Judgment No. 2708
1. The impugned decision is set aside.
2. The ILO shall pay the complainant 2,000 United States dollars in compensation for the moral injury suffered.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
"The Organization [...] submits that the complaint is irreceivable. It asserts that the complainant's representative was notified of the impugned decision of 15 August 2006 that same day, and that the complaint filed with the Registry of the Tribunal on 15 November 2006 was therefore lodged outside the ninety-day period laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which in its opinion expired on 13 November 2006.
The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that under Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, to be receivable, a complaint 'must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned'.
The complainant states that the Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee posted the decision of 15 August 2006 to him, together with a covering letter dated 17 August 2006 informing him that he had ninety days as from notification of the decision to file a complaint with the Tribunal, if he so wished.
The forwarding of the decision to the complainant's representative could not be deemed notification within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. For this reason the Organization's objection to receivability is unfounded."
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
complaint; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; time limit; date of notification; delay; iloat statute; staff union; staff representative; condition; date
For the period 24 June 2002 to 31 December 2003 the complainant was given a fixed-term contract, financed from technical cooperation funds, which was extended until 30 June 2004. The complainant was subsequently given two external collaboration contracts, the second one ending on 31 March 2005. The contractual relationship between the complainant and the ILO ended at that date. "It emerges from an analysis of [the provisions of Circular No. 630] that short-term contracts should be offered in only specific cases and for a limited duration.
Having already obtained a fixed-term contract which had been extended, the complainant could not be recruited under a short-term contract, let alone under an external collaboration contract, to continue performing the same work as he had performed under his fixed-term contract, without contravening the spirit of the applicable texts.
The complainant's last two contracts should therefore be converted into a fixed-term contract."
Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 630
claim; external collaborator; project personnel; written rule; administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; breach; provision; period; contract; extension of contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; short-term; separation from service; limits; condition; consequence