Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Findings

3.1  Staffing framework

The PSC renewed its appointment framework on April 1, 2016, as part of the New Direction in Staffing (NDS), which includes the new Appointment Policy and the revised Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI) and is designed to simplify staffing across the public service, consistent with the expectations set out in the PSEA. The NDS takes into account the evolving HR landscape and maturity of the system. It provides organizations with greater scope to customize approaches to staffing that meet their particular needs and ensures that public service staffing remains merit-based and non-partisan.

It was expected that the following key elements of ECCC’s framework to manage its staffing activities would be in place and aligned with the NDS, namely:

Organizational staffing system

Previously, the PSC expected deputy heads to establish mandatory appointment policies, including criteria for the use of non-advertised processes. As part of the revised ADAI, deputy heads are now required to “establish direction, through policy, planning or other means, on the use of advertised and non-advertised appointment processes”. In addition, deputy heads are now required to “establish requirements for sub-delegated persons to articulate, in writing, their selection decision”.

The organizational staffing system requirements were in place. Through ECCC’s Appointment and Staffing Policy, which was approved by the deputy head on April 27, 2016, the Department has established requirements on area of selection for internal appointment processes; direction on the use of advertised and non-advertised appointment processes; a requirement for sub-delegated managers to describe, in writing, the basis of their selection decision; and a sub-delegation attestation form.

Sub-delegation

A new requirement stemming from NDS with respect to sub-delegation is that deputy heads must now make sure that persons being sub-delegated have signed an attestation form that, at a minimum, includes the requirements found in Annex C of the revised ADAI.

In September 2016, the deputy head revised the appointment and appointment-related authorities being sub-delegated and the terms and conditions of sub-delegation, including training pre-requisites, through the Departmental Guidelines on the Sub-Delegation of Appointment and Appointment-Related Authorities (referred to as “the Guidelines”). Through its Appointment and Staffing Policy, ECCC has established an Attestation Form for Exercising Sub-Delegated Appointment and Appointment Related Authorities.

In reviewing ECCC’s Departmental Human Resources Delegation Instrument (referred to as “the Instrument”) dated July 2015, we noted that certain appointment-related authorities were either not in compliance, fully aligned with PSC requirements or not clearly identified in the Instrument. For example:

Monitoring and reporting

As part of NDS, the PSC has reoriented the oversight model, enhancing the role of deputy heads in monitoring staffing in their respective organizations, while reducing reporting demands.

To supplement ongoing monitoring, deputy heads are now required to conduct a cyclical assessment based on their organizational risks at least once every five years and provide the results to the PSC. Deputy heads are to ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken to address any deficiencies, and must annually report to the PSC on areas identified in Annex D of the ADAI, such as approved DH exceptions to the national area of selection requirement for external advertised appointments processes, and any additional areas identified by the PSC.

ECCC has established a Staffing Oversight and Monitoring Plan for 2016-17 to measure and report on the health of organizational staffing. We noted that this plan describes monitoring activities, including real time monitoring and reporting requirements on areas identified in Annex D of the PSC’s ADAI. It also identifies monitoring mechanisms and planned reporting of results to senior management and to the PSC. As reported in Annex 2, the Human Resources Branch conducted monitoring including file reviews and reported results to senior management.

In conclusion, the Department is progressing in meeting the requirements and spirit of the NDS with improvement required in areas such as in the identification of delegated authorities in the sub-delegation instrument.

3.2  Classification framework

It was expected that key elements of ECCC’s classification framework to manage classification actions would be in place, namely: assessment of advisors’ workload; training program; and monitoring of classification decisions.

Assessment of advisors’ workload

The mandate of ICSS (Classification) which reports to the CHRMO, included providing ECCC with qualified personnel to meet short and long term classification needs. The ICSS produced, on weekly basis, the Detailed Classification Actions Report and the Process Action Report, to assist HRB in assessing the classification advisors’ workload. Please refer to section 3.5, Staffing and classification service standards, for more details.

Training program

The Departmental Human Resources Delegation Instrument indicates that only accredited classification advisors can approve classification decisions on the creation/review of non-EX positions. The new Policy on Classification states that deputy heads are accountable for the development of the Organization and Classification Learning Curriculum, including formal course delivery sub-delegating such authority and OCHRO is accountable for issuing classification accreditation through the Canada School of Public Service.

The audit reviewed the list of accredited classification advisors and found evidence of their accreditation. Furthermore, the audit found that these advisors reviewed and approved the work of non-accredited advisors.

