ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > executive head

Judgment No. 2198

Decision

THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.

Considerations 12 and 13

Extract:

The complainant worked, from 1993 to 2000, under a series of short-term contracts of varying durations. "It was clearly within the discretionary authority of the Director-General to decide whether to renew the complainant's short-term contract or offer him a fixed-term contract. The complainant cannot now claim to be treated retroactively as if he had a fixed-term contract; he was at all times a short-term staff member (see, for example, Judgment 2107, under 10). [...] Precedent has it that, at the discretion of the executive head, a temporary appointment may be extended or converted to a fixed-term appointment, but it does not carry any expectation of, nor imply any right to, such extension or conversion and shall, unless extended or converted, expire according to its terms, without notice or indemnity (see, in particular, Judgment 1560, under 4)."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1560, 2107

Keywords

non-retroactivity; contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; successive contracts; short-term; terminal entitlements; non-renewal of contract; notice; discretion; executive head; right

Consideration 15

Extract:

The complainant worked, from 1993 to 2000, under a series of short-term contracts of varying durations. The complainant submits that there has been unjust enrichment on the part of the organization: it profited materially from appointing him on a short-term basis because he was doing the work of a fixed-term staff member. "The existence and validity of the contracts of employment are a complete bar to this plea. The doctrine of unjust enrichment finds its origins in the law of quasi-contract. As was said in Judgment 2097, under 20, 'the existence of a valid contract between the parties, covering the very matters which are the subject of the claim, excludes any claim of unjust enrichment'."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2097

Keywords

law of contract; contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; successive contracts; short-term; offer; intention of parties; unjust enrichment; acceptance; right

Consideration 16

Extract:

The complainant worked, from 1993 to 2000, under a series of short-term contracts of varying durations. "[A]ppointments extended by the organization to prospective employees and accepted by the latter freely, are policy matters over which the Tribunal will not interfere."

Keywords

contract; duration of appointment; successive contracts; short-term; offer; intention of parties; judicial review; discretion; acceptance



 
Last updated: 15.05.2014 ^ top