Jugement n° 4840
Décision
1. The impugned decision of the Director General of 9 November 2020 and the decision of the Chief of Mission of 6 October 2019 are set aside.
2. IOM shall pay the complainant material damages in an amount equivalent to nine months of her last salary, including all benefits, entitlements and emoluments, plus interest at a rate of 5 per cent per annum from 1 November 2019, less any amounts she may have earned from other employment during the period of nine months beginning on 1 November 2019.
3. It shall also pay her costs in the amount of 10,000 euros.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Synthèse
The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés
Requête admise; Admission partielle; Obligation de motiver une décision; Application des règles de procédure; Patere legem; Violation; Durée déterminée; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Services insatisfaisants; Evaluation; Règles de l'organisation
Considérant 5
Extrait:
[T]he Tribunal disagrees with IOM’s assertion that the complaint is allegedly irreceivable (for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, as the underlying appeal was not filed within the applicable deadline), insofar as it concerns the decisions, communicated to the complainant on 13 June 2019, to establish the PIP (including any alleged violation of the SES process) and to extend the complainant’s contract for a three-month period corresponding to the PIP’s duration. The Tribunal considers that a staff member may challenge the decision to subject her to a PIP in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the PIP process. In Judgment 3713, consideration 3, the Tribunal recalled that:
“[I]t is obvious that the setting of a performance objective is merely a step in the process of evaluating the performance of employees. It is firmly established by the Tribunal’s case law that a measure of this kind can only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the process in question (see for example Judgment 2366, consideration 16, or Judgment 3198, consideration 13).” (See also Judgment 3890, consideration 5.)
In the present case, the decision taken at the end of the PIP process was a decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract due to underperformance and this decision resulted in the complainant being separated from IOM. This being so, the Tribunal considers that the above cited case law from Judgments 3713, consideration 3, and 3890, consideration 5, is equally applicable in a case such as the present. And given that the complainant impugns her final contract extension and ultimate non-renewal, it is of no relevance whether the issue of her prior three-month extension is receivable.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3198, 3713, 3890
Mots-clés
Rapport d'appréciation; Services insatisfaisants; Décision définitive; Evaluation; Etape de la procédure; Performance
Considérant 7
Extrait:
With respect to decisions relating to performance evaluation, the Tribunal has emphasized that it has a limited power of review. For instance, in Judgment 4666, consideration 4, it recalled the following:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls first of all that, under its settled case law, the assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement and it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by the competent bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of law or of fact, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 4, 4169, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, 3268, consideration 9, and 3039, consideration 7).” (See also Judgments 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, consideration 3.)
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3039, 3268, 4010, 4169, 4543, 4564, 4666, 4713
Mots-clés
Contrôle du Tribunal; Limites; Erreur de fait; Erreur de droit; Déductions manifestement inexactes; Détournement de pouvoir; Evaluation; Performance
Considérant 8
Extrait:
With respect to decisions pertaining to the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts, the Tribunal has also emphasized the limited scope of the review it can exercise. In Judgment 4146, consideration 3, it stated, in particular, the following:
“The case law of the Tribunal states that an organisation enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment and, a fortiori, whether to convert it into an indefinite one. Although the exercise of such discretion is not unfettered, it is subject to only limited review, as the Tribunal will respect the organisation’s freedom to determine its own requirements. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only set aside such decisions if they were taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if they rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 3772, under 5).”
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772, 4146
Mots-clés
Durée déterminée; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Contrôle du Tribunal; Limites; Erreur de fait; Erreur de droit; Déductions manifestement inexactes; Détournement de pouvoir
Considérant 10
Extrait:
[A]n international organization must comply with the procedures it has established for evaluating performance before deciding to terminate or not to renew a contract for unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 4666, consideration 4, the Tribunal aptly stated the following in this respect:
“An examination of a staff member’s assessment report before taking any decision not to renew that person’s contract on the basis of unsatisfactory performance is a fundamental obligation, non-compliance with which constitutes a procedural flaw that has the effect of an essential fact being overlooked (see, in particular, Judgments 2992, consideration 18, 2096, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein).”
In Judgment 3417, also involving IOM, this principle was enunciated in no uncertain terms at consideration 6:
“However while there is an undoubted right of an organisation to decide not to renew a fixed-term contract, it does not follow that an organisation is, additionally, immune from any liability if it has failed to follow its own procedures designed to monitor, assess and evaluate staff performance and progress. The fundamental purpose of such procedures is to explicitly alert a staff member to identified deficiencies in her or his performance and thus give the staff member an opportunity to address those deficiencies and improve performance. The interaction of such procedures and decisions not to renew fixed-term contracts was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2991, under 13:
‘It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person’s work carried out in compliance with previously established rules [...].’”
This is entirely consistent with the related principle to the effect that an organization 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, for example, Judgments 3932, consideration 21, and 3252, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2991, 2992, 3252, 3417, 3932, 4666
Mots-clés
Obligation de motiver une décision; Application des règles de procédure; Patere legem; Violation; Durée déterminée; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Services insatisfaisants; Evaluation; Règles de l'organisation
Considérant 18
Extrait:
[I]n the process leading up to the 6 October 2019 decision that ended up being confirmed by the impugned decision, IOM breached Rule 1.2.2(b) and Instruction IN/181 by not undertaking in due course the required periodic appraisal of the complainant’s work. The leap to the PIP was, in this sense, premature and a breach of due process, as much as a failure to adhere to explicit organizational rules.
