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 3085
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation; retaliation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; complaint dismissed; decision quashed; harassment; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 2991
110th Session, 2011
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person's work carried out in compliance with previously established rules (see, for example, Judgments 1911, under 6, and 2414, under 23)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1911, 2414
Keywords:
contract; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; formal requirements; grounds; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;
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;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"[E]ven 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."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317, 2573
Keywords:
case law; contract; decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; notice; right of appeal; safeguard; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2902
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; project personnel; reasonable time; reorganisation; time limit;
Considerations 6, 8 and 10
Extract:
The complainant impugns the decision not to renew his appointment following a restructuring which entailed the abolition of his post.
"[T]he question remains as to whether restructuring was the real reason for the decision not to renew the complainant's appointment. [...]
Although the record supports the Organization's assertion that a restructuring has occurred, it does not reflect that a decision to restructure and a decision regarding the abolition of specific posts had been taken [before] the complainant was informed that a recommendation to restructure had been approved and that new staffing requirements meant that his post and others would be abolished. [...]
[T]he decision not to renew the complainant's appointment must be set aside."
Keywords:
abolition of post; evidence; non-renewal of contract; project personnel; reorganisation;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he complainant contends that UNIDO's failure to conduct a performance appraisal before deciding not to renew his appointment constitutes a breach of procedure and a breach of his terms of employment as his letters of appointment stated that he would be evaluated on a yearly basis. [...] The defendant argues that since the non-renewal of the appointment was not based on performance, it is irrelevant whether a performance appraisal was or was not conducted. The Tribunal rejects this argument. UNIDO had a contractual obligation to conduct yearly performance appraisals. International organisations routinely require applicants for positions to provide at least their most recent performance appraisal from a prior employer. UNIDO's failure to provide the complainant with an appraisal has deprived him of the use of a critical tool in his search for future employment."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; non-renewal of contract; performance report; project personnel; reorganisation; status of complainant;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to renew the complainant's appointment must be set aside. However, the evidence does indicate that restructuring was being contemplated and has in fact occurred. In these circumstances, reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy. Rather, the complainant is entitled to be paid the salary and other allowances he would have received had his appointment been renewed for six months, together with interest [...]."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; project personnel; reinstatement; reorganisation;
Considerations 12 and 14
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the Organization breached its duty of care in failing to accommodate him in another post or in a manner less drastic than the non-renewal of his appointment. [...]
The Organization had no obligation under the 200 Series of the Staff Rules to find an alternative post for the complainant. However, it had a duty to explore with him possible options prior to his separation. The failure to do so was an affront to his dignity and showed a lack of respect for him as a highly regarded long-serving staff member."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; project personnel; reassignment; reorganisation; respect for dignity; seniority; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2883
108th Session, 2010
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8 and 10
Extract:
The complainant joined the Organisation under a three-year fixed-term contract. The first six months of his appointment constituted a probationary period, which was extended for an additional three months.
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Director-General's decision not to renew the complainant's contract is based on errors of fact and law, and must therefore be set aside."
"The Tribunal holds that reinstatement, which could only be as a probationer without any guarantee of confirmation, would raise practical difficulties because of the time that has elapsed since the termination of the complainant's appointment and the scheduling conflicts that may occur between the training courses and the new probationary period [...]. Therefore, the Tribunal finds it appropriate not to order reinstatement but it will award the complainant material damages in the amount of 35,000 euros for the loss of a valuable opportunity to have his appointment confirmed."
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period; reinstatement; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 2878
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
"[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841
Keywords:
breach; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2868
108th Session, 2010
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 30
Extract:
"The Centre argues that the complainant accepted the terms of the renewal for six months and is now precluded from challenging them. In effect, it argues that the complainant has waived his right to challenge the validity of the renewal. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 592 [...] "[w]aiver of a right to bring an action may not be presumed". As well, "[w]aiver is binding only if it is express or clearly implied on the facts". In the present case, the complainant contested the validity of the impugned decision [...] and at no time did he formally waive his right to challenge the validity of the decision. He was also in a financially vulnerable position, faced with the prospect of unemployment if he did not accept the renewal of his contract. As well, he would have potentially left himself in a situation of not having the advantages accorded to an internal candidate in a subsequent competition for a vacant post. In these circumstances, in addition to there being no evidence of an express waiver, a waiver cannot be implied on the facts."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 592
Keywords:
acceptance; extension of contract; fixed-term; good faith; non-renewal of contract; waiver of right of appeal;
Judgment 2867
108th Session, 2010
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"Although the Joint Appeals Board recommended that the complainant be reinstated in a post in the Global Mechanism, there is no evidence that her contract would have been renewed for the 2008- 2009 biennium. Accordingly, reinstatement will not be ordered. However, as the abolition of her post was the only reason advanced for the non-renewal of the complainant's contract and there is nothing to suggest that her contract would not otherwise have been extended for two years, she is entitled to material damages in the amount of salary and other benefits she would have received had her contract been renewed for a further two years, together with interest [...]."
