Judgment No. 3840
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract
The Tribunal is satisfied that the memorandum of 2 October 2013, objectively construed, did not, in all the circumstances of the case, constitute an administrative decision in respect of which review could be sought under the Staff Rules (see Judgment 2739, consideration 13). There is an obvious qualification in the first paragraph set out earlier that what the complainant was being told in a letter about his entitlements was conditional. That is to say it was subject to the outcome of attempts to find another position for the complainant. These matters had been the subject of discussions between the complainant and UNIDO in September 2013. It is true that paragraph 7 speaks, explicitly, of when the complainantís last day of work would be. However that paragraph should not be taken out of context and, in particular, the context created by the first paragraph. Moreover, and significantly, no decision had, at this time, been made not to renew the complainantís contract and such a decision was not made by the Director General until 29 October 2013, which was a matter known to the complainant when he lodged his internal appeal.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2739
[T]his is not a case where [the Organization] has failed in its duty of care towards the complainant to help him exercise his appeal rights (see, for example, Judgments 2345, consideration 1, 2713, consideration 3, and 3754, consideration 11).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2345, 2713, 3754
duty of care