�山����

The dispute between the parties relates to whether the Applicant met the condition of satisfactory service during his probationary period to warrant a contractual right to have his FTA converted into a CA. In this context, the Applicant claims that his FRO and SRO did not identify any performance shortcomings during the performance cycle, including at the two “landmark” performance discussions they had previously to the contested decision. Allegedly, the first time he heard about any dissatisfaction with his performance was when he was informed that he would not receive a CA and, instead, would have his FTA extended for another year. 

Having reviewed the evidence on record, the Tribunal did not see any unlawfulness or unreasonableness in the contested decision. Indeed, there is sufficient evidence on record showing that the Applicant's performance was not satisfactory during the second year of his probationary period, and that he was made aware of performance shortcomings through the ongoing feedback provided by his FRO and the section's revisers throuhgout the year. The fact that the Applicant's FRO did not properly record the performance shortcomings discussions after the landmark performance conversations is not probative that such discussions did not occur nor that the Applicant was unaware. Instead, based on the feedback that the FRO was receiving from revisers, the Respondent’s allegation that the FRO talked to the Applicant about the performance issues during the aforementioned conversation is more credible than the Applicant’s version that nothing of the sort ever came up.

For the purpose of triggering the conversion of an FTA to a CA, the only requirement concerning the staff member’s performance is that it is deemed “satisfactory”. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that it was not unreasonable for the decision-maker to conclude that the Applicant’s service was unsatisfactory at the time of the contested decision.

Sec. 6.3 of ST/AI/2020/3 provides that a staff member “shall be granted a continuing appointment after two years on a fixed-term appointment, subject to satisfactory service”.  Since the Applicant's service was not deemed "satisfactory", there was no legal basis to grant a CA to him at the time of the contested decision.