Judgment No. 351
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant contends that her dismissal infringed the Maternity Protection Convention [No. 103] and Recommendation [No. 95] of the ILO. "Those instruments do not apply to the WHO, however. Besides, they were not infringed."
Keywords
applicable law; international instrument
Considerations
Extract:
There is no evidence that the dismissal in question was based on reasons extraneous to the interests of the organization or was tainted with abuse of authority. The organization maintains that the measure was due solely to the savings which it must now make. "The Tribunal may neither pass judgment on a policy which falls within the sole competence of the [organization] nor review action taken in pursuance of that policy."
Keywords
contract; fixed-term; budgetary reasons; non-renewal of contract; judicial review; discretion; organisation's interest
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant was informed on 28 June that her appointment, which was to expire on 30 September, would not be extended. On 30 June she applied for prenatal and postnatal leave, expecting her confinement on 22 October. The Director saw no objection to extending her appointment to the date of expiry of her maternity leave. The complainant was prematurely confined on 9 August. As a consequence of this new fact the organization granted her postnatal leave of 12 weeks and extended her appointment to 31 October. The complainant suffered no prejudice; the organization not only committed no impropriety but correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Staff Rules.
Keywords
staff regulations and rules; enforcement; contract; extension of contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; maternity leave
|