Judgment No. 4146
The complaint is dismissed.
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.
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; complaint dismissed
The complainant requests an oral hearing under Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Tribunalís Rules but the parties have presented ample submissions and documents to permit the Tribunal to reach an informed decision on the case. The request for an oral hearing is therefore refused.
ILOAT reference: Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Rules
The case law of the Tribunal states that an organisation enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment and, a fortiori, whether to convert it into an indefinite one. Although the exercise of such discretion is not unfettered, it is subject to only limited review, as the Tribunal will respect the organisationís freedom to determine its own requirements. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only set aside such decisions if they were taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if they 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, Judgment 3772, under 5).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772
fixed-term; permanent appointment; non-renewal of contract; discretion
The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 3861, under 9, that the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require international organisations to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury, and that an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests. The Tribunal has also observed that in order for there to be misuse of authority, it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the organisationís interests and that the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see, for example, Judgment 3193, under 9).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3193, 3861
burden of proof; good faith; misuse of authority; abuse of power