text: On 31 March 1989, the Applicant filed with the Tribunal the application referred to earlier. Whereas the Applicant's principal contentions are: 1.UNICEF's unfair and discriminatory practice of awarding Consultancy Contracts, SSAs and Hourly Wage Contracts for performing the substantive functions of a regular staff member was abusive and contravened United Nations and UNICEF's Administrative Instructions governing the employment of consultants. 2.UNICEF's decision not to award the Applicant a permanent appointment and to reject every one of her applications for suitable vacant posts in UNICEF was arbitrary and vitiated by caprice, discrimination and prejudice. 3.The Applicant suffered injury because of UNICEF's discriminatory employment practices against women under consultancy or short-term contracts and her staff association activities. 4.The Applicant had a legal expectancy of continuing- 8 - employment in UNICEF, after a distinguished service for a total of ten years and a presumptive right to consideration for posts elsewhere in UNICEF. 5.The JAB's failure to review the Applicant's appeal fairly, independently and impartially caused her a "miscarriage of justice". Whereas the Respondent's principal contentions are: 1.The Applicant's legal status is governed exclusively by the terms of her employment contracts; her SSAs provided that during the period of her employment under those contracts, the Applicant had the legal status of an independent contractor and not that of a staff member, while her appointments as a staff member carried no expectancy of renewal. 2.The Applicant's claim to all allowances, grants and payments she would have received but for the Respondent having (in the Applicant's submission, wrongfully) denied her the legal status of a staff member during her independent contractor employment, is time-barred under staff rule 103.15. 3.The Applicant has not discharged the burden borne by her to prove that UNICEF's decision with respect to the renewal of her appointment as a staff member and "denial" of a career appointment
analysis: The text appears to be related to a workplace dispute, specifically a labor claim filed by an employee with the Tribunal. The issues raised are about employment contracts, consultancy contracts, staff associations, and the denial of a career appointment. The language used is formal and legal, indicating a professional setting.