|
|
 |
|
|
Warning (514,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Warning
Total judgments found: 34
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: 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.
Considerations 23-24
Extract:
[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”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2916, 3026, 3282
Keywords:
breach; due process; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 4674
136th Session, 2023
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Considerations 16-18
Extract:
Certainly in the case of unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal’s case law casts a duty on the organisation to inform a staff member of their unsatisfactory performance and effectively give them a warning that their performance needs to improve otherwise there is a risk of dismissal. In Judgment 3911 the Tribunal said:
[…]
There is no bright line distinguishing or separating conduct which constitutes unsatisfactory performance and some conduct which can be characterised as misconduct. The same conduct may be both. Judgment 4540 illustrates this point. Plainly, there will be situations where conduct constituting misconduct which could not be simply characterised as unsatisfactory performance, can lead to dismissal without any warning. Obvious examples would be theft, fraud or a serious assault on a fellow staff member occasioning actual bodily harm. That is one extreme. However, in circumstances such as the present, where generally the essential complaint was about the management style of a staff member (albeit, in this case, a forceful management style characterised as harassment by the Organization), it could be expected that the person concerned would be warned or counselled that her or his management style needed to alter, perhaps even radically and quickly, and if it did not, dismissal might follow. That is particularly so if the conduct is remediable and specific aspects of the conduct are not, in isolation, egregious even if, cumulatively, they might be. As noted earlier in relation to these proceedings, this is not a case where each alleged act of misconduct was identified, separately, as warranting the sanction of dismissal. It was the aggregation of conduct “creating a hostile work environment over an extended period of time” which underlay the decision to dismiss the complainant.
Her plea that she received no warning or counselling and should have, is well founded. The decision to dismiss the complainant should be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3911, 4540
Keywords:
harassment; misconduct; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 4540
134th Session, 2022
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he failure to give the complainant a written warning and a reasonable time to improve was an important factor to be considered in determining what was an appropriate measure having regard to her conduct, even as determined by the Director in the impugned decision. Indeed, having regard to the terms of Staff Rule 1070.2, no decision to dismiss should have been made in the absence of a warning and providing a reasonable time to improve. The measure of dismissal under Staff Rule 1070 was unlawful. Accordingly, the impugned decision should be set aside.
Keywords:
due process; patere legem; termination of employment; warning;
Judgment 4505
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is true that the Tribunal’s case law states that a probationer must be given a timely warning if her or his employment is in jeopardy and a specific warning that continued employment is in jeopardy (see Judgments 3240, consideration 21, and 3866, consideration 10). However, in this case, as the Appeal Board found in its report, the evidence shows that the complainant’s attention was indeed directed to his unsatisfactory performance and the need to improve his competencies. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3440, consideration 16, “[a] probationer is quite aware that unsatisfactory performance would occasion the termination of her or his appointment”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3240, 3440, 3866
Keywords:
probationary period; warning;
Judgment 4466
133rd Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue a first formal written warning of unsatisfactory performance and to initiate the procedure for addressing unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
In consideration 8 of Judgment 3967 the Tribunal held that the warning letter issued in that case (which was similar to that issued to the complainant in the present case) was not an act that could be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process that culminates in a staff report. Based on this case law, the complaint is irreceivable in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3967
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; performance evaluation; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure; warning;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; performance evaluation; warning;
Judgment 3911
125th Session, 2018
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is noteworthy that the decision in Judgment 2529, consideration 15, was made in reliance on the following statement of principle in Judgment 2414, consideration 23:
“15. The Tribunal’s case law is voluminous and consistent to the effect 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 1212.) More recently, in Judgment 2414 the Tribunal held that:
‘23. [...] 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. 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. That is why it was said in Judgment 2170 that an organisation must ‘conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that [its rules] will be followed’.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1212, 2170, 2414, 2529
Keywords:
unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 3704
122nd Session, 2016
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the former Director of the ILO Office in Berlin to apply to her the sanction of warning.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; warning;
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 2982
110th Session, 2011
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[The complainant] was replaced virtually immediately even though his contract had somewhat less than two months to run [...] and he had earlier been told that he was to be provided with assistance for the project; he was given no warning of the decision; he was not heard on the question and adequate reasons were not provided. Replacing the complainant in these circumstances constituted '[a]ctions [...] directed at actively damaging [his] personal and/or professional reputation' and, thus, falls within the definition of 'harassment' in General Bulletin No. 1312 of 26 March 2002."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IOM General Bulletin No. 1312 of 26 March 2002
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; professional injury; reassignment; warning;
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 2916
109th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[W]here the ground for non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation concerned [...]. However, 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 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 1583, 2414
Keywords:
case law; contract; discretion; fixed-term; good faith; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; staff regulations and rules; tribunal; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
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;
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 2752
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review in the case of warnings or reprimands which are not of a disciplinary nature. As pointed out in Judgments 274 and 403:
'The Tribunal will not interfere unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts.'
