Judgment No. 2362
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"By virtue of successive short-term contracts and extensions thereof, [the complainant's] service lasted for four years. The series of extensions and the grant of pension coverage and other benefits did not signify a change in her original status. Staff Rule 3.5(a) [...] cannot be invoked by her as proof that her appointment had been converted to fixed-term. While this provision ostensibly bestows on her 'the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment', it would be stretching the intent and signification of the provision to make the complainant a fixed-term official (see Judgment 1666). Had that been the purpose of the Rule, it would have explicitly so provided instead of stating that 'the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment [...] shall apply to [the official concerned]'. The complainant was recruited as a short-term official and remained one at all times."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 3.5(a) of the Rules Governing Conditions of Service of Short-Term Officials
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1666
Keywords
status of complainant; evidence; staff regulations and rules; amendment to the rules; interpretation; provision; terms of appointment; period; contract; extension of contract; fixed-term; successive contracts; short-term; fringe benefits; unjspf; fund membership; commutation; purpose; official
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The complainant's candidacy to a vacant post was rejected. "She states that her immediate supervisor [had] received a minute from HRD, instructing her that in preparing her shortlist of candidates, priority should be given to internal candidates, then to those persons who had been working for the Office for an extended period on what are regarded as 'precarious' conditions, such as herself, and lastly to other external candidates. She contends that, contrary to the instructions in the minute, her supervisor reviewed all the candidates in order to prepare her shortlist, disregarding those priorities, thus rendering the selection decision null and void. [The Tribunal considers that] what is important, however, is that the recruitment procedure in the Staff Regulations and the terms of the vacancy notice were complied with. The priorities for shortlisting candidates were merely indicated in a minute from HRD."
Keywords
procedure before the tribunal; submissions; information note; staff regulations and rules; breach; terms of appointment; vacancy; appointment; competition; candidate; internal candidate; vacancy notice; priority; supervisor; refusal
| 
