|
|
 |
|
|
External collaborator (59,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: External collaborator
Total judgments found: 21
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4809
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.
Consideration 10
Extract:
It is true that, under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision not to renew an official’s contract of employment must, even if it is a matter for the competent authority’s discretion, be based on valid reasons that must be communicated to the staff member concerned (see, for example, Judgments 3914, considerations 14, 15 and 18, 2708, consideration 12, and 1273, consideration 8).
However, this case law does not apply to external collaboration contracts, which are not contracts appointing officials. It is plain from the preceding consideration that the contract to which the non-renewal decision applied – which was, by definition, the last contract previously concluded – should be regarded, unlike the earlier contracts, as an external collaboration contract.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1273, 2708, 3914
Keywords:
external collaborator; non official; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Organization submits that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the complainant, who held external collaboration contracts for most of the period in question, was not an official of the Office.
This challenge to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction – which, in the form in which it is presented, relates to the substance of the dispute – is irrelevant in this case.
It is true that, under the Tribunal’s case law, where an external collaboration contract confers jurisdiction for settling disputes concerning its performance on another judicial authority or – as is more often the case – on an arbitral body, the Tribunal cannot hear such a dispute, even where it concerns precisely the redefinition of the contract in question as a contract appointing an official (see, in particular, Judgments 4652, considerations 16 to 20 and 22, and 2888, considerations 5 and 6).
However, plainly this case law does not apply when that contract grants jurisdiction to the Tribunal to hear disputes relating to its performance, as permitted under Article II, paragraph 4, of the Tribunal’s Statute (see Judgments 4652, consideration 21, and 2888, consideration 7). In this case, the external collaboration contracts concluded by the ILO and the complainant all included a provision in paragraph 12 specifically conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to hear “[a]ny dispute arising out of [their] application or interpretation”. The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to rule on any dispute relating to their possible redefinition.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2888, 4652
Keywords:
arbitration; competence; external collaborator; non official; ratione personae;
Judgment 3468
119th Session, 2015
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint does not raise issues over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction, it is irreceivable and is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; external collaborator; former official; summary procedure;
Judgment 3459
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that it was not competent to hear the complaint and summarily dismissed it.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he fundamental difficulty for the complainant in pursuing her complaint in this Tribunal is that she was not, at the time of the impugned decision, an “official” of the EPO for the purposes of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute having regard to the way that concept of “official” has been established and entrenched in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. The complainant does not (and on her account of the facts probably could not) point to any contract under or by which she was appointed an official of the EPO. Her employment (in the loosest sense of the word) or engagement to work at the EPO was through a third party, a private company. Accordingly, her complaint is not one the Tribunal is competent to hear."
Keywords:
external collaborator; non official; ratione personae;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; external collaborator; summary procedure;
Judgment 3445
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints are dismissed as time-barred and irreceivable.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; external collaborator;
Judgment 2919
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Absent a connection flowing from a contract or deriving from employment status, the Tribunal is not competent to entertain the complaint."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; external collaborator; ratione personae;
Judgment 2888
108th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has already had occasion to rule that it has no jurisdiction to hear a dispute relating to a contract concluded with an independent contractor or collaborator which contains [...] an arbitration clause (see Judgments 2017, under 2(a), and 2688, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2017, 2688
Keywords:
arbitration; competence of tribunal; contract; definition; external collaborator; ratione personae; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2708
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
For the period 24 June 2002 to 31 December 2003 the complainant was given a fixed-term contract, financed from technical cooperation funds, which was extended until 30 June 2004. The complainant was subsequently given two external collaboration contracts, the second one ending on 31 March 2005. The contractual relationship between the complainant and the ILO ended at that date. "It emerges from an analysis of [the provisions of Circular No. 630] that short-term contracts should be offered in only specific cases and for a limited duration.
Having already obtained a fixed-term contract which had been extended, the complainant could not be recruited under a short-term contract, let alone under an external collaboration contract, to continue performing the same work as he had performed under his fixed-term contract, without contravening the spirit of the applicable texts.
The complainant's last two contracts should therefore be converted into a fixed-term contract."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 630
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; breach; claim; condition; consequence; contract; duration of appointment; extension of contract; external collaborator; fixed-term; limits; period; project personnel; provision; separation from service; short-term; written rule;
Judgment 2649
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Staff Committee of the EPO's sub-office in Vienna, the complainant submitted a request to the President of the Office that the "staff salary scales mentioned in the annex to Part 2 of the Codex" be forwarded to all agencies supplying temporary personnel to the Office. The President refused to grant the request submitted to him, denying that temporary workers were entitled to remuneration equal to that of EPO staff and underlining that neither the Service Regulations nor the conditions of employment for contract staff applied to temporary workers. The EPO submits that the complainant does not have locus standi to represent temporary workers supplied to the Office. "It is well settled that members of the Staff Committee may rely on their position as such to ensure observance of the Service Regulations (see Judgments 1147 and 1897); but in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In the absence of such a connection resting on a contract or deriving from status, the claim that the Office should forward its salary scales to agencies supplying temporary personnel - whose conditions of employment and remuneration are in any event beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal - cannot be entertained."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1897
Keywords:
breach; claim; communication to third party; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; enforcement; equal treatment; executive head; external collaborator; locus standi; no provision; official; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; terms of appointment; vested competence;
Judgment 2017
90th Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2(A)
Extract:
"The complainant enjoyed the status of official from October 1974 to the end of December 1992. From 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994 he was employed on the basis of special agreements, which contained an arbitration clause providing for an "arbitral panel" composed of three members. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is therefore limited to the effects of the relationship between the [organisation] and the complainant from October 1974 to the end of December 1992."
Keywords:
arbitration; competence of tribunal; contract; date; external collaborator; limits; ratione personae; status of complainant;
Judgment 1938
88th Session, 2000
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant worked continuously for the organization for 17 years under various short term contracts - including contractual service agreements - after his fixed-term appointment as a staff member expired. "In practice he is seeking to obtain a revision of the whole of his career from 1976 to 1996. But he himself accepted the contractual conditions offered to him. He did not challenge the decision taken in 1979 not to renew his fixed-term appointment and not to convert it into a permanent appointment. Moreover, he offers no legally valid argument to challenge the way he has been treated since 1979. His claims must therefore be dismissed [...]."
Keywords:
complainant; contract; duration of appointment; external collaborator; fixed-term; locus standi; project personnel;
Judgment 1385
78th Session, 1995
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
The complainant had his short-term appointment extended after a break during which he had an external collaboration contract. Under Rule 3.5 of the short-term rules whenever the appointment of a short-term official is extended by a period of less than one year so that the total continuous contractual service amounts to one year or more, the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment - with certain exceptions - apply. "The interruption of the complainant's appointment by the external collaboration contract was merely a device to deny him the protection of Rule 3.5 without forfeiting the benefit of his services. There being no change in the actual conditions of employment, the real intention was that he should continue to do the same work as before. [...] The external collaboration contract must be treated like any other of his short-term contracts that ensured continuity of service. So his 'total continuous contractual service' [exceeded one year] and he thus became entitled [...] to 'the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO SHORT-TERM RULE 3.5
Keywords:
contract; duration of appointment; enforcement; extension of contract; external collaborator; fixed-term; intention of parties; interpretation; non-renewal of contract; short-term; staff regulations and rules; successive contracts;
Judgment 1383
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-10
Extract:
The organization contends that the Tribunal lacks competence to hear a complaint from a "temporary adviser", whose status does not imply the right of appeal. But the Tribunal finds that the organization has described her "as holding an appointment as [a] short-term consultant. [...] Her contract was for a total of over ninety days, she was therefore not a 'temporary advisory' whithin the meaning of [WHO Manual paragraph] II.12.590." holding a "temporary short-term appointment as a consultant [...] she therefore qualified as a 'staff member'" with the right to appeal. "The rules draw no distinction between 'regular' staff members and the holders of temporary appointments."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PARAGRAPH II.12.590
Keywords:
duration of appointment; external collaborator; internal appeal; locus standi; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; short-term; staff member; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1272
75th Session, 1993
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
If someone from outside of the organization who was picked on the strength of experience and qualifications "is given responsibilities that confer authority over serving staff or entail even a temporary change in the organisation's structure, his appointment must comply with the usual rules on the establishment and filling of posts. That is so even where the contract he signs stipulates that he shall not be an international civil servant."
