Judgment No. 2337
The complaint is dismissed.
"The case law cited [by the complainant] refers to the situation of a staff member who, failing any indication to the contrary, can rely on the continuation of his contractual relations (either not terminated or renewed), since according to the rules of good faith the Organization should warn the staff member if it considers his performance unsatisfactory in order to give him a chance to improve. The situation is different if an organisation [...] restricts the number of fixed term contracts a staff member may be given and lays down specific conditions for the award of an indefinite contract. In this case, the staff member cannot sit back and wait for his contract to be turned into an indefinite contract, since he will be expected to meet stricter requirements. Of course, the Organization is not on that account relieved of its duty of care towards the staff member, and, in accordance with the rules of good faith, it must warn him either if it is convinced that he is simply incapable of performing the duties attached to an indefinite contract, or if it believes that, in order to perform them the staff member must improve the quality of his work still further. This is an obligation the Organization must fulfil particularly in the context of periodic performance appraisals."
case law; good faith; organisation's duties; duty to inform; legitimate expectation; work appraisal; performance report; satisfactory service; contract; fixed-term; successive contracts; permanent appointment; unsatisfactory service; condition