Special Service Agreement (684,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Special Service Agreement
Total judgments found: 3

• Judgment 4646

  
  135th Session, 2023
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who was employed under a series of Special Service Agreements, submits that she was requested without a valid reason to stop working immediately and that WHO did not grant her request for conciliation and amicable settlement.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence; complaint dismissed; ratione personae; special service agreement; summary procedure;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The Tribunal notes, as it did in Judgment 3551, that clause 15 of the SSA provides for arbitration if necessary, and that there is no time limit provided for in relation to the submission of the dispute to arbitration.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3551
  

  Keywords:

  arbitration; special service agreement;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The complainant states in the complaint form that she filed the complaint in her capacity as a former official. However, according to the express terms of the SSA under which she was employed, the complainant did not have the status of a WHO official. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official or former official of WHO and is not covered by WHO’s Staff Rules and Regulations, she has no access to this Tribunal (see Judgments 3705, consideration 4, 3551, consideration 3, and 3049, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3049, 3551, 3705
  

  Keywords:

  competence; former official; ratione personae; special service agreement;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3705

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks a re-characterisation of her employment relationship with WIPO.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The complainant [...] states that she was engaged under Special Service Agreements (SSA) between 2010 and December 2013. Contracts of this type expressly provide that the persons with whom they are concluded cannot be considered as officials and that any disputes arising from them must be resolved through arbitration. The Tribunal has already ruled that it has no jurisdiction over disputes submitted to it by holders of such contracts (see Judgment 3551).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3551
  

  Keywords:

  special service agreement;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3551

  
  120th Session, 2015
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal clearly has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, “[t]he Tribunal shall […] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials”. The complainant stated in the complaint form that he filed the complaint in his capacity as a former official. However, according the express terms of the SSA under which he was employed, the complainant did not have the status of a WHO official. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official or former official of WHO and is not covered by WHO’s Staff Rules and Regulations, he has no access to this Tribunal (see Judgments 1034, under 3, and 3049, under 4)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1034, 3049
  

  Keywords:

  competence; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; special service agreement; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;