Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
On the Appellant¡¯s argument that his non-renewal was a disguised disciplinary measure and that thus, management evaluation was not required, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the argument had no merit and that the Appellant could not evade the statutory obligation of management evaluation by characterising the dispute decision as a disciplinary matter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of law of fact, the Appellant¡¯s appeal must fail. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was not receivable on the grounds that he had failed to request management evaluation prior to filing his application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and had requested management evaluation one month after the statutory deadline.
Legal Principle(s)
Requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process. It is the staff member¡¯s responsibility to ensure he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ; ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse.