爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by 爆料网AT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. 爆料网AT found no error in the 爆料网DT’s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment was tainted by improper and discriminatory motives, resulting from bias and animus, based on an ongoing conflict between her and the Chief of the CTPU. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to not renew her fixed-term appointment based on the reduction of work within the Chinese Test Processing Unit (CTPU). 爆料网DT found that it was not unreasonable for the Administration, based on the data available at the time of the contested decision, to conclude that there would be a decrease in work in the CTPU. 爆料网DT also found that the Applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her alleged expectancy for contract renewal. The Applicant appealed. 爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT for fresh consideration since 爆料网DT had not addressed the Applicant’s allegations that the reasons that the Administration had provided for the non-renewal decision were a falsehood and a fabrication aimed at justifying retaliation against her on account of her complaints. In judgment No. 爆料网DT/2017/071, 爆料网DT again rejected the application, finding that the Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof that the [non-renewal] decision was based [on] ulterior motives.
Legal Principle(s)
It is a well-established principle that fixed-term appointments or appointments of limited duration carry no expectation of renewal or conversion to another type of appointment. Even the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive appointments does not, in and of itself, give grounds for an expectancy of renewal, unless the Administration has made an express promise that gives the staff member an expectancy that his or her appointment will be extended. The jurisprudence requires this promise at least to be in writing. An administrative decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment can be challenged on the grounds that the Administration has not acted fairly, justly, or transparently with the staff member or was motivated by bias, prejudice, or improper motive. The staff member has the burden of proving such factors played a role in the administrative decision.