Non-renewal of contract (384,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Non-renewal of contract
Total judgments found: 320
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
Judgment 3948
125th Session, 2018
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The basic applicable principles where a decision not to renew a contract is challenged have been relevantly stated, for example, in Judgment 3586, considerations 6 and 10, as follows:
“6. It bears recalling at this juncture that the Tribunal’s scope of review in a case such as this is limited. Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11). The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6).
[...]
10. It is firm principle that the reason not to extend a fixed-term contract must be a valid one and not one that was given to conveniently get rid of a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1154, under 4).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586
Keywords:
fixed-term; general principle; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3942
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reinstate her in her former position.
Considerations 8 and 9
Extract:
The Tribunal accepts [...] that the executive head of an organisation has a discretionary power to review an earlier decision and can, for good reason and acting bone fide, vary or rescind that decision (see, for example, Judgment 618, consideration 5, though compare Judgment 3871, consideration 3), unless the earlier decision is immune from revision either because of the effect of normative legal documents within the organisation such as staff rules or regulations, or because of the application of principles found in the Tribunal’s case law such as promissory estoppel (see, for example, Judgment 1781, considerations 12 to 14). But the rationale for the reversal decision, in the present case, does not withstand close scrutiny. [...]
It is true that the remedy chosen in the decision [...] certainly compensated the complainant, financially, for the direct effect of the unlawful non-renewal of her contract as an act of retaliation. However, that decision fails to recognise that bare financial compensation for lost income arising directly from non-renewal of the complainant’s contract for an unlawful reason might be an insufficient remedy. This failure is an error of law involving a failure to take into account relevant considerations.
Keywords:
estoppel; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 3933
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract; permanent appointment;
Judgment 3932
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.
Considerations 21 & 26
Extract:
The determinative issue in this case is whether the evaluation of the complainant’s performance was procedurally flawed. It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that “an organisation has a wide discretion in deciding whether to renew a fixed-term appointment and its right to refuse to renew can be based on unsatisfactory performance”. As well, “such a discretionary decision can be successfully impugned if it is fatally flawed by, for example, procedural defects, a failure to take account of some essential fact, abuse or misuse of authority, or if it was based on an error of fact or of law” (see Judgment 3743, consideration 2, and the cases cited therein). The Tribunal has also 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 3252, consideration 8, and the case cited therein).
[...]
It was only in the memorandum of 9 July 2012 that the complainant was informed of the extensive deficiencies in her performance both in terms of her duties and conduct. This letter cannot be viewed as a proper or fair evaluation for a number of reasons. First, it was not in compliance with the mandatory PEMS. Second, other than the deficiencies identified in the audit attributed to the complainant, the letter does not give any detail with respect to when and what the observations were and which interactions with other colleagues at headquarters and in the SAP gave rise to concerns. [...] Third, the unilateral determination that the eleven deficiencies identified in the audit were solely attributable to the complainant and that the renewal of her fixed-term contract was, therefore, in jeopardy, without providing the complainant with an opportunity to respond, was a clear breach of the complainant’s due process rights. This was further exacerbated by her supervisor’s and the Director, OSD’s failure to reply to or take into account the complainant’s extensive response to the alleged deficiencies attributed to her in the audit report.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3252, 3743
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 3922
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to offer her a three-month renewal of her contract and to reject the claims she made with respect to her performance evaluation for 2012, the reclassification of her post, the length of her last contract and her allegations of harassment, retaliation and intimidation.
Consideration 21
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that it has consistently stated that the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary and is subject to only limited review to respect the freedom of an international organization to determine its own staffing requirements and the career prospects of staff members. A person who is employed under such a contract does not, in principle, have a right to a contract extension. However, notwithstanding the discretionary nature of such a decision, it must be taken within the rules and guidelines of the organization and the Tribunal’s case law. Failing this, the decision would be set aside for legal or procedural irregularity (see, for example, Judgment 3257, under 7). The Tribunal has further stated that a valid reason and reasonable notice must be given for a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract (see Judgment 3838, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3257, 3838
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3914
125th Session, 2018
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his project-based fixed-term contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is settled principle in the Tribunal’s case law that a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract is within the discretion of the executive head of an international organization and that such a decision is subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal has stated as follows in Judgment 3448, consideration 7:
“It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary. Such a decision is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which respects the freedom of an international organization to determine its own staffing requirements and the career prospects of staff members. A person who is employed on a fixed-term contract does not have a right or a legitimate expectation to a contract extension. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not interfere with a decision not to extend such a contract unless the decision was made without authority, or in breach of a rule of [form or] procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or amounted to an abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3448
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is convenient to re-state that the complainant held a fixed-term contract, albeit that it was subject to the Short-Term Staff Rules. The case law states that even where a staff rule or regulation provides that such a contract shall expire automatically and without prior notice on the given expiration date, that does not exempt an international organization from notifying a staff member of the non-renewal of her or his contract (see, for example, Judgment 675, under 9 to 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 675
Keywords:
fixed-term; general principle; non-renewal of contract; notice;
Considerations 15 & 18
Extract:
As far as providing reasons is concerned, the complainant contends that the WTO provided no or no adequate reason for the non-renewal of the contract. With regard to the duty to provide a reason and the adequacy of that reason, the Tribunal stated as follows in Judgment 1817, consideration 6:
“A staff member needs to know the reasons for a decision so that he can act on it, for example by challenging it or filing an appeal. A review body must also know the reasons so as to tell whether it is lawful. How ample the explanation need be will turn on circumstances. It may be just a reference, express or implied, to some other document that does give the why and wherefore. If little or no explanation has yet been forthcoming, the omission may be repaired in the course of appeal proceedings, provided that the staff member is given his full say.”