Monitoring of classification

As per the TBS Directive on Classification Oversight, departments are required to perform classification monitoring and develop, implement and maintain quality assurance activities. Departments are also required to submit, to OCHRO, information on classification activities through a biennial report approved by the Deputy Minister which includes:

The first Biennial Report was approved by the DM and submitted to OCHRO on September 28, 2016. The report included the required information listed above.

ECCC has a classification oversight framework in place which was approved in December 2016. The objective of this framework was to elaborate the ways the Oversight Division would manage the Department’s organization and classification assessment and reporting obligations. To this end, a classification oversight plan is expected to be developed on an annual basis, based on regular monitoring activities, previous results and identified priorities.

The Oversight Division of the ICSS Directorate is responsible for assessing and reporting on the Department’s ability to support its senior managers and HR professionals in all organization and classification matters.

Although a compliance monitoring exercise was conducted in 2015 on 2013-14 files, no recent real-time monitoring was conducted as required by OCHRO. The objective of the 2015 monitoring exercise was to determine if file documentation was complete. Based on this exercise and our audit file review, there was no apparent improvement in the quality of file documentation since the last review conducted in 2010-11. Four recommendations were made as a result but the organization was not able to provide evidence to help the auditors determine whether these recommendations were implemented.

Although, some monitoring activities were conducted in the past, moving forward, the HRB would benefit from implementing classification monitoring activities in a more timely manner. This would add efficiency to the process by enabling timely identification of issues and implementation of corrective measures.

Overall, while key elements of ECCC’s classification framework to manage classification actions were generally in place, improvement is required in the monitoring of classification files.

3.3  Compliance of appointments

A review of appointments was conducted to determine whether ECCC’s appointments were in compliance with the PSEA requirements, any other applicable statutory and regulatory instruments, the PSC’s Appointment Framework, including the ADAI, and the Department’s own appointment policies.

The Department carried out 568 term and indeterminate appointment activities during the period from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 and a sample of 40 appointments was selectedFootnote 7 .

Merit-based appointments

The PSEA requires that all appointments be made on the basis of merit. Merit is met when the Commission is satisfied that the person to be appointed meets the essential qualifications for the work to be performed, as established by the deputy head and, if applicable, any asset qualifications, operational requirements and/or organizational needs identified by the deputy headFootnote 8.

The audit found that merit was met in 35 of the 40 appointments. Merit was not demonstrated in 5 appointments. In these cases, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate how the appointee met all of the essential qualifications.

Priority entitlement

The PSEA and the Public Service Employment Regulations provide an entitlement for certain persons who meet specific conditions to be appointed in priority to others. According to the PSC’s Appointment Policy, deputy heads must assess persons with a priority entitlement prior to considering other candidates, and must respect requirements to administer priority entitlements as set out in the Priority Administration DirectiveFootnote 9.

In 34 of the 40 appointments audited, a priority clearance was required. The audit found that priority clearance was obtained in all 34 appointments; however, in 3 of these appointments, there were differences in the position requirements (for example, the tenure, location, group and level, and conditions of employment) used to obtain the priority clearance and those used to make the appointment. In another instance, there were differences between the linguistic profile used in the request for priority clearance and the one used to make the appointment. Such situations could have resulted in persons with a priority entitlement not being appropriately considered.

Information on appointment processes

According to the PSC’s Appointment Policy, deputy heads must respect official languages obligations throughout the appointment process.

Of the 40 appointments audited, 36 were required to have English and French versions of the advertisement including the statement of merit criteria. The audit found that in 7 of these appointments, there were differences between the English and French versions of the statement of merit criteria. Inaccurate information on the advertisement or merit criteria could have an impact on the decision of potential candidates to apply.

Oath or solemn affirmation

As required by the PSEA, the effective date of appointment for a person being newly appointed to the public service is the later of the date that is agreed to in writing by the sub-delegated manager and the appointee and the date on which the appointee takes the oath or solemn affirmation.

Of the 40 appointments audited, 12 appointments required that the oath or solemn affirmation be taken. While the requirement was met in most instances, the audit found that in 2 appointments, the oath or solemn affirmation was not taken on or before the date of the appointment identified in the offer of appointment. In another instance, ECCC could not provide evidence that the appointee had taken to the oath or solemn affirmation. This could have resulted in persons being appointed without having met the legislative requirements.

Mandatory sub-delegation training

The PSC delegates many of its appointment and appointment-related authorities to deputy heads, who in turn may sub-delegate the exercise of these authorities. The PSC expects deputy heads to identify and document the appointment and appointment-related authorities being sub-delegated. The PSC also expects that deputy heads, prior to sub-delegating, will ensure that persons being sub-delegated have completed the departmental required training.

