Judgment No. 1116
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent the Director-General has discretion to extend a fixed-term appointment or convert it into an indeterminate one and his decision will be set aside only if taken without authority [etc]".
Keywords
amendment to the rules; contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; permanent appointment; non-renewal of contract; judicial review; discretion
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant submits that the decision not to renew his appointment was tainted with breach of his right of defence since he failed to get a copy of a report concerning him by the Joint Disciplinary Committee. The Tribunal observes that such reports are confidential under Rule 110.2(e). "Besides, the report is immaterial, even in the present context, because the Committee recommended no disciplinary action and the stated reasons for termination were financial stringency and abolition of post."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 110.2(E)
Keywords
lack of injury; advisory body; report; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; right to reply; contract; fixed-term; abolition of post; budgetary reasons; non-renewal of contract
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant, whose post was abolished, alleges that the organization committed a mistake of law by keeping him in its employ under a long string of short-term appointments. He relies on what he says was UNESCO's established practice of extending fixed-term appointments for never less than one year. The Tribunal observes that there is no rule binding the organization to a minimum or maximum period of extension and that the complainant does not offer a shred of evidence of the practice he says it followed.
Keywords
evidence; burden of proof; organisation's duties; practice; contract; extension of contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; successive contracts; short-term; non-renewal of contract
Considerations 6-7, Summary
Extract:
The complainant argues that his post was not abolished for reasons of financial stringency. What he alleges prompted his dismissal was a desire to get rid of him, and that led to abuse of authority. He cites as evidence of this UNESCO's extension of his appointments over a five-year span for only very short periods. The Tribunal finds no evidence of liability on UNESCO's part: the organization did its utmost to seek other employment for him.
Keywords
lack of evidence; successive contracts; abolition of post; budgetary reasons; reassignment; termination of employment; misuse of authority; abuse of power
| 