The reasons may also be provided to a staff member at a meeting (see Judgment 3662, under 3 to 5). The Tribunal has also stated in Judgment 1750, consideration 6, that “[t]he case law does not require that the reasons be stated in the text that gives notice of non-renewal”.
[...]
The Tribunal determines that the [...] statements in the communications and in the internal pleadings permitted the complainant to know that his contract would expire in accordance with its terms and would not be renewed, because it was for the duration of a specific project which had ended and he was not earmarked to work in another project.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1750, 1817, 3662
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3909
125th Session, 2018
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3864
124th Session, 2017
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to exceptionally extend her contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3849
124th Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; late appeal; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal emphasises that it is desirable that an organisation make it absolutely clear in a communication that it constitutes notice that the contract will not be renewed and language to this effect should be used. Also, it is desirable for the organisation to say in such a communication that it manifests a final decision against which the official can appeal in a manner prescribed in the organisation’s rules and regulations.
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; notification;
Consideration 7
Extract:
It might be thought that the clear intimation from the Director of HRM that the contract would not be renewed should be viewed as conditional and thus should not be considered notification of a decision not to renew the contract. That is to say, it should not be taken to be notification of a final decision because there remained to be determined, before such a decision could be made, whether another position might be found for the complainant. However, the fact that a communication such as this might advert to further steps being taken to reassign or re-deploy an official, does not, of itself, result in the communication not being notification of a decision not to renew (see Judgment 634, consideration 2). Equally, however, in the event of non-renewal there must be a definite decision not to renew coupled with notification to the official (see Judgment 2104, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 634, 2104
Keywords:
administrative decision; non-renewal of contract; notification;
Judgment 3848
124th Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his special short-term contract for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; short-term;
Judgment 3847
124th Session, 2017
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In both complaints, the complainant contests the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3840
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3838
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for the non-renewal of any contract, and the official must be informed of that reason explicitly in a decision against which she or he can appeal. This principle also applies to the non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment which, under the staff regulations or by agreement between the parties, ends automatically upon its expiry. This approach is justified by the fact that international organisations frequently resort to fixed-term contracts and the fact that the legitimate career expectations of those entering the service of these organisations would otherwise be denied.
It follows that an official who holds a fixed-term contract that automatically ends upon expiry must be informed of the true reasons for not renewing that contract and must receive reasonable notice thereof (see for example Judgments 1154, under 4, 1544, under 11, 1983, under 6, 3368, under 11, and 3582, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1154, 1544, 1983, 3368, 3582
Keywords:
fixed-term; general principle; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The contested decision does not fulfil this requirement to provide reasons. It is true that the complainant received from the Organization a memorandum reminding him that his limited duration appointment would end on the date initially specified and giving him information on the administrative formalities to be completed before he left. However, the memorandum contains no indication of the reasons why the Organization was adhering strictly to the specified departure date, such as a reference to the fact that the duties for which the appointment had been made had come to an end, or to the fact that it was not possible to assign him to other duties.
Keywords:
motivation; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3837
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; non-renewal of contract; time limit;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, while valid reasons must be given for the non-extension of a contract to permit the person concerned to exercise the right of appeal, the case law does not require that the reasons be stated in the text that gives notice of the non-extension (see, for example, Judgment 1750, consideration 6). The Tribunal also stated, in Judgment 2916, consideration 2, that “even though ‘notification of non-renewal is simply notification that the contract will expire according to its terms [...], the Tribunal’s case law has it that that notification is to be treated as a decision having legal effect for the purposes of Article VII(1) of its Statute’ [...]. Accordingly, it may be challenged in the same way as any other administrative decision.” The case law makes it clear that the reasons may emerge at some later time and even during the course of the appeal proceedings so long as the staff member is fittingly permitted to reply (see, for example, Judgment 1817, under 6). Further, it is sufficient if the reasons emerge orally in a meeting or discussion (see, for example, Judgment 3729, under 8 to 11). Moreover, it is sufficient if, as in the present case, programmatic and financial reasons are given for the non-extension. Accordingly, the following was relevantly stated in Judgment 3582, consideration 9 [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1750, 1817, 2916, 3582, 3729
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3830
124th Session, 2017
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to her previous grade in the General Service category upon the expiry of her fixed-term appointment to a position in the Professional category.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3829
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period and the non-renewal of her contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3828
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period, the reduction of the basis for calculating her contributions to the Eurocontrol Pension Scheme and the non-renewal of her contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3770
123rd Session, 2017
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his contract following the abolition of his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3769
123rd Session, 2017
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his contract following the abolition of his post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is important to note that the 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. What is important is that the reason for the non-renewal be valid (and not an excuse to be rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1128, under 2, 1154, under 4, 1983, under 6, 3582, under 9, 3586, under 10, 3626, under 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 1154, 1983, 3582, 3586, 3626
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract; reassignment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3768
123rd Session, 2017
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his contract following the abolition of his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that although the Director-General’s power not to renew a contract upon its expiry is discretionary, it must be exercised within the bounds of an international organization’s own regulations, rules and directives. The Tribunal’s case law also imposes obligations and provides guidelines which an international organization must observe where it does not renew a staff member’s fixed-term contract.
Substantively, the case law states that a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract must be based on objective and valid grounds and that the discretionary nature of a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract may be reviewed only on limited grounds. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. It will only set aside such a decision if it is ultra vires; if the decision is tainted by a legal or procedural irregularity; is based on incorrect facts; if essential facts have not been considered or wrong conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or if the decision is based on an error of fact or law or amounts to an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2850, 2861, 3299
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
|
