Judgment No. 3448
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
non-renewal of contract; complaint dismissed
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal has stated in Judgment 2171, under 4, the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is not the same thing as termination and does not give rise to any termination indemnity."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2171
Keywords
fixed-term; terminal entitlements; non-renewal of contract
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[The complainant] shows no evidence that he had entered into a contract of employment with the ILO for the period 1993 to 2002, as the Tribunal’s case law requires (see, for example, Judgments 817, under 8, and 2926, under 7-9). During that period he was employed by a firm which the ILO had sub-contracted. It is a contract with the ILO concluded in accordance with the rules in force which conferred on him the status of an official bound to the Organization during the period from 2002 to 30 April 2010 (see Judgment 2926, under 7)."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 817, 2926
Keywords
ratione personae; non official; subcontractant
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary. Such a decision is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which respects the freedom of an international organization to determine its own staffing requirements and the career prospects of staff members. A person who is employed on a fixed-term contract does not have a right or a legitimate expectation to a contract extension. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not interfere with a decision not to extend such a contract unless the decision was made without authority, or in breach of a rule of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or amounted to an abuse of authority."
Keywords
legitimate expectation; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; judicial review; discretion
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal’s case law requires an international organization to give reasonable notice of the non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment."
Keywords
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; notice
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant contends that the ILO acted in breach of its own international instruments when it did not renew his contract. He specifically refers to ILO Convention No. 158 and Article 3.2(c) of ILO Recommendation No. 166. He submits that these provide authority for the proposition that when a contract for a specified period is renewed on one or more occasions it is deemed to be a contract of employment of indeterminate duration. There is no merit in this submission as this statement is not applicable to a person who is employed on the type of contract on which the complainant was employed. In the second place, these instruments create obligations for Member States and do not apply to the relationships between the ILO and its officials. These latter relationships are governed by the terms of the contracts into which the person entered with the ILO and by the rules and regulations of the ILO, as interpreted and applied by the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 2662, under 12). This aspect of the complaint is unfounded as these do not create for the complainant a contract of indeterminate duration.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2662
Keywords
ilo instruments
| 
