United Nations legal framework for non-renewal of fixed-term appointments

In a decision of 30 October 2020 (Judgment No. 2020-UNAT-1068), the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) was requested to rule on the non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment of a staff member of the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) .

In this judgment, the UNAT presents an overview of the legal framework for non-renewal of fixed-term appointments within the UN. While starting from the principle that fixed-term appointments or appointments of limited duration carry no expectation of renewal or conversion to another type of appointment, the UNAT explains that either grounds for expectancy of renewal or grounds to challenge an administrative decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment may exists.

Consideration 21 provides that “the starting point […] is the well-established principle that fixed-term appointments or appointments of limited duration carry no expectation of renewal or conversion to another type of appointment” hereby referring the Staff Regulation 4.5(c).

Consideration 22 refers to the principle of promissory estoppel stating that “the Appeals Tribunal has found that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts does not, in and of itself, give grounds for an expectancy of renewal, unless the Organization has made an express promise that gives the staff member an expectancy that his or her appointment will be extended.”

The UNAT then continues to state that “separation as a result of expiration of a fixed-term appointment takes place automatically, without prior notice, on the expiration date specified in the letter of appointment”, hereby referring to the express staff rules to this effect.

In consideration 24, the UNAT than nuances that “in addition, the Appeals Tribunal has held that despite this, an administrative decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment can be challenged on the grounds that the Organization has not acted fairly, justly, or transparently with the staff member or was motivated by bias, prejudice or improper motive.” In this context, it is clarified that in such cases “the staff member has at least an initial burden of establishing [that] such factors played a role in the administrative decision.”

The UNAT then examines whether UNISFA’s decision not to renew the fixed-term appointment was “in accordance with its duty to act fairly, justly, transparently and in good faith with its staff members” to conclude that the impugned decision not to renew was unlawful.

While confirming the principle that fixed-term appointments carry no expectation of renewal, this judgment (aside from the specifics justifying the outcome in this particular case) outlines the legal framework that makes it possible to question the lawfulness of non-renewal decisions.

Since the non-renewal decisions are often challenged before the UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT), we are likely to see more judgments in this sense.