100.
The Court reaffirms, as it did earlier, that the onus is on the Applicant to
prove his allegations and that the said allegations should not be limited to general
statements.
In the instant case, the Court notes that the record shows, that the
letter of dismissal
refers to grounds
such
as "bad
behaviour characterized
by
delayed services which gives the institution a bad name"; the letter further refers
to "bad behaviour characterized by clashes between you and the line superiors"
and concludes that these issues "do not enable the institution to fulfill its mission".
The Court considers that even if such terms influenced the Judgment of a potential
employer, the Applicant would still have to prove that the alleged prejudice has
taken place in this case.
101.
In this regard, the Court considers that the mere fact that the Applicant was
not retained after the written phase of two recruitment tests cannot constitute proof
of the alleged prejudice caused by the wording of the dismissal letter. Notably, in
spite of the dismissal
letter, the Applicant
affirms that he was
selected
in the
written phase for the different positions he mentioned. In this case, the Applicant
should have shown that he was not hired for the jobs to which he refers as a result
of the communication
of the letter of dismissal to the prospective employers. As
this is not the case, the Court holds that the Applicant’s allegation is unfounded.
102.
With regard to failure to issue him a certificate of service, the Court notes
that the Applicant has not alleged that the employer was under the obligation to
issue him the said certificate without him requesting for it. He also fails to prove
that he applied for the said certificate and was denied by the employer;
nor has
he established a causal link between the denial and the fact that he did not obtain
the jobs he sought. The Court finds that the Applicant failed to prove the violation
of his right to work on the basis of this allegation.
103.
In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that there has been no violation of
Article 15 of the Charter.
26