Judgment No. 1886
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant accepted an offer for a permanent contract which provided that the contract would be governed by the Staff Rules and Regulations valid as of 1 January 1997 (which would reduce his expatriation allowance). "By confining himself to the phrase 'without prejudice of my acquired rights', the complainant showed that he had no reason in principle to refuse the offer made to him, but that he merely wished to maintain his right to continue receiving the expatriation allowance at the former rate [...]. [I]n view of the above, and the fact that the [organisation] neither modified, nor proposed to modify its offer, despite the complainant's reservation, it has to be deduced that the employment relationship between the complainant and the [organisation] is based on a contract concluded after 1 January 1997. It is therefore a priori governed by the Staff Rules and Regulations which were in force at that date [...]."
Keywords
effective date; acquired right; staff regulations and rules; amendment to the rules; contract; permanent appointment; offer; intention of parties; non-resident allowance; rate; date
Consideration 9(2)
Extract:
"The fact of accepting the offer of a new contract of indefinite duration cannot deprive the complainant of the rights he acquired whilst he was in the service of the [organisation] under successive fixed-term contracts."
Keywords
acquired right; contract; fixed-term; successive contracts; permanent appointment; offer; continuance of operations
Consideration 9(3)
Extract:
"The outright abolition of the expatriation allowance would violate an acquired right, although there is no acquired right to the amount and the conditions of payment of the allowance. Indeed, the staff member should expect amendments to be prompted by changes in circumstances if, for example, the cost of living rises or falls, or the organisation reforms its structure, or even finds itself in financial difficulty. [S]ince it consists of a progressive reduction of the expatriation allowance, and not its outright abolition, resulting from general budgetary restrictions, the Tribunal finds that the impugned decision does not violate the right of the complainant to the maintenance of his acquired rights."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 366, 371
Keywords
acquired right; non-resident allowance
| 
