Fixed-term (317, 318,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Fixed-term
Total judgments found: 292
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
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;
Judgment 4411
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment as a result of the abolition of her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; termination of employment;
Judgment 4405
132nd Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and terminate her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant did not seek to be reinstated in the grade G-6 position which she had held. Regardless of the fact that she died in the course of proceedings, the Tribunal notes that, under its case law, reinstatement of a staff member who held a fixed-term contract is ordered only in exceptional cases (see, for example, Judgments 1317, consideration 38, and 3353, consideration 35). In a similar case involving the same organisation and another staff member, the Tribunal found that it was not appropriate to order the complainant’s reinstatement after his appointment had expired (see Judgment 3908, consideration 21). In this case, it would therefore have been inappropriate in any event to reinstate the complainant in her position.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317, 3353, 3908
Keywords:
fixed-term; reinstatement;
Judgment 4376
131st Session, 2021
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WIPO’s alleged failure to take appropriate measures to protect him under its Whistleblower Protection Policy after he had made a report of misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s claim to be granted a fixed-term contract is rejected, first, because the Tribunal has no competence to make such an order. The appointment of the staff members of an international organization is within the exclusive power of the appointing authority of the organization concerned. Secondly, in an international organization where, as a rule, appointments are to be made following a competitive recruitment process, the granting of an appointment cannot be an appropriate form of compensation, because it infringes the rights of other persons who would otherwise have been entitled to compete for the subject position.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; fixed-term;
Judgment 4363
131st Session, 2021
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of retaliation, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 10
Extract:
It is convenient to recall that in Judgment 3948, consideration 2, where a decision not to renew a contract was challenged, the Tribunal stated that its scope of review is limited as an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment and that 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. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization and 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.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3948
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; retaliation;
Judgment 4346
131st Session, 2021
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment beyond its expiry date.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; renewal of contrat;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
