Judgment No. 4021
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision to grant her local recruitment status.
local status; complaint dismissed
The complainant applies for an oral hearing under Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Rules of the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes, however, that the JAB elicited relevant evidence from the parties, by way of specific questions, to which they responded. They were also given an opportunity to comment on each other’s response. Moreover, in view of the abundant and sufficiently clear submissions and documents, as well as the evidence which the parties have provided, the Tribunal considers that it is fully informed about the case and does not deem it necessary to hold an oral hearing. The application for a hearing is therefore dismissed.
ILOAT reference: Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Rules
The present case is similar, in the material respects, to that which was the subject of Judgment 3603, in which the WTO was also the defendant. The Tribunal considers that the following analysis, extracted from considerations 19 and 20 of that judgment, is equally applicable to the present case:
“19. The critical factor for determining a staff member’s recruitment status is her or his residence at the time of recruitment, as provided in Rule ST03.1 of the Short-Term Staff Rules (for short-term staff) and Staff Rule 103.1 read together with Staff Rule 104.2 (for staff under fixed-term and regular contracts). Under the clear and unambiguous provisions of Rule ST03.1 of the Short-Term Staff Rules, the complainant’s recruitment status on recruitment on a short-term basis in 2002 was ‘local’. She was correctly so recruited as, at the time, she gave her ‘present address’ as Pully. That was perhaps convenient for her because she then benefitted from the provision of Rule ST03.1(a) to the effect that recruitment of short-term staff ‘shall normally be made locally’.
20. Under Staff Rule 104.2(a) she was recruited under the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules when she was given a fixed-term contract. Her place of residence at that time for the purpose of her recruitment status under Staff Rule 103.1 was Switzerland, as it also was at the time when she was given the regular contract. Therefore, the WTO was entitled to recruit her as a local staff member under her short-term, fixed-term and regular contracts and her claim that she was at any time entitled to international recruitment status is unmeritorious.”
As in the case leading to Judgment 3603, the WTO was entitled to recruit the complainant in the present case as a local staff member and her claim that that decision was unlawful is unsustainable. She was in fact resident in Geneva from 14 August 2011, when she first entered Switzerland to be with her husband. She obtained a residence permit and worked there before the WTO employed her. Her first WTO contract, which she signed on 16 April 2012, lists as her address an address at Rue de Zurich in Geneva. More importantly, however, the complainant resided in Geneva when she signed her first short-term contract commencing in May 2013 and was, therefore, at the time of recruitment “resident” within the specified radius to attract the “locally recruited” designation under Rule ST03.1 of the Short-Term Staff Rules. She then continued to reside in Geneva, as her address in her Personal History Form of April 2015 shows, and was, therefore, also at the time when she commenced work under a fixed-term contract “resident” within the specified radius to attract the “locally recruited” designation pursuant to Staff Rule 103.1(a).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3603