UNDT/2012/060, McCluskey
Fixed-term appointments of short and long duration: The distinction made by UNHCR between fixed-term appointments of long duration—i.e., fixed-term appointments of one year or more granted further to a competitive selection process, based on the advice of an Appointments, Postings and Promotions body—and fixed-term appointments of short duration—i.e., fixed-term appointments of less than a year granted without a competitive selection process and not endorsed by an Appointments, Postings and Promotions body—has its legal foundation in staff regulation 4.3 and staff rule 4.15 (and former staff rule 104.14). The different treatment of staff members who underwent a competitive selection process and those who did not is not arbitrary, and with regard to the extension of contracts, it falls within the discretionary authority of the Organization to distinguish between these two categories of staff.
The Applicant contests the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment beyond 30 September 2011. He claims that the distinction made by UNHCR between fixed-term appointments of long duration and fixed-term appointments of short duration is unlawful and that the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment of short duration beyond 30 September 2011 breached his right to equal treatment since four of his colleagues, who held fixed-term appointments of long duration, were extended until 30 November 2011. The Tribunal finds inter alia that there is a factual and legal difference between the contractual situation of the Applicant and that of the four colleagues he referred to and concludes accordingly that his claim of a breach of the principle of equal treatment is unfounded.
N/A