Íæż½ã½ã

The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s claims relating to the performance evaluation of his FRO and his SRO’s theoretical negative influence of future performance appraisals to the Applicant’s detriment were not receivable because they either did not form part of the terms and conditions of his employment or had no direct legal consequences on his terms and conditions of employment. With respect to the negative comments and rating of the SRO in his 2015-2016 e-PAS, the Tribunal noted the successful roll-back of the e-PAS and concluded that there no longer existed a live issue because he had...

The application was receivable because there was a reviewable administrative decision stemming from the SRO’s negative comments and rating in the Applicant’s performance appraisal because the Applicant was granted only a six-month contract instead of the one year appointment that he was granted when he initially entered on duty with UNSMIL. Thus, the SRO’s comments had direct legal consequences for the Applicant in that he ended up with a shorter term of appointment. Although the Respondent had made assurances to the Applicant that the 2015-2016 e- PAS would be rolled back and re-created, his...