Judgment No. 4596
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant contests the decision not to pay him a termination indemnity upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
terminal entitlements; complaint dismissed
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
Consideration 13
Extract:
[A]s stated in Judgment 3917, consideration 3, the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 3787, consideration 3, 3029, consideration 14, 2313, consideration 5, 2194, consideration 6(a), or 1990, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787, 3917
Keywords
unequal treatment
Consideration 17
Extract:
With regard to the claim for exemplary damages, the complainant has provided no evidence or analysis to establish that there was bias, ill will, malice, bad faith, or other improper purpose on which to base an award of exemplary damages (see, for example, Judgments 4286, consideration 19, and 3419, consideration 8). Accordingly, no exemplary damages will be awarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419, 4286
Keywords
burden of proof; exemplary damages
|
