Judgment No. 2263
Decision
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS SET ASIDE INSOFAR AS IT REJECTS THE COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST FOR A PERSONAL PROMOTION.
2. THE CASE IS SENT BACK TO THE ITU FOR EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSIDERATION 7.
3. THE UNION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 3,000 SWISS FRANCS IN DAMAGES.
4. IT SHALL ALSO PAY HIM 3,000 FRANCS IN COSTS.
5. HIS OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The question to be resolved is that of whether, for the purposes of service order No. 99 [which defines the conditions and formalities governing the granting of a personal promotion], the period in excess of the 12-month maximum duration stipulated for short-term contracts should be taken into account in calculating the 18 years of continuous service. The answer is necessarily affirmative. [...] Once [the first 12-month period] had elapsed, the complainant must be considered to have been in service [...], even in the absence of a provision to that effect and taking into account the contracts he was granted thereafter. Regarding the [one month] break in service which occurred [subsequently], it is necessary to establish whether this prevented the complainant from completing the 18 years of continuous service [...] The Tribunal considers that it did not. The evidence on file, and particularly an affidavit produced by the complainant as an annex to his written submissions, shows that the break imposed on the complainant was justified only by the fact that he was employed under short-term contracts. since the Tribunal has determined that the complainant must be deemed to have been in service from 17 November 1982 onwards, the break in question must be viewed as a period of leave."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: SERVICE ORDER No. 99
Keywords
interpretation; no provision; promotion; personal promotion; reckoning; seniority; contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; successive contracts; short-term; leave; unpaid leave; validation of service; continuance of operations
|
