Judgment No. 4218
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; complaint dismissed
It is convenient to commence by recalling the approach of the Tribunal to cases in which a complainant challenges a decision not to renew a contract. They were conveniently summarised in Judgment 3586, consideration 6:
“Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11). The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6). These grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, under 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contained a similar provision.”
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1349, 2850, 2861, 3299, 3444, 3586
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; discretion
The fourth argument is that there had been a violation of the requirement for transparency. The only point of substance raised on this topic is that the complainant was not provided with copies of certain documents before the CRJAC. Copies of those documents have been provided by the defendant organization in its reply. They should have been provided to the complainant at the time they were provided to the CRJAC (see, for example, Judgment 2588, consideration 7). However, in her rejoinder, the complainant failed to demonstrate in any material way that either the failure to provide them at the time or their content tainted the decision-making process leading to the ultimate decision impugned in these proceedings not to renew her contract and thus failed to prove she suffered prejudice (see Judgment 3377, consideration 16). In these circumstances no moral damages should be awarded.
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2588, 3377
injury; moral injury; disclosure of evidence
The seventh and final argument is that the defendant organization failed to provide the complainant unemployment benefits. No legal foundation obliging the payment of any such benefits has been established.