Keywords:
abolition of post; extension of contract; legitimate expectation; material damages; non-renewal of contract; reinstatement; staff reduction;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 50
Extract:
"It is fundamental that a person not be punished twice for the same conduct or, more precisely for present purposes, that he or she not be subject to two separate and distinct adverse administrative decisions for the same conduct (see Judgment 934). As the complainant was subject to an adverse administrative decision, namely, a decision not to renew her contract on the basis of the matters relied upon in the [...] letter of 25 October 2006, it follows that the complainant's summary dismissal can be supported only on the basis of different conduct which, itself, amounted to serious misconduct or that, in some way, gave an added dimension to the conduct specified in the letter of 25 October so that it took on a more serious nature than previously was the case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 934
Keywords:
decision; double jeopardy; non-renewal of contract; remand; serious misconduct;
Consideration 83
Extract:
"A decision not to renew a contract is a discretionary decision that can be reviewed only on limited grounds. Those grounds include that the decision is tainted by procedural irregularities, is based on incorrect facts or essential facts have not been taken into consideration or clearly false conclusions have been drawn from the facts. The complainant argues that the decision of 25 October 2006 should be set aside on the ground that it is a disguised disciplinary measure. It is clear from the terms of the letter of 25 October 2006 [...] that that decision was taken on the basis of what was considered to be misconduct. So much is confirmed by the complainant's subsequent summary dismissal based on the warning of 25 October 2006 [...]. However, in Judgment 1405, the Tribunal stated that '[s]ince disciplinary proceedings are irrelevant to non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment the complainant may not properly allege hidden disciplinary action'. Even so, where nonrenewal is based on misconduct, that misconduct must be proved. And if the decision has not been preceded by disciplinary proceedings, the obligation of good faith requires that an organisation at least give the staff member concerned the opportunity to answer the matters levelled against him or her. Indeed, unless that opportunity is given, the organisation will be at risk of proceeding on incorrect facts or without regard to essential facts or of drawing false conclusions."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1405
Keywords:
decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence; good faith; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; remand;
Judgment 2850
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to renew the complainant's contract, issued on 18 July 2007 and effective as of 30 November, preceded his actual separation from service by more than four months. The Tribunal is of the view that in the present case that period of time was long enough for it to be deemed to comply with [the Organization's obligation to give the complainant reasonable notice]."
Keywords:
contract; date; effect; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; separation from service;
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;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was not confirmed at the end of her probationary period. She submits that the assessment of her work was tainted with several flaws. She criticises her responsible chief for having taken into account the opinions expressed on her work by other officials in the department.
"The Tribunal considers that it is not per se unlawful for supervisors who have to assess an official's performance and recommend whether or not to confirm his/her appointment to ask colleagues of the person in question how they rate his/her work, as a means of helping them to form their own judgements. A supervisor must of course exercise the requisite caution and discernment when taking such opinions into account, but there is nothing in the submissions to suggest that this requirement was not satisfied in this case."
Keywords:
condition; contract; flaw; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period; recommendation; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 2732
105th Session, 2008
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"Although the decision [to terminate the complainant's appointment during her probationary period] must be set aside, in view of the circumstances it is not clear that, even if she had been given a proper warning and an opportunity to improve, her appointment would have been confirmed. However, as a result of the Organization's actions she lost a valuable opportunity to improve and demonstrate her suitability for the position and to have her contract considered in that light. The loss of that opportunity warrants an award of material damages in the amount of 15,000 euros."
Keywords:
contract; decision; duty to inform; good faith; injury; material damages; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period;
Judgment 2729
105th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[I]f a donor government offers to fund the post of an associate expert for a further period, there is an obligation on the organisation in question to consider that offer in good faith. So much is implicit in the general duties of care and good faith owed by an organisation to its staff. That is not to say, however, that an organisation is bound to accept any such offer. It is simply to say that a person [...] is then entitled to have his or her contract renewed unless there is a valid reason for rejecting the offer. The same duty of good faith requires that an organisation not do anything to prevent such an offer being made."
Keywords:
contract; decision; good faith; grounds; legitimate expectation; non-renewal of contract; offer; organisation's duties; period; post; refusal;
Judgment 2728
105th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant submits that the Director-General's decision not to extend his appointment is unlawful. "There is no material to support a finding of bias or other abuse of discretion. Certainly, none is to be discerned from the fact that the complainant's former post has not yet been opened to competition."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; competition; contract; decision; discretion; evidence; executive head; lack of evidence; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 2700
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant did not receive the Reports Board's recommendation, which constituted the basis of the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. "The Tribunal considers that in the present case the complainant is entitled to see the Reports Board's recommendation, an essential document on which the Administration based its decision not to renew his contract. By withholding that document the Organization deprived the complainant of an item of evidence that was essential for the preparation of his defence and the Tribunal of a document enabling it to exercise its power of review.
Accordingly there are grounds for ordering further submissions in order that the file may be supplemented with a copy of the Reports Board's recommendation, as requested by the complainant."
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; complainant; contract; disclosure of evidence; fixed-term; further submissions; interlocutory order; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; right;
Judgment 2694
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that "career prospects within an international organisation are not something that exists independently of all the rights and duties of its staff, that if the non-renewal of a contract is lawful, so is the career hiatus and that when a contract is concluded for a fixed term, the staff member's career ends lawfully on expiry of this period (see Judgment 1610, under 24)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1610
Keywords:
career; contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; period; right; separation from service;
Judgment 2690
104th Session, 2008
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. "The Tribunal cannot accept the complainant's argument regarding the legality of the Directive on the ground that the Preparatory Commission has established, almost from the very beginning of its existence, the non-career character of its functions. Its very nature of being a 'preparatory commission' for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization makes it obvious that the decision thus adopted was in perfect coherence with its own mandate, which is not of a permanent nature."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; contract; decision; exception; fixed-term; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; organisation's interest; professional category; security of tenure; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2645
103rd Session, 2007
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to renew the complainant's appointment was taken for a reason other than that invoked by the defendant and should therefore be quashed".
Keywords:
consequence; contract; decision; difference; grounds; non-renewal of contract; organisation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; sexual harassment;
Judgment 2573
102nd Session, 2007
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Notification of non-renewal or non-extension of a contract is simply notification that the contract will expire according to its terms. However, 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."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; contract; decision; effect; extension of contract; iloat statute; non-renewal of contract; provision; refusal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
|
