The court established that dismissals must be substantiated by comprehensive performance evaluations, and lack of procedural fairness can render terminations unjust.

[36] It was also shown to the Court that out of 11 columns for the Manager's comment, COW-2 only commented on 4 column and even failed to rate one of the columns in the assessment. The Court is of the view that since COW-2 did not provide details of the assessment ratings in 7 out of 10 Manager's column and failed to rate one of the column in the assessment, the incomplete and improper rating by COW-2 has actually resulted in the unfairly overall ratings given to the Claimant and subjected him to undergo a PCP. The incomplete and improper rating by COW-2 also implies that possibly the reason why COW-2 did not commented and specified details in 7 Manager's column because there were no valid details facts and figures to substantiate her "partially effective" ratings on the Claimant who was under her supervision only for 4 months when she conducted the year end review.

[37] The Court is of the view that the Claimant was not warned about his poor performance right from the mid term review by his earlier manager and so it is reasonable for the Claimant to believe that the ratings given by COW-2 was unfair and he is not supposed to be subjected to PCP in the first place. Furthermore it was not disputed that the Claimant achieved the Business Plan and targets that entitled him to receive the SMINC-CASH for 9 months out of 12 months in 2012.

[38] There were also evidence and not disputed by the Bank that the Claimant on numerous occasions had requested to the Bank to re-review his 2012 appraisal before he undergo the PCP since he was not satisfied with his ratings given by COW-2 which was seen not substantiated with facts. The Bank refused to re-review but forced the Claimant to undergo the PCP despite the Claimant protesting it.

[39] The Court is of the view that the request for a review of the assessment was reasonable and that the Claimant was actually seeking for clarification because of his confidence in his performance and also for the Claimant to know exactly what went wrong since COW-2 has failed to give details in the Manager's comment on his alleged poor-performance.

[40] The Bank's conduct in refusing for a re-review led to suggests that they unfairly treated the Claimant as they did not have any proof to substantiate the bad ratings on the Claimant. The Bank not only refused and failed to have a re-review as requested by the Claimant, they also failed to provide reasons to Claimant as to why a re-review of the previous assessment cannot be done.

[41] The conduct of the Bank was unfair to the Claimant and shows the mala fide intention of the Bank finding a "safe" ways to terminate the Claimant by placing him under PCP because under the PCP program, there is a clause that says "failed 2 consecutive review results in termination". This action of the Bank is unfair to an employee, when the Bank has not done a review to point out where the employee went wrong in the first place.

[42] Though the Bank responded back to the Claimant, the respond was a late respond which was purposely done after 5 months the Claimant made the request for a re-review and was made after the Claimant attended the PCP for two months.

[43] The Bank alleged that the Claimant's performance in 2012 did not meet the Bank's expectation in respect of 3 items which were high attrition rate, increase in customer complaint rates and failure to monitor, follow through on sales operating procedure. On the allegation of high attrition rate under Claimant's team, COW-2, had admitted during cross-examination that they do not have evidence to proof this allegation.

Q: Can you show the documentation that the high performer retention is more than 90% - This is the requirement or the goals and not the statistics of the team attrition rate?

A: In para 6(a) you can find th