UNDT/2024/095, Fagasinski
General verbal statements, which the Applicant asserts were made by his Fist Reporting Officer during team meetings, cannot constitute an express promise to renew his TA. More importantly, such verbal statements lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that no official commitment was made to the Applicant in writing to substantiate an expectation of renewal of his TA.
The Tribunal found that performance management procedures governed by ST/AI/2010/5 and established UNAT jurisprudence on the matter set in Ncube were followed. Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that the reason provided for the non-renewal of the Applicant’s TA was lawful and supported by the facts. It found that the Applicant’s performance evaluation procedure was proper and conducted in accordance with the applicable norms, and that the rating of “partially meets performance expectations” was supported by reliable facts.
The Tribunal further found that the Applicant did not adduce any evidence to prove the improper motivation on the part of his FRO or that improper motives influenced the contested decision.
The Tribunal consequently decided to reject the application in its entirety.
The decision not to renew the Applicant's Temporary Appointment (“TA”) for unsatisfactory performance.
Renewing a temporary appointment is not an entitlement of a staff member, but rather a discretionary measure of the Administration. A legitimate expectation of renewal must not be based on a mere verbal assertion, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case. Moreover, a promise to renew a fixed-term appointment must at least “be in writing” and contain“the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension".
The Dispute Tribunal must give deference to the Administration’s appraisal of the performance of staff members. The Tribunal cannot review de novo a staff member’s appraisal or place itself in the role of the decision-maker and determine whether it would have renewed the contract based on the performance appraisal.