Mots-clés
Application des règles de procédure; Patere legem; Violation; Rapport d'appréciation; Evaluation; Règles de l'organisation; Performance
Considérant 20
Extrait:
[A]s a result, the complainant was ultimately not provided with a full three months to improve her performance, even though it was initially determined by the organization that this was the necessary period established for improvement. In addition, while the draft PIP contemplated holding meetings every two weeks, in the end only four meetings took place to discuss the complainant’s PIP (24 July, 28 August, 4 September and 6 October 2019). And while the complainant was told at the 4 September meeting that her fixed-term contract would be renewed for six months, at the 6 October meeting that followed, she was rather notified of the non-renewal of that fixed-term contract beyond its expiry on 31 October 2019 because of the alleged sudden deterioration of her performance after mid-September.
It follows that, on this basis alone, the PIP process was irregular and procedurally flawed, as was the subsequent decision not to renew the complainant’s contract based on the results of that PIP.
Mots-clés
Application des règles de procédure; Patere legem; Violation; Rapport d'appréciation; Services insatisfaisants; Evaluation; Règles de l'organisation; Performance
Considérants 23-24
Extrait:
[T]he CoM thus failed to give the complainant reasonable time to improve her performance between the time that he recognized that it had improved sufficiently enough to warrant a longer contract renewal and the last-minute reversal of this view that led to the sudden imposition of the decision of non-renewal.
In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the Organization breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve her performance. The Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that in terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 3282, consideration 5, it stated the following in this respect:
“As in Judgment 2916, under 4, the Tribunal holds that ‘an 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 [...]. Moreover, it 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 [...].’”
Similarly, in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2916, 3026, 3282
Mots-clés
Application des règles de procédure; Patere legem; Violation; Appréciation des services; Rapport d'appréciation; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Services insatisfaisants; Avertissement; Evaluation; Règles de l'organisation; Performance
Considérant 29
Extrait:
Firm and constant precedent has it that an international organization has a duty to provide valid reasons for a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. For example, in Judgment 4503, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following in support of this principle:
“Even though an organization is generally under no obligation to extend a fixed-term contract or to reassign someone whose fixed-term contract is expiring, unless it is specifically provided by a provision in the staff rules or regulations, the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 1128, consideration 2, 1154, consideration 4, 1983, consideration 6, 2406, consideration 14, 3353, consideration 15, 3582, consideration 9, 3586, consideration 10, 3626, consideration 12, and 3769, consideration 7).
An international organization is under an obligation to consider whether or not it is in its interests to renew a contract and to make a decision accordingly: though such a decision is discretionary, it cannot be arbitrary or irrational; there must be a good reason for it and the reason must be given (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2).”
In Judgment 3586, consideration 6, the Tribunal further clarified that “[t]hese grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, [consideration] 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contained a similar provision”.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 3444, 3586, 4503
Mots-clés
Obligation de motiver une décision; Application des règles de procédure; Patere legem; Violation; Durée déterminée; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Services insatisfaisants; Evaluation; Règles de l'organisation
Considérant 33
Extrait:
The complainant seeks reinstatement in the Organization. The Tribunal considers that, in view of the time that has passed since the events giving rise to this case and the fact that the complainant held a fixed-term appointment, it is not appropriate, in the circumstances, to order her reinstatement. In Judgment 4674, consideration 23, the Tribunal recalled that it was only in exceptional cases that reinstatement might be ordered in a context where the complainant was on a fixed-term contract that has expired (see also, for example, Judgment 4063, consideration 11). The present case is not exceptional.
In addition, the Tribunal cannot ignore that, despite its conclusion that in view of the above-mentioned irregularities and findings the impugned decision of 9 November 2020 and the prior decision of 6 October 2019 must be annulled, the very acrimonious and sometimes never-ending exchanges between the parties establish that the reinstatement of the complainant is no longer possible, nor appropriate or in the interest of either one of the parties. Any reasonable likelihood of the parties being able to establish a satisfactory working relationship with the necessary trust and confidence, despite the conflictual situation that transpired from these numerous exchanges, is simply non-existent.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063, 4674
Mots-clés
Réintégration; Durée déterminée
Considérant 34
Extrait:
[T]he complainant claims material damages in an amount equal to two years’ salary, benefits, step increases, pension contributions, and all other entitlements and emoluments that she would have received had she not been wrongfully separated from service. This claim is not substantiated in the complainant’s proceedings be it in terms of years sought or of her expectations within the Organization. Given that any fixed-term contract the complainant ever held with IOM never exceeded one year and that the total length of her services with the Organization lasted approximately five years, the Tribunal considers that this claim is not justified and overstated in the circumstances.
An award of material damages in an amount equivalent to nine months’ salary, including benefits, entitlements and emoluments, represents a fair and reasonable compensation in the present case. IOM will be ordered to pay this amount to the complainant, plus interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from 1 November 2019, less any amounts she may have earned from other employment during that period of nine months beginning on 1 November 2019.
Mots-clés
Préjudice; Charge de la preuve; Application des règles de procédure; Violation; Durée déterminée; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Dommages-intérêts pour tort matériel
Considérant 35
Extrait:
The complainant also claims moral damages in an amount equal to no less than one year of her former gross salary and benefits. But the Tribunal’s case law states that in respect of damages, the complainant bears the burden of proof and that she must provide evidence of the alleged injury (see, for example, Judgment 4156, consideration 5). It suffices to note that in the present situation, notwithstanding this precedent, the complainant did not provide any specification of the moral injury she allegedly suffered nor evidence supporting its existence. This claim must consequently be rejected.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Mots-clés
Préjudice; Charge de la preuve; Application des règles de procédure; Violation; Durée déterminée; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Indemnité pour tort moral
|
