Judgment No. 3368
1. The ILO shall pay the complainant 15,000 Swiss francs in compensation for material and moral injury.
2. The ILO shall also pay the complainant 1,000 Swiss francs in costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
The Tribunal considered that the complainant’s employment under short-term contracts was unlawful and that the Organisation failed to provide reasonable notice of non-renewal.
short-term; non-renewal of contract
"The Tribunal has often stated that an international organisation has a duty to inform a staff member in advance about the non-renewal of her or his fixed-term contract to enable the staff member to exercise her or his rights and take whatever steps she or he sees fit. On this basis, the Tribunal requires an organisation to give reasonable notice, even where a provision contained in the contract of the staff member or in the applicable rules states that notice need not
be given (see, for example, Judgment 2104, under 6). In the present case, albeit formally short-term, the complainant’s contract was subject to Rule 3.5, and she therefore benefited from the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment. Consequently, the verbal notice of non-renewal which the complainant received on 6 May 2010 was insufficient to fulfil the ILO’s duty to provide a notice applicable by the ILO to fixed-term contracts. The complainant is therefore entitled to an award of material damages on this account."
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2104
"The Tribunal [...] rejects the ILO’s contention that the complaint’s claim for the conversion of her short-term contract is receivable only to the extent that it relates to her last contract extension for the period from 1 January to 31 May 2010, but is otherwise time-barred. The ILO relies on Judgments 2708 and 2838 as authority for its submission that, in view of the six-month time limit for filing a grievance under Article 13.2 of the Staff Regulations, the grievance filed on 4 November 2010 is irreceivable as to extensions prior to that of 1 January to 31 May 2010. A similar argument was rejected by the Tribunal in Judgment 3110, under 5. It is sufficient to note that, as earlier indicated, at the material time the complainant was employed under a single contract which was extended several times, and neither the extension of 1 January 2010 nor the decision to apply Rule 3.5 to her gave rise to a new, separate contract. The objection therefore fails."
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2708, 2838, 3110
receivability of the complaint; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal