爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
With respect to the Appellant’s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. 爆料网AT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before 爆料网RWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as “fully meets” expectations, and therefore this decision did not affect the terms and conditions of the Appellant’s contract and it was therefore not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT was correct in finding that the procedural irregularities were not serious enough to vitiate the outcome of the process. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err when it found that 爆料网RWA had reasonably and adequately exercised its discretion in terminating the Appellant’s appointment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested: (i) the decision to reopen his 2016 electronic Performance Evaluation Report (e-PER) and place him on an Opportunity to Improve (OTI) process, which 爆料网RWA DT found not to be receivable; and (ii) the decision to terminate his appointment for poor performance, which 爆料网RWA DT dismissed as based on well-documented performance issues.
Legal Principle(s)
An appellant cannot introduce, for the first time on appeal, an issue that was not raised either in his request for decision review or before the first instance tribunal. If a downgrade of one or more competencies in a performance appraisal does not detract from the overall satisfactory rating, it does not affect the terms or conditions of employment.