Staff member (758,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Staff member
Total judgments found: 3

• Judgment 4219

  
  129th Session, 2020
  ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who had been seconded to the ITER Organization, challenges the decision to end his secondment and the failure to investigate his harassment allegations.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The Tribunal now turns directly to the question of whether the complainant was an official for the purposes of the Tribunal’s Statute. In relation to seconded staff, it has been said by the Tribunal that “[a]s a general rule, the effect of secondment is to suspend the contractual relationship between the releasing agency and the employee, who retains the right to return to the releasing agency upon expiry of the secondment term without having to seek other employment. During secondment, [she or]he is subject to the staff regulations and rules of the receiving agency” (see Judgment 2184, consideration 4). Ultimately, of course, the status of a seconded employee has to be assessed having regard to the specific arrangements in place concerning the secondment. One case where a seconded employee was not viewed as an official or employee of the receiving organisation is Judgment 3247. Additionally, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 2918, consideration 11, “[s]econdment is, in essence, a tripartite agreement which, ordinarily, involves an agreement between the person seconded and the receiving organisation, at least as to some matters”. In that case the applicability of the Staff Regulations depended on whether an individual had concluded an employment contract with the organisation and the Tribunal found the seconded staff had not. Additionally in that judgment reference was made to Judgment 703, which established that secondment does not necessarily preclude the person concerned from becoming a staff member of the organisation to which she or he is seconded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 703, 2184, 2918, 3247
  

  Keywords:

  competence; official; ratione personae; secondment; staff member;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3420

  
  119th Session, 2015
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal has examined its competence ratione personae of its own motion since, when the complaint was filed [...], the complainant was formally described in his employment contract as a “consultant”, a term often used for external collaborators. In the complaint form, the complainant calls himself a staff member. The Tribunal notes that the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules applicable since 1 January 2012 use the terms “staff members” and “staff” indiscriminately and that WIPO describes the complainant as a temporary employee on a short-term contract. The Tribunal finds that WIPO has consistently treated the complainant as a staff member. It is clear from the evidence that his contract provided for the payment of a salary, that he was subject to the disciplinary procedure – which was actually applied to him – and that he had access to internal appeal bodies. Moreover, WIPO admits that it has outsourced duties previously exercised by the complainant, which clearly shows that they were previously regarded as being performed internally. The Tribunal is therefore competent ratione personae to hear this case. Indeed, it had already implicitly accepted that it was competent to hear the complainant’s previous complaints."

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; locus standi; official; ratione personae; short-term; staff member; status of complainant;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1383

  
  78th Session, 1995
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 7-10

  Extract:

  The organization contends that the Tribunal lacks competence to hear a complaint from a "temporary adviser", whose status does not imply the right of appeal. But the Tribunal finds that the organization has described her "as holding an appointment as [a] short-term consultant. [...] Her contract was for a total of over ninety days, she was therefore not a 'temporary advisory' whithin the meaning of [WHO Manual paragraph] II.12.590." holding a "temporary short-term appointment as a consultant [...] she therefore qualified as a 'staff member'" with the right to appeal. "The rules draw no distinction between 'regular' staff members and the holders of temporary appointments."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PARAGRAPH II.12.590
  
  

  Keywords:

  duration of appointment; external collaborator; internal appeal; locus standi; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; short-term; staff member; staff regulations and rules;