Recommendation implemented: Unfair refusal to extend lecturer’s contract beyond retirement age

Recommendation implemented: Unfair refusal to extend lecturer’s contract beyond retirement age

Published December 22, 2025

The complaint

The complainant was employed as a lecturer within the Institute of Engineering and Transport at MCAST for over twenty-three years. He reached the statutory retirement age of sixty-four in August 2024. MCAST granted him a one-year extension until August 2025.

When the complainant applied for a further extension beyond August 2025, MCAST refused the request. The refusal stated that extensions beyond retirement age were only granted in exceptional circumstances linked to operational needs. No specific reasons were provided.

The complainant alleged that the refusal was unfair and discriminatory. He claimed that other lecturers teaching in the same field, who were older than him, had their contracts extended. He also complained that MCAST failed to give valid reasons for rejecting his request.

Facts and findings

The Commissioner for Education opened an investigation and requested detailed explanations from MCAST. This included clarification on the exceptional circumstances relied upon, information on other lecturers in similar situations, and copies of any assessments or minutes relating to the decision.

MCAST confirmed that employment beyond retirement age was discretionary and linked to operational requirements. However, it failed to provide evidence of a transparent or structured process governing this discretion. No published internal procedure existed for assessing requests for extensions beyond retirement age.

Despite repeated requests, MCAST did not produce any contemporaneous assessments showing how the complainant’s request had been evaluated. Only after the Director of Human Resources was summoned to give evidence did MCAST submit brief documents purporting to justify the decision. These documents were not prepared at the time of the decision and appeared to have been created retrospectively.

The Commissioner found that the reasons given against the complainant were not credible. Allegations of lack of relevant skills and unsatisfactory performance were contradicted by the complainant’s qualifications, long teaching history, and extensive involvement in major restoration projects. No evidence was produced to show who carried out the assessment or who was consulted.

The investigation established that the decision-making process lacked transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness. The complainant had no opportunity to know, challenge, or respond to negative comments that affected the outcome of his request.

 Conclusions and recommendations

The Commissioner concluded that the complaint was fully justified. The refusal to extend the complainant’s contract was unreasonable, unjust, based on irrelevant considerations, and it breached the principles of good administration.

Given the breakdown in trust between the complainant and the institute, the Commissioner did not recommend a reconsideration of the individual’s request. Instead, the Commissioner recommended that MCAST urgently adopt a clear, transparent, and accountable procedure for handling all requests for contract extensions beyond retirement age.

The recommended procedure should require that full and truthful reasons for refusals should be given, and should also allow applicants to contest negative assessments that may influence the outcome of their requests.

Outcome

Following the Commissioner’s final opinion, MCAST accepted the recommendation. While maintaining that it had objective grounds for its decision, MCAST committed to developing and implementing, by the end of the current academic year, a formal procedure governing employment contracts that reach retirement age.

The Commissioner for Education acknowledged this commitment and registered the complaint as sustained, with a recommendation made and accepted. MCAST was informed that the Office expects to be kept fully informed of the adoption of the new procedure, particularly as the decision is being published in the public interest under Article 29(2) of the Ombudsman Act.