|
|
 |
|
|
Notice (395,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Notice
Total judgments found: 70
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4877
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, reasonable notice must always be given when a temporary appointment is brought to an end, regardless of the terms of the contract in question or the provisions of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules of the organisation concerned (see, in particular, Judgments 3746, consideration 9, 3353, consideration 24, and 1544, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1544, 3353, 3746
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract; notice;
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.
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;
Judgment 4477
133rd Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims compensation in lieu of notice of termination of appointment for reasons of health and the reimbursement of the days of annual leave he alleges that he had accrued before that termination.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; notice;
Judgment 3990
126th Session, 2018
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to terminate her fixed-term contract and to refuse to pay her the termination indemnity.
Consideration 12
Extract:
There was no obvious and compelling reason why this should have been so, nor was there an obvious and compelling reason why the complainant could not have served out her notice (see, for example, Judgment 1616, consideration 5), even assuming the termination had been lawful.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1616
Keywords:
notice;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant received no forewarning of the impending termination of her contract. She was, in substance, given no opportunity to argue against a decision to terminate her contract summarily (see, for example, Judgment 3169, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3169
Keywords:
notice; termination of employment;
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.
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;
Judgment 3843
124th Session, 2017
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Director-General recognized that the termination notice was not given within the prescribed time limit of two weeks before the day of the termination of the six-month probationary period and accordingly followed the Mediator’s recommendation to compensate the complainant with the payment of “an amount equivalent to three months of the salary, including allowances, paid to him during his employment”. The complainant’s assertion that the lateness of the termination notice had the effect of an implicit confirmation of his contract is unfounded. He cites Judgment 3070 to support his assertion but this judgment is not applicable in the present case. Judgment 3070 concerned a situation in which a staff member was put on a six-month probationary period although the Staff Rules provided only for a three-month probationary period. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the notice of termination had to be considered as dismissal before the expiry of the complainant’s contract. In the present case, the termination notice was given prior to the end of the probationary period [...]. The fact that it was given three days after the time limit provided by Article 6.2(c) of the Staff Regulations (“[a]t least two weeks before the end of the probationary period the staff member shall receive notice in writing that his contract is confirmed or terminated”) does not imply that the complainant’s contract should have been considered as automatically confirmed. The wording of Article 6.2(c) (“confirmed or terminated”) excludes the possibility of an automatic or implied confirmation or termination. The Tribunal finds that the payment of compensation in an amount equivalent to three months’ salary and allowances, as recommended by the Mediator and endorsed by the Director-General, was sufficient to remedy the late notification.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3070
Keywords:
notice; termination of employment;
Judgment 3746
123rd Session, 2017
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that Staff Regulation 9.9(a) did not entitle WIPO staff members to notice in the event of the non-extension of their fixed-term appointment. The case law of the Tribunal does, however, give them this right (see, for example, Judgments 1544, under 11, and 3353, under 24).
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 9.9(a)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1544, 3353
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract; notice;
Judgment 3575
121st Session, 2016
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of discharge from duty with due notice.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; notice; termination of employment;
Judgment 3448
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal’s case law requires an international organization to give reasonable notice of the non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment."
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; notice;
Judgment 3411
119th Session, 2015
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants successfully impugn the decision not to extend their contracts upon expiry.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that IFAD failed to give the complainants proper notice prior to the non-renewal of their contracts and to make all efforts, using all possible tools, to clarify the complainants’ situations. Thus, an award of moral damages is appropriate."
Keywords:
moral injury; notice;
Judgment 3368
118th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal considered that the complainant’s employment under short-term contracts was unlawful and that the Organisation failed to provide reasonable notice of non-renewal.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal has often stated that an international organisation has a duty to inform a staff member in advance about the non-renewal of her or his fixed-term contract to enable the staff member to exercise her or his rights and take whatever steps she or he sees fit. On this basis, the Tribunal requires an organisation to give reasonable notice, even where a provision contained in the contract of the staff member or in the applicable rules states that notice need not
be given (see, for example, Judgment 2104, under 6). In the present case, albeit formally short-term, the complainant’s contract was subject to Rule 3.5, and she therefore benefited from the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment. Consequently, the verbal notice of non-renewal which the complainant received on 6 May 2010 was insufficient to fulfil the ILO’s duty to provide a notice applicable by the ILO to fixed-term contracts. The complainant is therefore entitled to an award of material damages on this account."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104
Keywords:
notice;
Judgment 3362
118th Session, 2014
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew his short-term contract and not to advertise his post.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"[I]t is clear from the actual wording of Rule 9.E a) of the Staff Rules applicable to staff members engaged for conferences and other short-term service, expressly reproduced in that contract, and from the consistent case law of the Tribunal, that a short term contract ordinarily ends automatically, without prior notice, on the expiration date of the period for which it was concluded. It is true that, according to the case law, an international organisation is nevertheless obliged to give a reasonable period of prior notice where a staff member has been employed continuously under such contracts for a period of time exceeding that which corresponds to a purely temporary assignment (see Judgments 2104, under 6, and 2531, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2351
Keywords:
contract; non-renewal of contract; notice; short-term;
Judgment 3257
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision to offer him a one-year extension of his fixed-term contract rather than the two-year extensions he had previously received.
