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

Non-renewal of contract (384,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Non-renewal of contract
Total judgments found: 297

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >

  • Judgment 4321


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 4289


    130th Session, 2020
    International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her appointment for unsatisfactory performance and the decision to reject her harassment complaint.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; fixed-term; harassment; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law has consistently stated that the decision not to renew a fixed-term contract is a discretionary decision, but if the decision is based on poor performance, the assessment of that performance has to be made in accordance with the rules established for that purpose. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 2991, consideration 13:
    “It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person’s work carried out in compliance with previously established rules (see, for example, Judgments 1911, under 6, and 2414, under 23).”
    Allied to this is an obligation to afford an opportunity to improve (see, for example, Judgments 2678, consideration 8, and 3026, considerations 7 and 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1911, 2414, 2678, 2991, 3026

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4234


    129th Session, 2020
    International Office of Epizootics
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    As to the errors and omissions in the management of staff files which were referred to in the performance appraisal reports, these were professional shortcomings. Such shortcomings cannot be equated with misconduct (see, for example, Judgments 247, consideration 13, 1163, consideration 5, 1208, consideration 2, and 3853, consideration 6). Misconduct involves a breach of the duties of an international civil servant in respect of conduct which may trigger disciplinary proceedings and lead to a disciplinary measure. That is not the case for professional shortcomings, which may give rise to various administrative measures, such as a reminder of the applicable rules, a note in a personal file, an unfavourable appraisal or even the non-renewal or termination of a contract (see, for example, Judgment 1405, consideration 4).
    The professional shortcomings mentioned in the performance appraisal reports – the last of which led to a 95 per cent downwards adjustment in the complainant’s annual merit bonus – could not give rise to a disciplinary measure.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 247, 1163, 1208, 1405, 3853

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report;



  • Judgment 4231


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment and to place him on special leave with pay until his contract expired.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; leave with pay; non-renewal of contract;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    As the complainant has not shown that the non-renewal of his contract was unlawful, the question of reinstatement does not arise.

    Keywords:

    non-renewal of contract; reinstatement;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law states that an organisation enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal respects the organisation’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff. However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set the decision aside if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4062, consideration 6, and 4146, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062, 4146

    Keywords:

    discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant argues that the FAO had a duty to reassign him to another post. He states that “even if the Director-General no longer wished [him] to remain in [his] position, there was a duty to consider [him] for other postings as an internal candidate in need [of] placement” and that regarding his placement on special leave with pay, “it should be noted that this occurred without any undertaking by the Administration to see if there were some other post[s] for which [his] services could be effectively utilized”, given that there were posts for which he was fully suited. He insists that this was one procedural issue which the Appeals Committee failed to consider in detail reflecting disregard for due process. These pleas however fail. Ordinarily, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, an organization’s duty to reassign a staff member arises only when a post is abolished (see, for example, Judgment 4037, consideration 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4037

    Keywords:

    non-renewal of contract; reassignment;



  • Judgment 4229


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the World Food Programme, challenges the decision to maintain the decision not to renew his contract, and to award him material and moral damages instead of reinstatement.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    In the Tribunal’s view, it was mistaken for the impugned decision to rely on the fact that the complainant’s 2011 and 2012 PACE appraisal reports gave him an “unsatisfactory” overall rating, and were not revised to satisfactory, as well as concerns that were stated in the complainant’s probationary appraisal (which actually gave a satisfactory rating), as bases for finding that his reinstatement was not warranted. Accordingly, the impugned decision will be set aside to the extent that it denied reinstatement. However, inasmuch as the complainant held a fixed-term appointment that expired on 3 June 2013 rather than a continuing appointment, and given the time that has passed, the Tribunal considers that it is not appropriate to order his reinstatement (see, for example, Judgment 4063, consideration 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report; reinstatement;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Notwithstanding the setting aside of the impugned decision, the Tribunal considers that the award of 70,000 euros, which the Organization paid to the complainant for the lost opportunity to be considered for renewal, was reasonable. Accordingly, it will be unnecessary to award him any further sum in this regard. Although in the impugned decision the Director-General purported to “set aside” the decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract, the fact remains that the complainant was separated from service without a valid reason and was not reinstated. It is perhaps this, above all, that justifies the significant amount of damages awarded to him by the Director-General. There is no other basis for awarding further damages for the invalid 2012 PACE appraisal report and the unlawful decision not to renew the complainant’s appointment.

