Errors and improper conduct that affected the selection of the 2 persons appointed – Founded

Authority:

This investigation was conducted under section 66 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c.22, ss. 12 and 13.

Issue:

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if the appointments of 2 candidates (Candidates A and B) were based on merit, and if an error, an omission or improper conduct affected their selection in an advertised external appointment process.

Conclusions:

The investigation concluded that the sub-delegated manager erred in assigning their staffing responsibilities to the hiring manager without ensuring that they had the experience and training to manage the appointment process. They also failed to check that each qualified candidate was properly assessed and to review the documentation in support of the 2 selected candidates before approving their appointment.

The hiring manager committed improper conduct by failing to carry out proper reference checks or to consider candidates other than the 2 who were appointed, and by favouring Candidate B. The hiring manager also made an error that affected the selection and appointment of Candidate A by failing to show that they met an asset qualification that had been used in their selection. Therefore, Candidate A’s appointment was not made on the basis of merit. Candidate B’s appointment was also not based on merit because they did not meet the bilingual linguistic profile of the position.

Facts:

This appointment process was conducted to staff entry-level bilingual-imperative positions. The sub-delegated manager assigned most of their responsibilities related to the staffing process to the hiring manager. They wrongly assumed that the hiring manager had experience leading appointment processes because they had previously been a manager.

The hiring manager was responsible for screening, assessing and selecting candidates for appointment. The 2 candidates from the process were known to the hiring manager as they had worked with them. 

There were many problems with how the hiring manager conducted the appointment process.

References were supposed to be used as a validation tool for 3 essential qualifications. However, the organization provided no documentation showing that references were completed by the hiring manager. 

The asset qualifications were only assessed through the candidates’ applications. However, Candidate A did not provide an answer to the screening question used to assess an asset qualification that had to be met for them to be selected for appointment. During the investigation, the hiring manager could not explain how they determined that Candidate A met that asset qualification.

Candidate B was unsuccessful on their language evaluation and received a notice that they had been eliminated from the appointment process. The hiring manager then requested the change in language profile, from “Bilingual” to “English or French essential”, for a position to be staffed through the appointment process. The hiring manager made this change despite there being a pool of qualified candidates who met the language requirements of the bilingual position. The hiring manager also wrote in their selection decision that Candidate B was among the highest-ranking candidates, which was contradicted by evidence that this candidate had received low passing marks. Consequently, the hiring manager’s actions favoured Candidate B.

Once the hiring manager realized they could appoint Candidates A and B, they did not consider the other qualified candidates. The evidence showed, on the balance of probabilities, that the actions of the hiring manager constituted improper conduct that affected the selection of both persons appointed.

The sub-delegated manager approved and signed the letters of offer for both candidates without ensuring that the assessments were well-documented and conducted in a fair and transparent manner. This error affected the selection of both candidates for appointment; the sub-delegated manager’s review could have remedied problems with Candidate B’s assessment and the lack of evidence that Candidate A met an asset qualification that was used for selection.

There was insufficient evidence to show that Candidate A’s appointment was made on the basis of merit, since it was based, in part, on meeting an asset qualification that did not appear to have been assessed.

Finally, the evidence showed that Candidate B’s appointment was not made on the basis of merit, as they did not meet the advertised bilingual linguistic profile of the advertised position. 

Corrective actions:

Following the conclusions of errors, improper conduct and the appointment not being based on merit, the Commission ordered that:

Hiring manager:

• must notify the Public Service Commission before accepting any position or work within the federal public service for a period of 3 years
  • failure to do so will result in the revocation of their appointment
• must complete the Values and Ethics Foundations for Managers offered by the Canada School of Public Service and then participate in a discussion with their director
  • failure to do so will result in the revocation of their appointment

Sub-delegated manager:

• must have a discussion with the director of human resources to avoid repeating the error
  • failure to do so will result in a letter to the deputy head advising of the non-compliance with the corrective action

Appointees

• due to specific circumstances, no corrective action was ordered for either appointee

Investigation File No.: 22-23-06