Misusing personal knowledge about a candidate in an appointment process – 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 whether an error, an omission or improper conduct occurred in an advertised external appointment process. A candidate alleged there were inconsistencies in the assessment and hiring practices.

Conclusion:

The investigation concluded that a sub-delegated manager and selection board member committed improper conduct by considering unsolicited and unsubstantiated information from sources who did not have direct, personal knowledge of the candidate. The selection board member, who also did not have personal knowledge of the candidate, applied this information as their own personal knowledge in their assessment of the candidate and eliminated the candidate from the appointment process.

Facts:

An individual who is not an employee of the federal public service was a candidate in an advertised external appointment process. The candidate was successful in the appointment process, up to and including the completion of structured references. A selection board member then received unsolicited negative information about the candidate from other known sources. The selection board member considered this information as personal knowledge of the candidate and applied it in the decision to downgrade and eliminate the candidate from the appointment process.

The Public Service Employment Act allows for use of all available information, including personal knowledge, when assessing candidates, though it must be used in a fair, transparent manner and in good faith. However, the investigation found that neither the selection board member nor the sources who provided unsolicited information had direct, personal knowledge of the candidate. The selection board member took the unsolicited information at face value without validating it, and so did not do their due diligence. The selection board member did not demonstrate why the unsolicited and unsubstantiated information would override the other information received during the appointment process and result in the candidate being eliminated from the process. The actions and inaction of the selection board member during the process raised questions as to whether their decision to eliminate the candidate from the process was appropriate and whether the process was conducted in a fair, transparent manner and in good faith.

The evidence demonstrated that, on the balance of probabilities, the sub-delegated manager and selection board member committed improper conduct. They did not have personal knowledge of the candidate. They considered unsolicited and unsubstantiated information from sources who did not have direct, personal knowledge of the candidate. The selection board member applied this information as personal knowledge in their assessment of the candidate. Their improper conduct resulted in the candidate being eliminated from the appointment process.

Corrective actions:

Following the conclusion of improper conduct, the Commission ordered that:

The department:

• remove all references to the information provided by the sources from the staffing file on the appointment process within 30 days
• reinstate the candidate in the appointment process within 30 days, if it deems that the candidate meets all the essential qualifications for the position
• the candidate will then be eligible for an appointment until the pool of qualified candidates expires, or if the pool has expired, for a period of 2 years

The sub-delegated manager:

• must not be sub-delegated appointment and related authorities for a period of one year
• must complete the Staffing: A Resourcing Tool for Managers course (P901) and participate in a discussion with the head of human resources
• failure to do so will result in revocation of their appointment
• must complete the Values and Ethics Foundations for Managers course (C355) and participate in a discussion with their director
• failure to do so will result in revocation of their appointment

The selection board member:

• must complete the Values and Ethics for Employees course (C255) followed by a discussion with their director
• failure to do so will result in revocation of their appointment
• must have a discussion with the head of human resources to address the irregularities concerning the assessment of references
• failure to do so will result in a letter being sent to the deputy head advising them of the non-compliance with the corrective action

Investigation File No.: 22-23-01