Judgment No. 891
Decision
1. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S DECISION OF 4 MARCH 1987 IS QUASHED.
2. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL APPLY THE REDUCTION-IN-FORCE PROCEDURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RULE 1050.2.
3. THE COMPLAINANT IS AWARDED 3,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN COSTS.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In the absence of a definition in the Rules the post, though it began as a post of limited duration, became one of indefinite duration when prolonged after the period for which it had been created."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 1050.2 OF WHO STAFF RULES
Keywords
no provision; contract; post; extension of contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; successive contracts; permanent appointment; consequence; definition
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's post was abolished. The Tribunal held that, though given a limited-duration contract, the complainant held a post of indefinite duration which entitled him, under the material rules, to application of the reduction-in-force procedure.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 1050.2 OF WHO STAFF RULES
Keywords
procedure before the tribunal; applicable law; contract; post; fixed-term; permanent appointment; abolition of post; termination of employment; staff reduction; right
| 