Keywords:
appointment; contract; creation of post; due process; external collaborator; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
Judgment 1108
71st Session, 1991
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
After retiring from the Organization the complainant returned under a contract as a consultant. The letter of acceptance he signed indicated that he was being recruited locally. He argues that as a Swedish citizen whom the WHO contacted in Stockholm he was entitled to non-local status and the payment of a daily subsistence allowance. The Organization submits, rightly, that in putting his signature to the contract he accepted the terms of the offer.
Keywords:
acceptance; contract; daily subsistence allowance; external collaborator; local status; non-local status; terms of appointment;
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
"Although [WHO] Manual provision II.12.320 [...] says that consultants shall be paid the subsistence allowance applicable to the country of the duty station, Staff Rule 1330 empowers the Director-General to 'appoint consultants without regard to the provisions of the other sections of the Rules'. So the Director-General's offer of an appointment as a consultant without the per diem allowance was quite lawful anyway."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 1330 WHO MANUAL PROVISION II.12.320
Keywords:
contract; daily subsistence allowance; enforcement; external collaborator; local status; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1034
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The pension rights of an employee in the United Nations family of institutions are governed by the Regulations of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund and are determined by the kind of contract he holds. The complainant was employed for a certain time under special service agreements which do not entitle him to membership in the Fund.
Keywords:
contract; external collaborator; fund regulations; participation excluded; pension; pension entitlements;
Judgment 702
57th Session, 1985
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"From all the evidence in the dossier the Tribunal concludes that the work done for the PAHO by the complainant over more than eleven years was a continuous whole and that its division into contractual periods as a short-term consultant was fictitious. The mutual intention, formed, if not at the beginning, then at the latest by 1976, was that the complainant should be employed for as long as his services were required and he was willing to give them."
Keywords:
external collaborator; intention of parties; interpretation; short-term; successive contracts; tribunal;
Consideration 1, Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that even though the complainant was never strictly speaking a staff member of the organization his link with it was more than a purely casual one. Accordingly, the organization's objection to the Tribunal's jurisdiction is overruled.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; external collaborator; ratione personae; short-term; status of complainant;
Judgment 701
57th Session, 1985
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1, Summary
Extract:
See Judgment 702, consideration 2, summary.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 702
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; external collaborator; ratione personae; short-term; status of complainant;
Consideration 9
Extract:
See Judgment 702, consideration 9.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 702
Keywords:
external collaborator; intention of parties; interpretation; short-term; successive contracts; tribunal;
Judgment 479
47th Session, 1982
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant draws an invalidity pension for an illness contracted when on a mission as a consultant. The rules provide for a bigger pension if a dependant's allowance had been payable. "A dependant's allowance would not have been payable to the complainant. His contract did not provide for one in addition to his salary or fee. [A] staff rule [...] excludes from the staff members entitled to a dependant's allowance short-term staff and consultants." The claim for an increase was rightly rejected.
Keywords:
allowance; contract; dependant; disability benefit; external collaborator; illness; service-incurred; short-term;
Judgment 445
46th Session, 1981
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant maintains that the fact of his having begun the probationary period at the beginning of his consultancy contract conferred on him the right to participation in the pension fund. But the probationary period and pensionable service do not necessarily coincide. The complainant was treated as a probationer from the material date because a provision of the Staff Rules stipulated that service prior to appointment could be credited towards completion of probation. The provision does not rule out application of the rule disqualifying a consultant for participation in the fund.
Keywords:
contract; external collaborator; participation; period; probationary period; right; unjspf; validation of service;
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was first employed under various contracts with the organization before becoming an official. His several periods of service were made pensionable with the exception of a few months spent working as a consultant. In accordance with the Staff Rules, consultants who are appointed for periods not greater than eleven months are barred from participating in the Pension Fund. Up to 1972, periods of consultancy service could not be validated for Pension Fund purposes. The complainant's services as a consultant may not be counted as pensionable.
Keywords:
contract; external collaborator; pension; successive contracts; titularization; validation of service;
Judgment 269
36th Session, 1976
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
In order to lower editorial expenditure the complainant's post was abolished and free-lance staff engaged under contract. "[I]n abolishing the complainant's post and assigning her functions to someone engaged under contract the Director-General was giving effect to [the organization's] policy. It is not for the Tribunal to review such policy, whether it relates to the scope of the [organization's] activities or to its methods of work."
Keywords:
abolition of post; appointment; discretion; external collaborator; judicial review; organisation's interest; reorganisation;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