In Judgment 274 it was also explained that '[a] warning or reprimand must be based on unsatisfactory conduct since what it is saying in effect is that if the conduct is repeated a disciplinary measure may be taken'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 403
Keywords:
abuse of power; censure; condition; conduct; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; reprimand; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 2719
105th Session, 2008
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Standing alone, the punishment of summary dismissal, as distinct from dismissal, might be thought to be disproportionate to the misconduct of which the complainant was guilty. However, he was twice warned in writing in 1998 to improve his poor attendance record. In the same year, he was informed that the complaints received 'with regard to [...] alleged financial manipulations, fraudulent activities, police and court cases' were causing embarrassment to the Organization and he was cautioned to 'extricate [him]self from these situations'. In 2002, he was found guilty of misconduct in relation to banking transactions and issued with a written reprimand. In the light of these matters, the punishment of summary dismissal cannot be regarded as disproportionate."
Keywords:
censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; proportionality; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; warning;
Judgment 2493
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."
Keywords:
applicable law; collective rights; competence; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. "[I]f it were a work stoppage not involving unlawful actions, the question arises as to whether the Agency could, in view of the provisions of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations whereby an official is bound to ensure the continuity of the service and must not cease to exercise his functions without previous authorisation, deem participation in the collective action by the officials in question to be unlawful. Without overlooking the fact that a strike will necessarily affect continuity of service, the Tribunal considers that, if the answer to that question were yes, it would in practice deprive of all substance the exercise of a right, the existence of which the Agency does not deny and which, according to the case law, is lawful in principle (see, for instance, Judgments 615 and 2342 of the Tribunal). To make the exercise of that right conditional on obtaining leave of absence would clearly be incompatible with the principle itself, the necessary corollary of which is the freedom of officials to follow or not to follow a call to strike duly issued by their representative organisations."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 11 of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Agency
ILOAT Judgment(s): 615, 2342
Keywords:
collective rights; condition; consequence; continuance of operations; disciplinary measure; freedom of association; general principle; provision; right to strike; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; staff union; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
Judgment 2391
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant was issued a written censure. "Before the Appeal Board, [he] argued that [this] decision [...] was taken in breach of the principle of proportionality. In its report, the Board recommended that the parties seek a compromise solution in the light of that principle. [T]he Secretary-General did not follow the recommendation of the Appeal Board [...]. He was therefore under an obligation to state the reasons why he was disregarding that recommendation and instead maintaining the initial sanction, which is the second most serious, particularly so as to enable the Tribunal to check whether the principle of proportionality had been observed (see Judgment 2339, under 5). As the Secretary-General has not satisfied that obligation, his decision [...] must be set aside on the grounds that no reason has been given for the chosen sanction and the case must be referred back to him for a new decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339
Keywords:
breach; consequence; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; internal appeals body; judicial review; organisation's duties; proportionality; recommendation; refusal; report; settlement out of court; warning;
Judgment 2351
97th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7(c) and 8(a)
Extract:
When he was recruited the complainant provided a copy of a diploma but its authenticity was questioned a few years later. The matter was queried with the educational establishment and the Secretary-General then issued the complainant a written censure. The Tribunal considers that "there was not sufficient proof either that the diploma was not issued to the complainant [...] or that the latter had been informed that, according to the [educational establishment], he was not entitled to receive it. The Secretary-General might have enquired further into the aspects which remained uncertain, but did not do so. The 'likelihood' referred to by the Secretary-General, if it is not incontrovertibly ascertained, cannot make up for the lack of conclusive evidence. Based as it is on an arbitrary appraisal of the facts, the impugned decision as far as it concerns the disciplinary sanction must therefore be set aside. Although it did not give rise to a written decision, the non-renewal of the short-term contract was based on charges levelled against the complainant in the course of the disciplinary procedure. The mere cancellation of the disciplinary sanction must entail that of the decision of non-renewal."
Keywords:
bias; consequence; contract; decision; decision quashed; degree; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; executive head; grounds; implied decision; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; right; short-term; terms of appointment; warning;
Judgment 2018
90th Session, 2001
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Discussions between the complainant and his supervisors [...] with respect to relatively minor concerns do not constitute a warning so as to make the complainant aware of the risk of dismissal and the need for improvement."
Keywords:
complainant; formal requirements; supervisor; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 2007
90th Session, 2001
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Under the provisions [of the Staff Regulations], a contract may be terminated for unsatisfactory performance only after the employee has been served with a formal written warning allowing him or her three months to improve. That period which essentially aims at allowing the employee concerned enough time as may be constructively used to correct mistakes, make good shortcomings and improve both behaviour and working relations with other staff members must cover an effective period of three months during which the employee must be in a position to perform his or her duties correctly and to make full use of his or her abilities. The Tribunal considers that in this instance the complainant was not in such a position."
Keywords:
duty to inform; evidence; injury; medical fitness; notice; period; qualifications; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 1872
87th Session, 1999
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Since the procedure that was instigated was not a disciplinary one, but a procedure for the termination of the complainant's appointment for unsatisfactory service, the complainant needed to be informed in due time, either through a negative performance appraisal report, or through precise warnings, that the organisation was not satisfied with his performance and that if he did not improve it his appointment would be terminated." (see Judgment 1484)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; duty to inform; organisation's duties; performance report; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; warning;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
