Favoritism towards a family member and avoiding a priority clearance

Section 66 – Founded – Omission and improper conduct – Favoritism (non-disclosed relationship), appointment and deployment to avoid priority clearance, and appointment not based on merit

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 whether a hiring manager favored the appointee — a family member — for appointment. Specific concerns were raised to the effect that the hiring manager did not disclose their relationship with the appointee, and that 2 merit criteria were not assessed.

Conclusions

The investigation concluded the following:

• the hiring manager committed improper conduct by favoring the appointee’s candidacy
• the human resources (HR) advisor and a director (the hiring manager’s supervisor, who is also the sub-delegated manager) committed improper conduct by allowing, on two occasions, the hiring manager to appoint the candidate to an AS-1 position and then to deploy them immediately to a CR-4 position to avoid delays related to obtaining a new priority clearance
• the HR advisor and the director committed an omission on two occasions, when they did not verify whether the appointee was assessed against all of the qualifications used to make the appointment
  • as a result, the appointment was not based on merit

Facts:

An appointment process was conducted to establish a pool of candidates to fill various administrative positions at the AS-1 and CR-5 groups and levels. The hiring manager asked whether their family member had been deemed qualified and placed in the pool that was established as a result of the appointment process. The family member had not yet been placed in the pool.

In the meantime, the hiring manager hired the family member on a casual basis under their supervision.

The hiring manager submitted a request to have candidates referred from the pool to fill an indeterminate administrative assistant position at the AS-1 group and level. In the request, the hiring manager indicated 2 requirements. Several candidates were referred to the hiring manager, including the family member, who had since been placed in the pool.

The hiring manager informed the HR advisor that the family member was the right fit and that they needed to proceed quickly as the family member had experience of interest to the organization, had received a job offer from another organization, and met operational needs.

The investigation determined that the HR advisor, the director and the hiring manager agreed to appoint the family member on a determinate basis to an AS‑1 position and then to immediately deploy them on a determinate basis to a CR-4 position to avoid delays associated with having to submit a new priority clearance for the CR-4 position. The hiring manager then proceeded with these staffing actions. The hiring manager used the same procedure a second time to appoint the family member on an indeterminate basis to an AS-1 position and then to deploy them right away to a CR-4 position under their supervision.

The evidence showed that the family member was appointed to an AS-1 position without having been assessed against 2 of the qualifications used to make the appointment. The HR advisor and the director did not check whether the family member had been assessed against all of the qualifications before being appointed. Also, the hiring manager did not disclose their relationship with the appointee prior to the appointment.

Corrective action:

Following the conclusion of omission and improper conduct, the Commission ordered the following actions for the following people:

• The hiring manager:
  • must complete the course Values and Ethics Foundations for Managers (online course C355) at the Canada School of Public Service
    • this course must be followed by a discussion between the hiring manager and their director or director general, to ensure that the course has been understood
  • must complete the course Staffing: A Resourcing Tool for Managers (P901)
  • may not be sub-delegated appointment and appointment-related authorities for a period of 2 years following the signing of the Record of Decision, or for a period of 18 months if the ordered courses and the required discussions have been completed
  • may not exercise any duties related to staffing in the federal public service for a period of 2 years following the signing of the Record of Decision, or for a period of 18 months if the ordered courses and the required discussions have been completed
• The appointee:
  • the appointment be revoked retroactively and, following revocation, the person no longer be employed with the federal public service
• The HR advisor:
  • must complete the course Values and Ethics for Employees (C255)
    • this course must be followed by a discussion with the HR advisor’s director or director general, to ensure that the course has been understood
  • must complete the courses Staffing: for Staffing Specialists – Part 1 (P801) and Staffing: for Staffing Specialists – Part 2 (P802)
• The director:
  • the Commission decided not to take corrective action against the director because they are no longer an employee of the federal public service

Investigation File No.: 19-20-03