text:  ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Judgement No. 482 Cases No. 541: QIU Against: The Secretary-General No. 544: ZHOU of the United Nations No. 545: YAO THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, Composed of Mr. Roger Pinto, President; Mr. Jerome Ackerman, First Vice-President; Mr. Ahmed Osman, Second Vice-President; Whereas, on 28 February 1990, Rong Qiu, Kefu Zhou and Jiping Yao, former staff members of the United Nations, filed an application, the pleas of which read as follows: "II.Pleas 6.The Applicants seek to be reinstated as staff members of the United Nations. They submit that the Respondent should have maintained them in service after 31 January 1990 in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the Staff Regulations and Rules, the relevant General Assembly resolutions as well as their own excellent record after more than five years of employment with the Organization and the recommendation of the Department of Conference Services that they be granted probationary contracts. The Applicants respectfully request the Tribunal to rescind the Respondent's decision of 15 January 1990 not to renew their contracts or offer new ones and to direct the Respondent to reinstate them as United Nations staff members. 7.In that connection, the Applicants request the Tribunal to recognize: (a)That the denial by the Respondent of further employment for the Applicants was illegal because the Applicants were not given every reasonable consideration in contravention of General Assembly- 2 - resolution 37/126, section IV, paragraph 5, according to which staff members on fixed-term appointment upon completion of five years of continuing good service should be given every reasonable consideration for a career appointment; (b)That the Applicants had a legal expectancy of renewal of their contracts; (c)That the Applicants were not given the true reasons for the denial of further employment and, moreover,
analysis: The text appears to be a legal document related to the employment of staff members at the United Nations. The applicants are seeking reinstatement and arguing that their denial of further employment was illegal. The document cites specific resolutions and regulations, indicating that the issue is related to employment and personnel management.