|
|
 |
|
|
Conversion of contract (654,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Conversion of contract
Total judgments found: 19
Judgment 4809
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It follows from the[se] considerations that the impugned decision must be set aside in so far as it refused to redefine the external collaboration contract for the period from 6 November to 15 December 2006, bearing in mind that, although the Organization attempts to oppose that setting aside by referring to the inviolability of the terms of a contract, that objection cannot stand in the case of misuse of the rules governing the contractual relationship between an organisation and its staff members (see, for example, Judgments 3225, consideration 7, 3090, consideration 7, 2838, consideration 8, and 2708, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2708, 2838, 3090, 3225
Keywords:
abuse of power; conversion of contract;
Judgment 4675
136th Session, 2023
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the reclassification of her employment relationship and the consequential regularisation of her pension entitlements.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]lthough, in those judgments, the Tribunal found that the successive short-term contracts given to the complainants in question actually constituted a continuous employment relationship which warranted a reclassification to that effect, the Tribunal had already found – and expressly pointed out – that those contracts had been renewed without any notable breaks (see Judgments 3225, consideration 8, and 3090, consideration 7). It was clear from the evidence adduced in the cases in question that the complainants’ short-term contracts had followed one another seamlessly, subject only to very brief interruptions, which showed that breaking down the employment relationship into multiple temporary appointments, as the organisation had done, was artificial.
In the present case, the requirement to have no notable breaks, as established by this case law, is not met. It is apparent from a table summarising the complainant’s employment contracts, that she herself supplied in her complaint, that the employment relationship between her and WOAH between 2 January 2002 and 31 January 2013 was subject to many long breaks, loosely corresponding to the second half of every year, and lasting up to eight months. Accordingly, over the period in question, the duration of all of the complainant’s temporary contracts when added together was only five years and four months (and not six months, as the complainant erroneously stated in her submissions), in other words, not even half of the overall duration of 11 years and one month that the period represented.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3090, 3225
Keywords:
conversion of contract; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Judgment 4655
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions rejecting their requests for redefinition of their employment relationships.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he case law [...] established by Judgments 4159 and 4160 is fully applicable to the cases of the complainants in the present proceedings, and accordingly the Organization’s objection to the receivability of all the complaints, based on the fact that the complainants’ internal appeals were time-barred, is well founded.
With regard to the eight complainants who were granted temporary contracts at the end of periods when they were employed under short-term contracts, it is clear that they did not challenge the decisions whereby they were granted these temporary contracts within the eight-week period available to them for this purpose under Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(1), in the version applicable at the time. Moreover, examination of these contracts shows that the complainants explicitly stated when signing them that they “accept[ed] without reservation the temporary appointment[s] offered to [them]”. The requests for redefinition of their employment relationships that they subsequently submitted were therefore time-barred.
Moreover, the Tribunal notes that the approach adopted in Judgments 4159 and 4160, concerning the consequences of a failure to challenge within the applicable time limit a decision awarding a temporary employment contract at the end of a period of employment under short-term contracts, must apply a fortiori to a decision awarding a fixed-term contract at that point. The grant to some staff members, at the end of a such a period of employment, of this type of contract, which is still more fundamentally different in nature from a short-term contract, constituted a fortiori a modification of the legal relationships between the parties as well as regularising the contractual situation of the staff members in question.
However, the three complainants who were directly awarded fixed-term contracts on the expiry of renewals of their short-term contracts failed to challenge the decisions granting them these contracts within the applicable time limit for appeal and also accepted their new contracts without reservation. Consequently, they were not entitled to seek a redefinition of their employment relationships at a later date.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4159, 4160
Keywords:
conversion of contract; fixed-term; late appeal; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that, while the various complainants requested that the contractual redefinition apply not only to the period during which they were employed under short-term contracts but also, subsidiarily, to the subsequent period, their claims on this point are also barred by this case law. Firstly, the periods during which the complainants were employed under temporary appointments or fixed-term contracts did not in themselves necessitate a redefinition, since the complainants were lawfully employed during those periods. Secondly, since the requests for redefinition of their initial employment relationships in the form of short-term contracts are irreceivable, those requests, even if well-founded, could not in any event give rise to an entitlement to redefinition concerning the subsequent period.
Keywords:
conversion of contract; late appeal; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he complainants maintain [...] that the requests for redefinition of their employment relationships cannot be considered as time-barred because they are “actions involving compensation”, their sole purpose being “to obtain redress for the injury caused by the misuse of precarious contracts”, and that actions of this type are not, as such, subject to a time limit specified in WIPO’s rules. However, the Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the cases contrived, because in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of those decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their being set aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit. The complainants’ reference to the case law on which they consider they can base this argument, which relates to different situations, is irrelevant in the present case. Furthermore, endorsing this argument – which would, once again, involve departing from the approach taken in [...] Judgments 4159 and 4160 – would have the effect of authorising the Organization’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for time bars (see, for example, Judgment 3406, consideration 12, and the other judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3406, 4159, 4160
Keywords:
compensation; conversion of contract; injury; late appeal; redefinition of contract; time bar;
Judgment 4654
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his employment contract.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant maintains that the request for redefinition of his employment relationship cannot be considered as time-barred because it is “an action involving compensation”, its sole purpose being “to obtain redress for the injury caused” by “the fault committed by the Organization in applying the rules governing insecure and non-standard contracts in an abusive, aberrant manner” and that actions of this type are not, as such, subject to a time limit specified in WIPO’s rules. However, the Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the case contrived, because in a dispute involving a challenge to an individual decision, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of that decision could only be granted as a consequence of it being set aside, which presupposes by definition that it has been challenged within the applicable time limit. Furthermore, endorsing this argument – which would, once again, involve departing from the approach taken in aforementioned Judgments 4159 and 4160 – would have the effect of authorising the Organization’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in due time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for a time bar (see, for example, Judgment 3406, consideration 12, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3406, 4159, 4160
Keywords:
conversion of contract; late appeal; redefinition of contract; time bar;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he case law thus established by Judgments 4159 and 4160 is fully applicable to the case of the complainant in the present proceedings, [...].
