions and advice as to the performance of their duties and that it must warn them in specific terms if they are not giving satisfaction and are at risk of dismissal; 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 that steps can be taken 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 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): 197, 2529, 3128
Keywords:
probationary period;
Judgment 3440
119th Session, 2015
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for unsatisfactory performance at the end of her probationary period.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"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."
Keywords:
probationary period;
Consideration 16
Extract:
"[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."
Keywords:
probationary period;
Judgment 3432
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that the EPO breached its duty of care towards him and successfully impugns the decision to award him a compensation which he considers inadequate.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; probationary period; residence permit; termination of employment; work appraisal;
Judgment 3431
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the implied rejection of his appeal against the decision to dismiss him at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The EPO had a duty to the complainant, during the probationary period, to act in good faith and to honour its duty of care towards him, as a probationer. In keeping with these requirements, the EPO provided clear work objectives for the complainant’s guidance from the initial stage of the probationary period."
Keywords:
probationary period;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; probationary period;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"[T]he complainant was dismissed because of unsatisfactory performance during the probationary period. A firm line of precedents of the Tribunal have established that such a decision 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 if it 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."
Keywords:
probationary period;
Judgment 3264
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision not to renew her contract after an extension of her probationary period and is granted damages.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; decision quashed; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension of contract; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The purpose of probation is to give an organisation an opportunity to evaluate a probationer’s suitability for a position (see Judgment 2646, under 5). This gives rise to corollary obligations on the part of the organisation to warn a staff member in a timely manner that her or his performance is unsatisfactory, to give the staff member guidance and an opportunity to improve and to set objectives against which improvement can be measured. 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 2414, under 23)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2646
Keywords:
duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; probationary period; respect for dignity; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 3240
115th Session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the Organization had acted in breach of its own rules on performance appraisal and probationary periods.
Consideration 21
Extract:
"It is a well-established principle governing probation that in addition to “[identifying] in a timely fashion the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance so that remedial steps may be taken”, an organisation must also “give a specific warning that the continued employment is in jeopardy” (see Judgment 2788, under 1)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2788
Keywords:
organisation; organisation's duties; probationary period; purpose; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance evaluation; probationary period; rules of the organisation;
Judgment 3162
114th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his appointment which, in his view, is flawed for breach of due process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; probationary period; termination of employment;
Judgment 3085
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
[T]he three governing principles in the Tribunal’s case law in relation to the non-confirmation of appointment for unsatisfactory performance were fully respected in the complainant’s case. The three principles to which the defendant refers are: the staff member must be informed of the criteria used to evaluate his or her performance; the staff member must be informed of the deficiencies in performance so that remedial steps can be taken and the organisation must take steps to help the staff member to improve; and, the staff member must be clearly warned that continued employment is in jeopardy.
Keywords:
duty to inform; probationary period;
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 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 2982
110th Session, 2011
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Replacement of a staff member in circumstances constituting harassment.
"The Tribunal has consistently held [...] that an organisation 'cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member's unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance' (see Judgment 2916, under 4). It is also well established 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 Judgment 2732, under 16)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2732, 2916
Keywords:
decision; organisation's duties; probationary period; staff assessment; staff regulations and rules; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 2977
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Non-confirmation of appointment at the end of probation for unsatisfactory performance.
"It is well settled that 'the widest measure of discretion' attends decisions as to the confirmation or otherwise of probationary appointments (see Judgment 1386, under 17). Such decisions are subject to review only on the grounds that 'there was a mistake of fact or law, or a formal or procedural flaw, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority' (see Judgment 1175, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1175, 1386
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; probationary period;
Judgment 2883
108th Session, 2010
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8 and 10
Extract:
The complainant joined the Organisation under a three-year fixed-term contract. The first six months of his appointment constituted a probationary period, which was extended for an additional three months.
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Director-General's decision not to renew the complainant's contract is based on errors of fact and law, and must therefore be set aside."
"The Tribunal holds that reinstatement, which could only be as a probationer without any guarantee of confirmation, would raise practical difficulties because of the time that has elapsed since the termination of the complainant's appointment and the scheduling conflicts that may occur between the training courses and the new probationary period [...]. Therefore, the Tribunal finds it appropriate not to order reinstatement but it will award the complainant material damages in the amount of 35,000 euros for the loss of a valuable opportunity to have his appointment confirmed."
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period; reinstatement; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 2836
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[A]lthough the Tribunal's case law requires that an official on probation be warned in a timely manner that his/her appointment might not be confirmed, it does not require that a decision not to renew a contract should rest on exactly the same criticisms as those of which the person concerned had previously been notified (see Judgments 1546 and 2162)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1546, 2162
Keywords:
case law; difference; duty to inform; grounds; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; warning;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was not confirmed at the end of her probationary period. She submits that the assessment of her work was tainted with several flaws. She criticises her responsible chief for having taken into account the opinions expressed on her work by other officials in the department.
"The Tribunal considers that it is not per se unlawful for supervisors who have to assess an official's performance and recommend whether or not to confirm his/her appointment to ask colleagues of the person in question how they rate his/her work, as a means of helping them to form their own judgements. A supervisor must of course exercise the requisite caution and discernment when taking such opinions into account, but there is nothing in the submissions to suggest that this requirement was not satisfied in this case."
Keywords:
condition; contract; flaw; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period; recommendation; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 2788
106th Session, 2009
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"[The] purpose [of probation] 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)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2529
Keywords:
candidate; criteria; definition; fitness for international civil service; organisation; organisation's duties; post; probationary period; purpose; qualifications; refusal; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 2732
105th Session, 2008
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"Although the decision [to terminate the complainant's appointment during her probationary period] must be set aside, in view of the circumstances it is not clear that, even if she had been given a proper warning and an opportunity to improve, her appointment would have been confirmed. However, as a result of the Organization's actions she lost a valuable opportunity to improve and demonstrate her suitability for the position and to have her contract considered in that light. The loss of that opportunity warrants an award of material damages in the amount of 15,000 euros."
Keywords:
contract; decision; duty to inform; good faith; injury; material damages; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period;
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;
Judgment 2646
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[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."
Keywords:
decision; definition; discretion; extension of contract; judicial review; limits; organisation; organisation's interest; post; probationary period; purpose; qualifications;
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed at the end of his probationary period. He states that despite his repeated requests he was never transferred to another directorate. "As to the case law, the complainant relies on Judgment 396 in support of [this] assertion [...]. The issue in that case was whether the head of the Organisation had correctly applied a particular provision of the Staff Regulations authorising him to terminate the appointment of a probationer at any time in the Organisation's interests. The Tribunal stated that '[a]s a rule, before a [probationer] is dismissed thought should be given to transferring him to some other post on trial, especially if he is junior in rank'. It must, however, be noted that this was said in the context of a misunderstanding between the probationer and his supervisor and the Tribunal's observation that such a misunderstanding does not necessarily justify instant dismissal. In the present case, the stated reason for the dismissal was poor performance.
To conclude that in situations of poor performance a staff member on probation will always be entitled to a transfer prior to being dismissed undermines the whole purpose of probationary terms. In some circumstances a transfer may be the proper option, but the circumstances of the present case do not warrant this finding."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396
Keywords:
case law; discretion; enforcement; executive head; general principle; grounds; organisation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; probationary period; provision; purpose; refusal; request by a party; right; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; termination of employment; transfer; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
