Judgment No. 3420
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3036
conversion of contract; complaint dismissed
"The Tribunal has examined its competence ratione personae of its own motion since, when the complaint was filed [...], the complainant was formally described in his employment contract as a “consultant”, a term often used for external collaborators. In the complaint form, the complainant calls himself a staff member. The Tribunal notes that the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules applicable since 1 January 2012 use the terms “staff members” and “staff” indiscriminately and that WIPO describes the complainant as a temporary employee on a short-term contract. The Tribunal finds that WIPO has consistently treated the complainant as a staff member. It is clear from the evidence that his contract provided for the payment of a salary, that he was subject to the disciplinary procedure – which was actually applied to him – and that he had access to internal appeal bodies. Moreover, WIPO admits that it has outsourced duties previously exercised by the complainant, which clearly shows that they were previously regarded as being performed internally. The Tribunal is therefore competent ratione personae to hear this case. Indeed, it had already implicitly accepted that it was competent to hear the complainant’s previous complaints."
locus standi; status of complainant; competence of tribunal; short-term; ratione personae; official; staff member
"Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgment 2837, under 3, and the case law cited therein)."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837
new claim; new plea
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, the principle of equal treatment requires that staff members in an identical or comparable position in fact and in law be treated in the same manner by the employer organisation (see Judgment 2198, under 14).
The plea that the principle of equal treatment has been breached must be dismissed, since the complainant supplies no proof that a person in the same situation in fact and in law as him obtained the “regularisation of his or her situation” during the period in question."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2198
burden of proof; equal treatment