Indeed, it is clear that the complainant did not challenge, within the eight-week period available to him for this purpose under Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(1), in the version applicable at the time, the decision of 19 November 2012 whereby he was granted the temporary appointment which he held from that date. Moreover, examination of that contract shows that the complainant signed it on 23 November 2012, explicitly stating that he “accept[ed] without reservation the temporary appointment offered to [him]”. The request for redefinition of his employment relationship that he subsequently submitted on 16 September 2016 with the aim of having his career reconstructed was therefore time-barred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4159, 4160
Keywords:
conversion of contract; late appeal; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; late appeal; non-renewal of contract; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that, while the complainant requested that the contractual redefinition apply not only to the period during which he was employed under short-term contracts but also, subsidiarily, to the subsequent period, his claims on this point must also fail in light of this case law. Firstly, the period during which the complainant was employed under a temporary appointment did not in itself necessitate a redefinition, since he was lawfully employed during that period. Secondly, since the request for redefinition of his initial employment relationship in the form of short-term contracts is irreceivable, that request, even if well founded, could not in any event give rise to an entitlement to redefinition concerning the subsequent period.
Keywords:
conversion of contract; late appeal; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Judgment 4165
128th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay her certain entitlements upon separation from service.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that Judgments 2838 and 3110 were cases involving persons employed on a number of short-term contracts with breaks in service by another organisation that had specific rules governing the conditions of service of its short-term officials. It was on this basis that the Tribunal ordered that the short-term contracts be converted to fixed-term contracts. In the present case the complainant has not referred to any provision in the OPCW’s regulatory regime that is similar to the rules in question in those judgments.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2838, 3110
Keywords:
conversion 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 13
Extract:
The complainant seeks the redefinition of her contractual relationship with UNESCO on the ground that she was in fact pursuing a career within the Organization. The Tribunal notes that for much of its existence, that relationship took the form of consultancy, supernumerary or fee contracts, which, according to Staff Rule 100.2, do not confer the status of staff member on their holders. Moreover, the complainant’s submissions do not establish that the Organization made improper use of these various types of contract. The Tribunal further notes that the complainant had never asked for her contractual relationship to be redefined before the non-renewal of her final appointment. In these circumstances, her request for a redefinition of her employment relationship will be dismissed.
Keywords:
conversion of contract;
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 11
Extract:
There is plainly nothing in these provisions which would entitle the complainant to have his fixed-term contract redefined. Nor is there anything in the case law establishing such a right.
Keywords:
conversion 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.
Consideration 11
Extract:
There is plainly nothing in these provisions which would entitle the complainant to have her fixed-term contract redefined. Nor is there anything in the Tribunal’s case law establishing such a right.
Keywords:
conversion of contract;
Judgment 3943
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants seek a redefinition of their employment relationships.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; conversion of contract; decision quashed;
Judgment 3829
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period and the non-renewal of her contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3828
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period, the reduction of the basis for calculating her contributions to the Eurocontrol Pension Scheme and the non-renewal of her contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3772
123rd Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award him a contract without limit of time.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conversion of contract;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recognises the wide discretion enjoyed by an organisation in deciding whether or not to convert a fixed-term appointment into an indefinite one (see Judgment 1349, under 11). Such a decision is subject to limited review and will be set aside only “if it is taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it is 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 an abuse of authority” (see Judgments 2694, under 4, and 3005, under 10). In particular, the Tribunal will not substitute its own opinion for that of the organisation assessing the merits of the various candidates for titularisation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1349, 2694, 3005
Keywords:
conversion of contract; discretion;
Judgment 3624
121st Session, 2016
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the non-conversion of her short-term appointment into a fixed-term contract and the fact that her allegations of harassment were not investigated.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3619
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of her internal appeal against the decisions not to convert her fixed-term contract into a permanent contract and not to select her for a vacant permanent post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; conversion of contract; decision quashed; fixed-term; permanent appointment;
Judgment 3571
121st Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert his limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period and the reduction of the basis for calculating his contributions to the Pension Scheme to reflect his actual working time.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; conversion of contract; decision quashed; pension;
Judgment 3420
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3036
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conversion of contract;
Judgment 3225
115th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully asks for her short-term contracts to be converted into fixed-term contracts.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; conversion of contract; decision quashed; short-term;
Judgment 3164
114th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of her request for a transfer, alleging harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; conversion of contract; decision quashed; harassment; permanent appointment; transfer;
Judgment 3005
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
Contrary to the complainant’s assertion, the Tribunal observes that there is no automatic entitlement to a conversion of a fixed-term appointment to a permanent appointment. Article 15a of the Conditions of Employment for Contract Staff provides that “a fixed-term contract shall not confer any right […] to conversion into another type of employment”. Additionally, even if all of the four criteria stipulated in Article 15a(2) under a), b), c) and d) are met, the staff member concerned does not have a right to a permanent appointment but, instead, “may be eligible for appointment to a corresponding vacant permanent post as a permanent employee”. Further, it does not automatically follow from the creation of a permanent post in the budget that a staff member is entitled to a permanent appointment.
Keywords:
conversion of contract;
|
|
|
|
|