All offers of appointment except for one were signed by a sub-delegated manager with the appropriate level of sub-delegation. ECCC was unable to provide supporting evidence that 8 sub-delegated managers had completed the mandatory training prior to being sub-delegated appointment authorities. These 8 sub-delegated managers signed 11 offers of appointment. This could have resulted in persons being sub-delegated staffing authorities who did not complete the required training prior to exercising their authorities.

In conclusion, appointments at the Department were, for the most part, in compliance with PSEA requirements, any other applicable statutory and regulatory instruments. However, controls need to be enhanced to further improve appointment compliance.

3.4  Classification compliance

The TB Policy on Classification requires that positions be classified according to occupational group definitions, appropriate job evaluation standards, application guidelines and other documents developed and issued by the OCHRO. Furthermore, the TBS Directive on ClassificationFootnote 10 requires that complete and accurate documentation and information be contained in the departmental classification files. A sample of 20 classification files was assessed against key requirements to determine compliance.

All files examined were in compliance with the following requirementsFootnote 11:

As required by the TBS Directive on Classification, managers are responsible for providing, to the Classification Advisor, an organizational chart and a job description that are signed and dated. Of the 20 files audited, 3 files did not include an organizational chart, and another 16 files included organizational charts that were either not signed by the manager or dated. Of the 20 files, 3 job descriptions were neither signed nor dated.

The HRB, through its 2015 monitoring exercise, determined that 130 of the 200 files examined did not include organizational charts or, when these documents were found on file, they were not up-to-date or signed. Following the monitoring exercise, the Department updated its system to help manage organizational charts and provide employees and managers with real-time information which was to be downloaded directly from My GCHR. Although the system update intended to provide real-time information, several hiring managers identified issues such as incorrect reporting structures employees acting in positions were not reflected in the organizational charts and the new format was not user-friendly. As a result, incomplete documentation increases the risk of positions being improperly classified.

In conclusion, positions are being classified according to group definitions, appropriate job evaluation standards and application guidelines. Classification files documentation need to be further improved.

3.5  Staffing and classification service standards

In order to determine whether staffing and classification processes at ECCC were efficient, the audit examined whether:

Service standards were in place for both staffing and classification as indicated in Tables 1 and 2. The approach to measure service standards did not provide the required information to adequately report results against these standards.

Departments are required to provide service standards information on classifications activities to TBS on a biennial basis through the Biennial Classification Policy Monitoring Report. ECCC submitted its first report in September 2016 and the report indicated that the standards were met in 2 of the 9 types being monitored. Although the report stated service standards were being met, evidence was not provided to confirm this fact.

Table 1: Service standards for staffing actions
Staffing actionsFootnote 14 Calendar days
External advertised process 120
Internal advertised process 120
External non-advertised process 30
Internal non-advertised process 35
Table 2: Service standards for classification actions
Classification actions Calendar days
Change in geographical location 3
Reclassify an existing position 40
Create a new position using a generic work description (new duties) 20
Create a new position using a unique work description - no committee 35
Create a new position using a unique work description - committee 60
Change in reporting relationship (non-EX) 5
Change language requirement or linguistic profile 5
Abolish/inactivate/delete a position 1
Change in security level 1

Through the use of the Operational Staffing Workload Report and the Detailed Classification Actions Report, the HRB made some progress so that the workload for both staffing and classification was reallocated to achieve service standards. Although these reports were produced on a weekly basis to assist in the management of workload, they were not designed to specifically cover the service standards mentioned in Tables 1 and 2. These reports included the review of processes between 90 and 120 days as well as processes in excess of 120 days. The timelines, however, are only a rough estimation of the time it takes to staff.

The lack of performance measurement information limits the HRB’s ability to determine if standards are met and if corrective measures are taken to improve the efficiency of the processes. This is important as the timeliness of staffing and classification services were raised as a concern by a number of senior managers.

3.6   Recommendations from the PSC 2011 audit report

AEB conducts regular (semi-annual) monitoring and reporting exercises on the status of management commitments and actions made in response to internal and external audit recommendations. Based on the results the 2013-14 follow-up exercises, AEB concluded that the recommendations from the PSC 2011 audit report were fully implemented.

A follow-up conducted as part of this audit confirmed that the recommendations from the 2011 audit were implemented. Please refer to Annex 2 for details.

Page details

Date modified: