Fixed-term (317, 318,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Fixed-term
Total judgments found: 297
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
Judgment 4860
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract upon expiry.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4849
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to convert his fixed-term appointment into a continuing or permanent appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; permanent appointment; renewal of contrat; staff member's interest;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Organization is correct in taking the position that there was no right to have a fixed-term appointment as a WIPO staff member converted to either a continuing or permanent appointment. Staff Regulation 4.17, which concerns the grant of a fixed-term appointment, provides in paragraph (f) that: “A fixed term appointment does not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of the length of service.” This is fortified by the provisions of paragraph (b) of Staff Regulation 4.18, which provides that a continuing appointment “shall be granted at the discretion of the Director General”. Paragraph (b) of Staff Regulation 4.19 is to the same effect in relation to permanent appointments. The following comments of the Tribunal in Judgment 4008, consideration 11, are apt to apply in the present case:
“There is plainly nothing in these provisions which would entitle the complainant to have her fixed-term contract redefined. Nor is there anything in the Tribunal’s case law establishing such a right. The complainant is therefore wrong to submit that her fixed-term contract should have been redefined [...]”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4008
Keywords:
discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; permanent appointment; renewal of contrat;
Judgment 4848
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; difference; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; organisation's duties; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; staff member's interest; title of post;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The other and related decisions apparent from the letter of 31 January 2018 were the decisions to offer the complainant a three-month extension of his fixed-term appointment and to advertise the position of Director of the (about to be created) CMD. In his pleas, the complainant challenges the creation of this position contending, amongst other things, it was not materially different to the position he then formally occupied and was the product of a reorganisation which was illusory rather than substantial. It is unnecessary to repeat the various ways this is put by the complainant. However, mention should be made of a submission, which is tantamount to an allegation that the reorganisation was not a bona fide exercise of an undoubtedly wide discretionary power the executive head of an international organisation has to institute administrative and other structural changes within the organisation with consequential effects on existing posts, including their redefinition or abolition (see, for example, Judgments 4599, considerations 11 and 12, 4353, consideration 7, 3238, consideration 7, and 3169, consideration 7). This is, in substance, an allegation of bad faith. However, bad faith may not be presumed, and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see Judgments 4682, consideration 3, 4353, consideration 12, and 2800, consideration 21). In the present case, there is not a scintilla of evidence that the reorganisation decision did not involve a bona fide exercise of the wide discretionary power of the executive head. This plea is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3169, 3238, 4353, 4599, 4682
Keywords:
abolition of post; bad faith; burden of proof; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[A]n international organization must comply with the procedures it has established for evaluating performance before deciding to terminate or not to renew a contract for unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 4666, consideration 4, the Tribunal aptly stated the following in this respect:
“An examination of a staff member’s assessment report before taking any decision not to renew that person’s contract on the basis of unsatisfactory performance is a fundamental obligation, non-compliance with which constitutes a procedural flaw that has the effect of an essential fact being overlooked (see, in particular, Judgments 2992, consideration 18, 2096, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein).”
In Judgment 3417, also involving IOM, this principle was enunciated in no uncertain terms at consideration 6:
“However while there is an undoubted right of an organisation to decide not to renew a fixed-term contract, it does not follow that an organisation is, additionally, immune from any liability if it has failed to follow its own procedures designed to monitor, assess and evaluate staff performance and progress. The fundamental purpose of such procedures is to explicitly alert a staff member to identified deficiencies in her or his performance and thus give the staff member an opportunity to address those deficiencies and improve performance. The interaction of such procedures and decisions not to renew fixed-term contracts was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2991, under 13:
‘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 [...].’”
This is entirely consistent with the related principle to the effect that an organization 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, for example, Judgments 3932, consideration 21, and 3252, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2991, 2992, 3252, 3417, 3932, 4666
Keywords:
breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 29
Extract:
Firm and constant precedent has it that an international organization has a duty to provide valid reasons for a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. For example, in Judgment 4503, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following in support of this principle:
“Even though an 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, the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 1128, consideration 2, 1154, consideration 4, 1983, consideration 6, 2406, consideration 14, 3353, consideration 15, 3582, consideration 9, 3586, consideration 10, 3626, consideration 12, and 3769, consideration 7).
An international organization is under an obligation to consider whether or not it is in its interests to renew a contract and to make a decision accordingly: though such a decision is discretionary, it cannot be arbitrary or irrational; there must be a good reason for it and the reason must be given (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2).”
In Judgment 3586, consideration 6, the Tribunal further clarified that “[t]hese grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, [consideration] 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contained a similar provision”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 3444, 3586, 4503
Keywords:
breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 8
Extract:
With respect to decisions pertaining to the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts, the Tribunal has also emphasized the limited scope of the review it can exercise. In Judgment 4146, consideration 3, it stated, in particular, the following:
“The case law of the Tribunal states that an organisation enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment and, a fortiori, whether to convert it into an indefinite one. Although the exercise of such discretion is not unfettered, it is subject to only limited review, as the Tribunal will respect the organisation’s freedom to determine its own requirements. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only set aside such decisions if they were taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if they rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 3772, under 5).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772, 4146
Keywords:
fixed-term; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 33
Extract:
The complainant seeks reinstatement in the Organization. The Tribunal considers that, in view of the time that has passed since the events giving rise to this case and the fact that the complainant held a fixed-term appointment, it is not appropriate, in the circumstances, to order her reinstatement. In Judgment 4674, consideration 23, the Tribunal recalled that it was only in exceptional cases that reinstatement might be ordered in a context where the complainant was on a fixed-term contract that has expired (see also, for example, Judgment 4063, consideration 11). The present case is not exceptional.
In addition, the Tribunal cannot ignore that, despite its conclusion that in view of the above-mentioned irregularities and findings the impugned decision of 9 November 2020 and the prior decision of 6 October 2019 must be annulled, the very acrimonious and sometimes never-ending exchanges between the parties establish that the reinstatement of the complainant is no longer possible, nor appropriate or in the interest of either one of the parties. Any reasonable likelihood of the parties being able to establish a satisfactory working relationship with the necessary trust and confidence, despite the conflictual situation that transpired from these numerous exchanges, is simply non-existent.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063, 4674
Keywords:
fixed-term; reinstatement;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 34
Extract:
[T]he complainant claims material damages in an amount equal to two years’ salary, benefits, step increases, pension contributions, and all other entitlements and emoluments that she would have received had she not been wrongfully separated from service. This claim is not substantiated in the complainant’s proceedings be it in terms of years sought or of her expectations within the Organization. Given that any fixed-term contract the complainant ever held with IOM never exceeded one year and that the total length of her services with the Organization lasted approximately five years, the Tribunal considers that this claim is not justified and overstated in the circumstances.
An award of material damages in an amount equivalent to nine months’ salary, including benefits, entitlements and emoluments, represents a fair and reasonable compensation in the present case. IOM will be ordered to pay this amount to the complainant, plus interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from 1 November 2019, less any amounts she may have earned from other employment during that period of nine months beginning on 1 November 2019.
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; due process; fixed-term; injury; material damages; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 35
Extract:
The complainant also claims moral damages in an amount equal to no less than one year of her former gross salary and benefits. But the Tribunal’s case law states that in respect of damages, the complainant bears the burden of proof and that she must provide evidence of the alleged injury (see, for example, Judgment 4156, consideration 5). It suffices to note that in the present situation, notwithstanding this precedent, the complainant did not provide any specification of the moral injury she allegedly suffered nor evidence supporting its existence. This claim must consequently be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; due process; fixed-term; injury; moral damages; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Staff Regulation 11.2.2 relevantly states that the end of a fixed-term contract at its normal term does not create a right for the employee to have his or her contract automatically renewed or extended. The Tribunal’s case law states that notwithstanding a provision such as Staff Regulation 11.2.2 or a similar provision in a complainant’s terms of appointment, the wide discretion an international organization enjoys in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision taken without authority; in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; if the decision rested on an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence. The case law further states that the Tribunal’s role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited (see, for example, Judgment 3367, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3367, 4503
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Federation points out, and the facts make clear, the complainant’s position was never abolished but could no longer be funded, and consequently his contract was not extended. The Tribunal has stated, in consideration 11 of Judgment 4231, for example, that ordinarily, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, an organization’s duty to reassign a staff member arises when a post is abolished. As there is no specific provision to the contrary, the Federation had no obligation to reassign the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4231
Keywords:
abolition of post; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that in its report, the Commission correctly referred, among other things, to Judgment 3163, in which the Tribunal considered a contention that alleged lack of funding for the position of the complainant in that case was due to the diversion of funds for that position, and although funds could have been available, the organization chose for a dubious reason not to use them. In consideration 8, the Tribunal stated the following, and that reasoning can be applied to the present case: “[…] It is unnecessary to descend into greater detail about whether funds were or were not available to fund the complainant’s position beyond the beginning of 2010. That is because this Tribunal has set its face against assessing the exercise of a discretionary power, such as the power not to renew a fixed-term contract, unless it is demonstrated that the competent body acted on some wrong principle, breached procedural rules, overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see, for example, Judgments 1044, under 3, 1262, under 4, and 2975, under 15). The substance of the complainant’s case on this issue is that other decisions could have been made which would have resulted in funding being available for the position. The error of fact identified in the complainant’s submissions does not involve the identification of a material fact assumed by the decision-maker to exist, which did not exist. Rather, she identifies facts which would sustain a decision other than the decision actually made. To impugn the exercise of a discretionary decision-making power by reference to, and based on, the factual matrix in which the decision was made, a complainant must demonstrate something more than that other decisions might reasonably have been made on the known facts. It is necessary to establish that the exercise of the discretionary power miscarried because the decision-maker was led into error by proceeding on a misunderstanding about what the material facts were. As the complainant has failed to do so, this plea must be rejected.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1044, 1262, 2975, 3163
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A] decision not to renew a fixed-term contract must be based on objective and valid grounds and the staff member must be informed in a timely manner of the real reason for the decision.
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4678
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to extend his fixed-term contract due to unsatisfactory performance and to withhold his within-grade salary increment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its well-established case law regarding decisions concerning staff performance appraisals and renewal of fixed-term appointments. Organizations have wide discretion in taking such decisions, which are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgment 4170, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein). Where the reason for not renewing a contract is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of a staff member, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of her or his service, the organization can base its decision only on an assessment carried out in compliance with established rules (see, in particular, Judgment 2991, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein). This presupposes that the person in question has been informed in advance of what is expected of her or him, in particular by the communication of a precise description of the objectives set (see Judgment 3148, consideration 25).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2991, 3148, 4170
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance; role of the tribunal; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 4655
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions rejecting their requests for redefinition of their employment relationships.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he case law [...] established by Judgments 4159 and 4160 is fully applicable to the cases of the complainants in the present proceedings, and accordingly the Organization’s objection to the receivability of all the complaints, based on the fact that the complainants’ internal appeals were time-barred, is well founded.
With regard to the eight complainants who were granted temporary contracts at the end of periods when they were employed under short-term contracts, it is clear that they did not challenge the decisions whereby they were granted these temporary contracts within the eight-week period available to them for this purpose under Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(1), in the version applicable at the time. Moreover, examination of these contracts shows that the complainants explicitly stated when signing them that they “accept[ed] without reservation the temporary appointment[s] offered to [them]”. The requests for redefinition of their employment relationships that they subsequently submitted were therefore time-barred.
Moreover, the Tribunal notes that the approach adopted in Judgments 4159 and 4160, concerning the consequences of a failure to challenge within the applicable time limit a decision awarding a temporary employment contract at the end of a period of employment under short-term contracts, must apply a fortiori to a decision awarding a fixed-term contract at that point. The grant to some staff members, at the end of a such a period of employment, of this type of contract, which is still more fundamentally different in nature from a short-term contract, constituted a fortiori a modification of the legal relationships between the parties as well as regularising the contractual situation of the staff members in question.
