The grievor was terminated for unsatisfactory performance – he began having problems at work in 2001 – in 2003, after a negative performance appraisal, the employer assigned him duties created specifically for him as part of a program designed for employees with performance issues – in May 2004, still dissatisfied, the employer informed him that, if his performance did not improve, other options might be considered – even though his supervisor and duties were changed several times and he was warned several times that his work was unsatisfactory, the grievor continued to have difficulty with producing reports, analyses, meeting deadlines, showing initiative and judgment – in 2007, the employer drew up a performance management plan, but it failed to produce the expected results – over the following year, he was not assigned any duties – the employer wanted the grievor to use that time to find another job, but he did not find one and was terminated – the grievor never contested the contents of the appraisal reports he received during the period – an adjudicator’s jurisdiction is prescribed under section 230 of the PSLRA – an adjudicator can only determine whether it was reasonable for the employer to assess that the employee’s performance was unsatisfactory – the decision must be justified and made transparently and intelligibly – the employer’s decision was reasonable.

Grievance denied.