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; formal flaw; loss of opportunity; material damages; non-renewal of contract; performance report; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 4218


    129th Session, 2020
    ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    It is convenient to commence by recalling the approach of the Tribunal to cases in which a complainant challenges a decision not to renew a contract. They were conveniently summarised in Judgment 3586, consideration 6:
    “Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11). The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6). These grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, under 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contained a similar provision.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1349, 2850, 2861, 3299, 3444, 3586

    Keywords:

    discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 4172


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his appointment for unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    According to consistent case law, “a decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment, being discretionary, may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority. [...] What is more, where the reason given for the non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance the Tribunal will not replace with its own the Organisation’s view of the complainant’s fitness for his duties” (see Judgment 1052, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1052

    Keywords:

    discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4170


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her performance reports for the 2010-2011 biennium and the decisions to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2012, to withhold that increment on that date and to not renew her fixed-term appointment for unsatisfactory service.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4146


    128th Session, 2019
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to grant him a contract of indefinite duration and not to extend his fixed-term contract beyond nine years of service.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 4068


    127th Session, 2019
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the seven-year tenure.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; extension of contract; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 4067


    127th Session, 2019
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his contract.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; extension of contract; non-renewal of contract;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The OPCW’s tenure policy is not unlawful (see Judgments 2407 and 2660). In the former judgment the Tribunal observed in consideration 25:
    “The complainants all reached the end of their fixed-term appointments and were given special extensions to work out the minimum notice period of non-renewal which the Organisation had imposed upon itself. When those short-term extensions expired they had no right and no expectation of any further employment. Their contracts had been made, and accepted by them as being, subject to the seven-year tenure rule. [...]”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2407, 2660

    Keywords:

    non-renewal of contract;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal sets its face against assessing the exercise of a discretionary power such as the power not to renew a fixed-term contract, unless it is demonstrated that the competent body acted on some wrong principle, breached procedural rules, overlooked a material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see, for example, Judgment 3991, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3991

    Keywords:

    discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 4062


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The complainant, who is not asking to be reinstated within UNESCO, has however requested compensation for the material injury suffered as a result of the termination of her employment with the Organization.
    In this regard, the complainant has no grounds for claiming the payment of all the emoluments which she would have received until she reached retirement age, as the renewal of her fixed-term contract would by no means have guaranteed that the Organization would continue to employ her until the end of her career.

    Keywords:

    damages; fixed-term; material damages; non-renewal of contract;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that international organizations have wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew fixed-term contracts. Such decisions are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1262, consideration 4, 3586, consideration 6, 3679, consideration 10, 3743, consideration 2, or 3932, consideration 21).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 3586, 3679, 3743, 3932

    Keywords:

    discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 4037


    126th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her temporary appointment.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    A steady line of precedent has it that a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract must be notified to the official concerned in good time, particularly so that she or he may exercise her or his right to appeal against it (in this connection, see Judgments 2104, under 6, 2531, under 9, and 3362, under 16).
    However, this case law does not require that the official be given an opportunity to submit comments before that decision is taken.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2531, 3362

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; right to be heard;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; non-renewal of contract; short-term;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] submits that UNESCO breached its duty to “reclassify” her. In her view, UNESCO did not make sufficient efforts to find her a new assignment, although she was “pursuing a career” within the Organization. UNESCO counters that, in any event, the duty of “reclassification” relied on by the complainant arises only when a post is abolished. The Tribunal observes that the Organization is correct in this assertion and notes that, contrary to the complainant’s contention, the Organization did seek alternative solutions to the non-renewal of her appointment.

    Keywords:

    non-renewal of contract; reassignment;



  • Judgment 4010


    126th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; performance report;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 3991


    126th Session, 2018
    ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;

    Considerations 7 and 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal sets its face against assessing the exercise of a discretionary power such as the power not to renew a fixed-term contract, unless it is demonstrated that the competent body acted on some wrong principle, breached procedural rules, overlooked a material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see, for example, Judgments 3914, consideration 4, and 3769, consideration 6). [...]
    [I]t was within the discretionary power of the Director-General, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Mediator, to focus only on the skills and capabilities of the complainant in assessing whether her position should continue and, if not, whether the contract should be renewed. No reviewable error attended the approach of the Director-General.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3769, 3914

    Keywords:

    discretion; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 3950


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 3948


    125th Session, 2018
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The basic applicable principles where a decision not to renew a contract is challenged have been relevantly stated, for example, in Judgment 3586, considerations 6 and 10, as follows:
    “6. It bears recalling at this juncture that the Tribunal’s scope of review in a case such as this is limited. Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11). The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6).
    [...]
    10. It is firm principle that the reason not to extend a fixed-term contract must be a valid one and not one that was given to conveniently get rid of a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1154, under 4).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; general principle; non-renewal of contract;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 3942


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reinstate her in her former position.

    Considerations 8 and 9

    Extract:

    The Tribunal accepts [...] that the executive head of an organisation has a discretionary power to review an earlier decision and can, for good reason and acting bone fide, vary or rescind that decision (see, for example, Judgment 618, consideration 5, though compare Judgment 3871, consideration 3), unless the earlier decision is immune from revision either because of the effect of normative legal documents within the organisation such as staff rules or regulations, or because of the application of principles found in the Tribunal’s case law such as promissory estoppel (see, for example, Judgment 1781, considerations 12 to 14). But the rationale for the reversal decision, in the present case, does not withstand close scrutiny. [...]
    It is true that the remedy chosen in the decision [...] certainly compensated the complainant, financially, for the direct effect of the unlawful non-renewal of her contract as an act of retaliation. However, that decision fails to recognise that bare financial compensation for lost income arising directly from non-renewal of the complainant’s contract for an unlawful reason might be an insufficient remedy. This failure is an error of law involving a failure to take into account relevant considerations.

    Keywords:

    estoppel; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; withdrawal of decision;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2020 ^ top