Considerations 11 and 12
Extract:
"These facts were significant as they highlight the need for reasons in this case because these circumstances impacted the complainant’s ability to assess whether he should have accepted the offer of the one-year extension of his contract and whether he should challenge the decision.
It is also significant that the complainant was reminded of the deadline [...], when he had not yet received the explanation. Additionally, it was in the letter [...], which included the explanation, that the Executive Secretary informed the complainant that his contract would expire [...] because he had failed to accept the offer of extension. The Tribunal therefore finds that the decision to offer the one-year extension to the complainant was flawed by the failure of the Administration to provide a timely explanation for that decision."
Keywords:
case law; contract; decision; duration of appointment; extension of contract; flaw; notice; offer; termination of employment;
Judgment 3237
115th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that the Organization has failed to give him due notice and contests the decision not to extend his appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; extension of contract; notice;
Judgment 3135
113th Session, 2012
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 20 to 24
Extract:
[A] period of notice constitutes, by its very nature, a substantive and sensitive aspect of the terms of employment
However, according to the Tribunal’s case law as established inter alia in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment to an official’s detriment of a provision governing his/her status constitutes a breach of an acquired right only if it adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him/her to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection, see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2696 and 2986).
While one might be inclined to accept that the actual existence of a period of notice or even, possibly, the basic principles underpinning the manner in which it is determined, are indeed fundamental and essential, the Tribunal finds that this is not true of the number of months of service which may be taken into consideration when determining the length of this period or the amount of the compensation paid in lieu of notice, which constitutes no more than a method of calculating this benefit, especially as, in this case, the amendment of the term of employment in question, that is the setting of a nine-month maximum, is of only relative importance. It must, moreover, be pointed out that in what is in some respects the similar situation of amendments to the rules governing officials’ benefits, the Tribunal consistently holds that, while the outright abolition of an allowance could constitute a breach of an acquired right, this is not true of the actual amount of the allowance or the method of reckoning it (see, in particular, Judgments 666, under 5, 1886, under 9, paragraph 3, or 2972, under 8). The same principles, mutatis mutandis, must form the basis of the present judgment.
In fact, the application to the present case of the three criteria identified by the Tribunal in Judgment 832 as a means of determining whether a breach of acquired rights has occurred, namely the nature of the altered term of appointment, the reason for the change and the consequence of recognising or not recognising an acquired right, confirms that no breach of acquired rights is to be found here.
The nature of the altered term of employment stemmed from a clause of the complainant’s employment contract, which might normally be an indication that a right has been acquired. But here this clause only reflected the existing provisions of Article 35 of the 1992 Staff Regulations to which, as stated earlier, it expressly referred, with the result that it actually stemmed from these provisions themselves. Unlike individual decisions or the specific terms of an official’s contract, the provisions of staff regulations or staff rules rarely give rise to acquired rights.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 666, 832, 986, 1886, 2089, 2682, 2696, 2972, 2986
Keywords:
acquired right; notice;
Judgment 3126
113th Session, 2012
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
In the proceedings before the Advisory Board and in these proceedings, the organization has raised matters in purported justification of the complainant’s dismissal that go beyond the grounds specified in the notice of dismissal.
"This is not permissible. To allow that course would seriously infringe on a staff member’s right to be heard before a disciplinary measure is imposed."
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; difference; disciplinary measure; grounds; iloat; notice; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 3026
111th Session, 2011
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"An opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur."
Keywords:
notice; organisation's duties; performance report; reasonable time; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2963
110th Session, 2011
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[A] decision to terminate a staff member's service retrospectively involves necessarily a detriment in that it negates the possibility of notice allowing for the person concerned to make necessary arrangements during the notice period. This is so whether or not a payment is made in lieu of notice."
Keywords:
decision; injury; non-retroactivity; notice; payment; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2916
109th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 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;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