However, the three complainants who were directly awarded fixed-term contracts on the expiry of renewals of their short-term contracts failed to challenge the decisions granting them these contracts within the applicable time limit for appeal and also accepted their new contracts without reservation. Consequently, they were not entitled to seek a redefinition of their employment relationships at a later date.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4159, 4160
Keywords:
conversion of contract; fixed-term; late appeal; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Judgment 4654
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his employment contract.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he decision to separate the complainant from service was taken by WIPO on the grounds that, in its view, most of the requirements which the complainant’s employment had met had gradually disappeared, so there was no reason to renew his contract. While, as the Organization correctly observes, staff members with temporary appointments do not hold budget posts, the Tribunal considers that the disappearance of the functions performed by the holder of such an appointment is still an abolition of post within the meaning of the applicable case law, in any event in the case of functions that have been performed on a continuous basis. It follows that, although WIPO was not under an obligation to redeploy the complainant, it was nevertheless required, in view of the length of his employment relationship with the Organization, to explore with him other employment options prior to his separation, even though the measure at issue was not a termination of a current appointment (see, for comparable situations, Judgments 3159, consideration 20, and 2902, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3159
Keywords:
abolition of post; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reassignment; reclassification; separation from service;
Consideration 16
Extract:
It must be recalled that the Tribunal has consistently held that a decision not to renew the appointment of a staff member of an international organisation lies within the discretion of its executive head and is therefore subject to only limited review. It may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4172, consideration 5, 2148, consideration 23, and 1052, consideration 4).
Under Staff Regulation 4.16(e), “[n]o initial temporary appointment or any extension thereof shall carry with it any expectancy of, nor imply any right to, further extension”. Thus, while a staff member employed under a temporary appointment is not entitled to have her or his contract renewed upon expiry, the fact remains that, under the Tribunal’s case law applicable to contractual relationships generally, a decision not to renew such a contract must be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones (see, in particular, Judgments 4495, consideration 15, 3769, consideration 7, 3353, consideration 15, and 1128, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1052, 1128, 2148, 3353, 3769, 4172, 4495
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4603
135th Session, 2023
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment on account of his unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Consistent case law has it that a decision not to extend or renew a fixed-term appointment is discretionary and may be set aside only on limited grounds. Where the reason given for the non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance, the decision can be successfully impugned if it is fundamentally flawed, for example, by 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, under 2). 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 3932, under 21). The Tribunal has also stated that if the reason given for the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract 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 and that allied to this is an obligation to afford an opportunity to improve (see Judgment 4289, under 7, and the case law cited therein) and that an international organization must comply with its own procedures in relation to performance appraisals (see, for example, Judgment 3150, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3150, 3743, 3932, 4289
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4596
135th Session, 2023
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to pay him a termination indemnity upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Regarding the duration of a fixed-term appointment extension, contrary to the complainant’s assertion, the plain meaning of Staff Rule 302.4.102 does not create a general rule that an extension of a fixed-term appointment shall be no less than one year. Rather, by clarifying the meaning of a similar provision in ILO Staff Regulations 4.6(d) that “[a]ppointments for a fixed term shall be of not less than one year and of not more than five years”, the Tribunal has, in Judgment 3448, consideration 5, established that “[t]his provision contains nothing that entitles the complainant to a twelve-month contract extension. Neither is there any statement in the Tribunal’s case law that there is a right or entitlement to an extension of this character.” The Tribunal’s case law also states that an organisation enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment (see, for example, Judgment 4231, consideration 3). The decision not to extend the complainant’s appointment after 31 August following restructuring and abolition of post shall be respected. The complainant’s allegation that the FAO violated applicable rules regarding the extension is therefore unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3448, 4231
Keywords:
extension of contract; fixed-term;
Judgment 4588
135th Session, 2023
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation;
Judgment 4587
135th Session, 2023
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation;
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
[I]t is worth recalling that the case law of the Tribunal has often reiterated that an employee on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires (see, for example, Judgments 4462, consideration 18, 3586, consideration 6, and 3448, consideration 7), and that the Tribunal’s scope of review is limited when an organization decides not to extend or renew a fixed-term appointment (see Judgment 3948, consideration 2, and the case law cited therein).
