Judgment No. 1040
Decision
1. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION OF 14 JUNE 1989 IS QUASHED INSOFAR AS IT REFUSED THE COMPLAINANT RENEWAL OF CONTRACT FOR THREE MONTHS FROM 9 OCTOBER 1987, AND HIS ENTITLEMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED ACCORDINGLY, IN PARTICULAR THE AWARD TO HIM OF SALARY AT THE RATE OF $1,800 A MONTH.
2. THE DECISION IS UPHELD ON ALL OTHER POINTS.
3. THE PAHO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT $2,000 TOWARDS COSTS.
4. HIS OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Precedent is clear: even when someone has just a temporary appointment a decision not to renew it must be taken when the contract period is expiring; the administration's decision not to renew must be notified to the employee within the prescribed time limit; and if due notice is not given there will be implied renewal for a further period." The complainant got notice four days too late and the Tribunal held that the extension of his contract by five days to make up the required period of notice had no effect.
Keywords
organisation's duties; contract; extension of contract; short-term; non-renewal of contract; notice; compensatory measure; consequence; effect; omission
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complainant alleges that the organization made him a promise of training in [word-processing]." For the Tribunal to "enforce a promise by an international organisation to one of its employees", the conditions that have to be met include "that the promise should be substantive and [...] that it should have come from someone competent or deemed competent to make it." In the instant case the making of a substantive promise is not proven.
Keywords
competence; evidence; training; promise; condition
| 
