Judgment No. 396
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant contends that the decision to terminate his appointment was a covert disciplinary measure taken in disregard of the prescribed procedure: he alleges abuse of authority and procedural irregularity. "There is no document in the dossier which makes or even implies any charge of unsatisfactory conduct. [...] The shortcomings imputed to [the complainant] bear no taint of misconduct such as would have warranted disciplinary action."
Keywords
lack of evidence; probationary period; termination of employment; hidden disciplinary measure
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Under any contract of appointment the organization, even in the absence of express provision, is bound to respect an official's dignity and reputation - in other words to beware of putting him needlessly in a difficult personal position. If the organization fails in that duty it may be ordered to pay compensation, even if there is no decision to be set aside [...] however, only for serious wrong likely to prove damaging to a staff member's career."
Keywords
moral injury; professional injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; no provision; material damages
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Misunderstandings between a probationer and his supervisor do not necessarily justify instant dismissal. As a rule, before a staff member is dismissed thought should be given to transferring him to some other post on trial, especially if he is junior in rank."
Keywords
transfer; probationary period; termination of employment; working relations
Consideration 1
Extract:
"It is the Director-General who defines the interests of the organization, referred to in the regulation [concerning the termination of a probationer's appointment], and so he enjoys discretionary authority."
Keywords
probationary period; termination of employment; discretion; organisation's interest
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant had been appointed as special assistant to the Director-General as a result of a long-standing friendship between them. After a period of collaboration, the Director-General came to distrust the complainant. "Thus the complainant was no longer able to give the [organization] the service it expected of him." The Tribunal must conclude "that in terminating the complainant's appointment the Director-General acted in the organization's interest".
Keywords
probationary period; termination of employment; working relations; organisation's interest
| 
