|
|
 |
|
|
Duration of appointment (316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Duration of appointment
Total judgments found: 48
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4102
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the ILO’s failure to take a final decision on her job grading appeal and the failure to grant her a contract without limit of time.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; duration of appointment; grade; post classification; titularization;
Judgment 4009
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that his employment relationship after 1 July 2016 could not be termed a Project Staff contract because his duties, which remained the same, could not be subsumed under the notion of a project, nor could they be viewed as short-term.
The Tribunal notes that according to the terms of the letter of 4 December 2015, the Secretary General offered the complainant a six-month Project Staff contract, with “the same job description” and at the same grade and step. In other words, the complainant continued to perform the same duties with the same remuneration. The only differences between the contract under which he was employed and that which was offered to him, were their name and duration. As the complainant had been employed since 1998 as Head of Administration and Finance under a fixed-term contract, the Secretary General could not offer him a temporary contract to continue performing exactly the same work as he was performing under a fixed-term contract without contravening the spirit of the applicable texts (see Judgment 2708, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2708
Keywords:
continuance of operations; duration of appointment; fixed-term; renewal of contrat;
Judgment 4008
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that her employment relationship after 1 January 2016 could not be termed a Project Staff contract because her duties, which remained the same, could not be subsumed under the notion of a project, nor could they be viewed as short-term.
The Tribunal notes that according to the terms of the letter of 4 December 2015, the Secretary General offered the complainant a one-year Project Staff contract, with “the same job description” and at the same grade and step. In other words, the complainant continued to perform the same duties with the same remuneration. The only differences between the contract under which she was employed and that which was offered to her, were their name and duration. As the complainant had been employed since 1996 as Administrative Assistant under a fixed-term contract, the Secretary General could not offer her a temporary contract to continue performing exactly the same work as she was performing under a fixed-term contract without contravening the spirit of the applicable texts (see Judgment 2708, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2708
Keywords:
continuance of operations; duration of appointment; fixed-term; renewal of contrat;
Judgment 3544
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the practice followed in granting appointments without limit of time to officials in the Director and Principal Officer category.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint allowed; decision quashed; duration of appointment; permanent appointment;
Judgment 3257
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision to offer him a one-year extension of his fixed-term contract rather than the two-year extensions he had previously received.
Considerations 11 and 12
Extract:
"These facts were significant as they highlight the need for reasons in this case because these circumstances impacted the complainant’s ability to assess whether he should have accepted the offer of the one-year extension of his contract and whether he should challenge the decision.
It is also significant that the complainant was reminded of the deadline [...], when he had not yet received the explanation. Additionally, it was in the letter [...], which included the explanation, that the Executive Secretary informed the complainant that his contract would expire [...] because he had failed to accept the offer of extension. The Tribunal therefore finds that the decision to offer the one-year extension to the complainant was flawed by the failure of the Administration to provide a timely explanation for that decision."
Keywords:
case law; contract; decision; duration of appointment; extension of contract; flaw; notice; offer; termination of employment;
Judgment 3159
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Considerations 9, 19 and 20
Extract:
"The terms of Staff Rule 1050.2 are clear. They impose a duty on the Organization in specified circumstances. The duty is to use reasonable efforts to reassign a staff member whose post is being abolished. The specified circumstances are, as to a staff member on a fixed-term appointment, that the staff member has served “for a continuous and uninterrupted period of five years or more”. The expression “continuous and uninterrupted” fairly emphatically focuses attention on service of a particular character. There is no basis in the language of the Staff Rule to treat its operation as ambulatory in the sense that a person who has been on a fixed-term appointment but has not served in that capacity for a continuous and uninterrupted period of at least five years is nonetheless a person to whom the Organization, by operation of the Rule, is under a duty to make reasonable efforts to reassign. [...] However, a staff rule cast in terms of Staff Rule 1050.2 does not preclude the possibility that the Organization is under a duty requiring proactive conduct in circumstances not comprehended by the Rule itself. WHO does not put in issue that there is a general duty of loyalty, as the complainant contends. What might be required of an organisation in broadly similar circumstances was considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902. [...] The same reasoning can be applied in the present case. The complainant and WHO found it mutually acceptable, and with benefits accruing to both, for the complainant to be employed on a series of short-term appointments for much of the complainant’s employment. But the complainant nonetheless had worked, in a real and practical sense, for over a decade and a half in the service of the Organization. In those circumstances, WHO was obliged to explore with the complainant other employment options prior to his separation."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 1050.2
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902
Keywords:
abolition of post; contract; duration of appointment; enforcement; fixed-term; general principle; intention of parties; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment; short-term; staff regulations and rules; successive contracts;
Judgment 3090
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal may rule on any employment relationship arising between an organisation and its staff, whether under the terms of a contract or under Staff Regulations. If a decision to appoint an employee, or to terminate his or her employment, is challenged on the grounds that it affects the rights of the person concerned which the Tribunal is competent to safeguard, the Tribunal must rule on the lawfulness of the disputed decision. It is immaterial whether the employee in question was recruited under a contract and whether that contract was for a fixed term. (See Judgment 1272, under 9.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; contract; duration of appointment; official; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2850
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he complainant argues that his initial appointment ought to have been for an undetermined period since his duties were of a lasting nature. However, as he was recruited under a contract for a limited period his situation is in any case governed by the provisions applicable to such contracts, and even on the assumption that his post should normally have been filled by a servant appointed for an undetermined period - which, as can be seen from Judgment 1450, is not a matter which the Tribunal will review - this fact by itself could not lead to a redefinition of his appointment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1450
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; contract; duration of appointment; judicial review; permanent appointment; provision; short-term;
Judgment 2810
106th Session, 2009
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(b)
Extract:
The complainant impugns the decision not to award him, after his three-year limited-duration contract - which had been renewed twice - expired, an indefinite contract for one of the long-term jobs offered to other candidates who had been found better qualified.
"There is certainly no doubt that a limited-duration contract should be extended beyond a six-year period only as an exceptional measure. Indeed, depending on the circumstances, such an extension is likely to give the person concerned, if not legitimate expectations of a permanent appointment in the near future, then at least the feeling that, contrary to the legal reality, he or she has acquired rights.
In the instant case the circumstances are not such as to engender such expectations. According to the information on file, the complainant was granted an exceptional extension of his limited duration contract owing to the particular employment situation within the Organization. [...] The complainant freely accepted this last extension in full knowledge of the facts and without expressing any reservations about his prospects of permanent appointment."
Keywords:
appointment; contract; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; promise;
Judgment 2779
106th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has found, even though he was not competent to make the representation, Mr [...] made a promise to the complainant that his appointment would be extended beyond statutory retirement age. Mr R. also fostered the complainant's false belief that the promise would be honoured. Despite the complainant's numerous requests over a period of approximately 18 months clearly explaining his belief that a promise had been made, the Secretary-General chose to ignore the opportunities to correct the complainant's misapprehensions and permitted him to act on his mistaken belief. Lastly, the Secretary-General failed to make a decision on the complainant's request for an extension in a timely fashion. This conduct constitutes a breach of the duty to respect the complainant's dignity. At the very least, the Secretary-General should have notified the complainant that the Union did not accept the obligation when the matter was first brought to his attention. This conduct has caused the complainant moral injury for which he must be compensated in the form of moral damages."
Keywords:
compensation; decision-maker; duration of appointment; extension beyond retirement age; good faith; injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; promise; respect for dignity; retirement; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2708
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
For the period 24 June 2002 to 31 December 2003 the complainant was given a fixed-term contract, financed from technical cooperation funds, which was extended until 30 June 2004. The complainant was subsequently given two external collaboration contracts, the second one ending on 31 March 2005. The contractual relationship between the complainant and the ILO ended at that date. "It emerges from an analysis of [the provisions of Circular No. 630] that short-term contracts should be offered in only specific cases and for a limited duration.
Having already obtained a fixed-term contract which had been extended, the complainant could not be recruited under a short-term contract, let alone under an external collaboration contract, to continue performing the same work as he had performed under his fixed-term contract, without contravening the spirit of the applicable texts.
The complainant's last two contracts should therefore be converted into a fixed-term contract."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 630
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; breach; claim; condition; consequence; contract; duration of appointment; extension of contract; external collaborator; fixed-term; limits; period; project personnel; provision; separation from service; short-term; written rule;
Judgment 2456
99th Session, 2005
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
The complainant joined the Organisation in January 1998 under a fixed-term appointment. His contract, which was extended in 2003, was due to expire on 14 June 2004; it was not renewed due to the implementation of the seven-year tenure rule. He has produced before the Tribunal a document signed by the Director-General containing data about his performance, in which his date of entry on duty was incorrectly shown as 24 May 1997. He contends that the Director-General relied on that data in deciding not to renew his contract. "Since in the implementation of its policy the Organisation was said to be applying a 'first in, first out' rule, an error of over seven months in the calculation of any employee's length of service may be of critical importance. That is especially the case where such apparent error has the effect of indicating wrongly that the employee would at the time of his separation from the Organisation have served more than seven years. The Tribunal considers the alleged errors of fact to be material. [...] The non-renewal decision must be set aside and the Organisation shall be ordered to pay to the complainant the full balance of salary and benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had received a one-year extension of his contract to 14 June 2005. The complainant must account for any earnings from other employment during that period."
Keywords:
allowance; appointment; consequence; contract; date; decision; duration of appointment; enforcement; extension of contract; fixed-term; general principle; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; period; reckoning; right; salary; staff member's duties; written rule;
Judgment 2350
97th Session, 2004
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
The complainant submits that the behaviour of the Administration towards her amounted to harassment since she got only a one-step salary increase, rather than the two proposed by her supervisor, and only a two-year extension of contract rather than the customary three years. The Tribunal considers that such decisions "were decisions which the Secretary-General was entitled to reach in the exercise of his discretion. That being so, such decisions can only be viewed as part of a campaign of harassment if the other events upon which the complainant relies give rise to an inference that these were taken because of hostility, ill will or other improper motive. The complainant has failed to prove harassment."
Keywords:
burden of proof; cumulative decisions; decision; discretion; duration of appointment; executive head; extension of contract; grounds; harassment; increment; lack of evidence; recommendation; supervisor; working relations;
Judgment 2308
96th Session, 2004
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-18
Extract:
"The complainant seeks compensation in lost salary and benefits for the years during which she has been remunerated on the basis of short-term employment while performing work of indefinite duration equivalent to that of a fixed-term staff member. In other words, she claims a retroactive fixed-term status. There is no basis on which the complainant can claim to be treated retroactively as if she had a fixed-term contract. She was recruited as a short-term staff member without having to go through a competition process; she accepted several contract renewals. It was within the discretionary authority of the Director-General to decide during all those years whether to renew each short-term contract or offer her a fixed-term contract [...]. She accepted and signed all the short-term contracts. [...] If it is sought to have the Tribunal treat those short-term contracts as being null, it must be shown that they have violated some fundamental and overriding principle of law or that her apparent consent thereto was vitiated (see Judgment 2097, under 11). This, the complainant has failed to do."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2097
Keywords:
acceptance; appointment; burden of proof; contract; discretion; duration of appointment; fixed-term; injury; lack of consent; law of contract; offer; short-term; status of complainant;
Judgment 2263
95th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The question to be resolved is that of whether, for the purposes of service order No. 99 [which defines the conditions and formalities governing the granting of a personal promotion], the period in excess of the 12-month maximum duration stipulated for short-term contracts should be taken into account in calculating the 18 years of continuous service. The answer is necessarily affirmative. [...] Once [the first 12-month period] had elapsed, the complainant must be considered to have been in service [...], even in the absence of a provision to that effect and taking into account the contracts he was granted thereafter. Regarding the [one month] break in service which occurred [subsequently], it is necessary to establish whether this prevented the complainant from completing the 18 years of continuous service [...] The Tribunal considers that it did not. The evidence on file, and particularly an affidavit produced by the complainant as an annex to his written submissions, shows that the break imposed on the complainant was justified only by the fact that he was employed under short-term contracts. since the Tribunal has determined that the complainant must be deemed to have been in service from 17 November 1982 onwards, the break in question must be viewed as a period of leave."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: SERVICE ORDER No. 99
Keywords:
continuance of operations; contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; interpretation; leave; no provision; personal promotion; promotion; reckoning; seniority; short-term; successive contracts; unpaid leave; validation of service;
Judgment 2198
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
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:
contract; discretion; duration of appointment; executive head; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; non-retroactivity; notice; right; short-term; successive contracts; terminal entitlements;
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:
acceptance; contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; intention of parties; law of contract; offer; right; short-term; successive contracts; unjust enrichment;
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:
acceptance; contract; discretion; duration of appointment; intention of parties; judicial review; offer; short-term; successive contracts;
Judgment 2162
93rd Session, 2002
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Where a notice period ends after the expiry of a fixed-term contract, the notice requirement will be met if the contract is extended by the amount of time needed to make up the full period of notice."
Keywords:
contract; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; separation from service;
Judgment 2150
93rd Session, 2002
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The reduction in income suffered by detached employees when returning to their administration cannot be deemed the responsibility of the organisation concerned. [...] All employees who are detached should bear in mind that when, for one reason or another, they return to their administration, their salary is very likely to be lower. [...] Detachment offers particular advantages which encourage employees to apply for it, as well as disadvantages, including the precariousness arising out of the duration of the appointment offered. If an appointment is not renewed when it expires, this does not automatically result in an injury for which compensation may be claimed, whatever the nature of the injury."
Keywords:
career; consequence; contract; duration of appointment; non-renewal of contract; reduction of salary; salary; secondment;
Judgment 2138
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant requests that he be considered for a long- term contract. He "can take no comfort from the case of another staff member in a somewhat similar situation who was given a long-term contract [...] The awarding of such contracts is exceptional and wholly discretionary and the fact that a contract is granted to one staff member creates no rights for any other staff member."
Keywords:
acceptance; complainant; contract; discretion; duration of appointment; equal treatment; exception; executive head; official; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2104
92nd Session, 2002
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
An international organization has a "duty to warn the [staff member] about the non-renewal [of his contract] long enough in advance to enable him to exercise his rights and take whatever steps he saw fit." The present case concerned a short-term appointment which was renewed several times.
Keywords:
contract; duration of appointment; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; separation from service; short-term;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
