2020-UNAT-1064, Kerby
UNAT considered the Appellant’s claim that the basis for the non-renewal decision was his unsuccessful application for a newly created post for which he had applied. UNAT held that there was no evidence of the link between the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and his non-selection for the other post and considered that the timeline of events supported this. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its finding that the non-renewal decision was a separate matter from the then-ongoing selection exercise. On the Appellant’s claim that the successive renewals of his appointment created an expectation of renewal, despite the explicit indication otherwise, UNAT held that the claim had no merit. UNAT highlighted that successively renewing a staff member’s appointment was not good practice and might, at some point, run the risk of establishing a pattern of conduct that could lead to some other legal consequence. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant challenged the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. UNDT held that the Applicant had failed to submit a timely request for management evaluation and rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.
A fixed-term appointment carries no expectancy of renewal. The date of an administrative decision is based on objective elements that both parties can accurately determine. The reiteration of an original administrative decision, if repeatedly questioned by a staff member, does not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines; rather, time starts to run from the date on which the original decision was made.