The claims of the complainant for the payment of termination indemnities, which rely on the provisions of Staff Regulation 9.1.2 that apply in situations of termination of an appointment as opposed to non-renewal of a fixed-term contract, must consequently be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3448, 3586, 3948, 4462
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; terminal entitlements;
Judgment 4511
134th Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the new final decision made pursuant to the Tribunal’s order in Judgment 3905 concerning the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; termination of employment;
Judgment 4507
134th Session, 2022
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; senior official;
Consideration 5
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that an organisation enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal will respect the organisation’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff. However, the exercise of such discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set the decision aside if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see Judgments 3948, consideration 2, 4062, consideration 6, 4146, consideration 3, 4231, consideration 3, and 4363, consideration 10).
These grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated that an employee who is in the service of an international organisation on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contain a similar provision (see Judgments 3444, consideration 3, 3586, consideration 6, and 4218, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3444, 3586, 3948, 4062, 4146, 4218, 4231, 4363
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4505
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; probationary period;
Judgment 4503
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment upon its expiry.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; senior official;
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff. However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set aside the decision if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see Judgments 3948, consideration 2, 4062, consideration 6, 4146, consideration 3, 4231, consideration 3, 4363, consideration 10).
These grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, consideration 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contain a similar provision (see Judgments 3586, consideration 6, and 4218, consideration 2).
Even though an 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, the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 1128, consideration 2, 1154, consideration 4, 1983, consideration 6, 2406, consideration 14, 3353, consideration 15, 3582, consideration 9, 3586, consideration 10, 3626, consideration 12, and 3769, consideration 7).
An international organization is under an obligation to consider whether or not it is in its interests to renew a contract and to make a decision accordingly: though such a decision is discretionary, it cannot be arbitrary or irrational; there must be a good reason for it and the reason must be given (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 1154, 1983, 2406, 3353, 3444, 3582, 3586, 3626, 3769, 3948, 4062, 4146, 4218, 4231, 4363
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Organization complied with its duty of care. The complainant was given five months’ notice of the non-renewal of her contract; the expiry of the contract occurred at the contractually agreed time, and the complainant received reasons for the non-renewal, orally and in writing (see Judgment 4321, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4321
Keywords:
duty of care; fixed-term; motivation; motivation of final decision; non-renewal of contract; notice;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he restructuring of the [Senior Management Team] and the consequent non-renewal of the complainant’s appointment was a discretionary decision, as part of a policy to reform and restructure the management of the Organization, lawfully taken by the Director-General, within her authority. It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organization may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organization and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or of law or whether they constitute abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of decisions relating to it and it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4004, consideration 2, 4139, consideration 2, 4180, consideration 3, 4405, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4004, 4139, 4180, 4405
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation; role of the tribunal; senior official;
Judgment 4501
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment beyond its expiry date while she was on sick leave.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; sick leave;
Judgment 4495
134th Session, 2022
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment upon its expiry.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The obligation to give reasons for a non-renewal have been variously described as providing “valid reasons” (see Judgment 3769, consideration 7), and not “arbitrary or irrational” reasons (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2). While the reasons given in this case may be contestable, they were not of a character to sustain a conclusion they were, for example, not valid or arbitrary or irrational. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3586, consideration 6: “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).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 1349, 2850, 2861, 3299, 3586, 3769
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; motivation; motivation of final decision; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4462
133rd Session, 2022
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s decision of 2 May 2019 not to modify his performance evaluation report for 2017 and not to renew his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 18
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal reiterates that, under its case law, an employee who is in the service of an international organisation on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires (see, for example, Judgment 3444, consideration 3). It is likewise 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”. It follows that “such a discretionary decision can be successfully impugned [only] 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 Judgments 1262, consideration 4, 3586, consideration 6, 3679, consideration 10, 3743, consideration 2, and 3932, consideration 21).
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 law cited therein, Judgment 3932, consideration 21, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 4289, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 3252, 3444, 3586, 3679, 3743, 3932, 3932, 4289
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 4416
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
