Section 66 — Founded — Error — Assessment — Failing to check the level of education achieved, and Section 69 — 2016 — Founded — Fraud — Academic credentials — Misrepresenting the level of education achieved

Authority: This investigation was conducted under sections 66 and 69 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 an employee committed fraud in an internal appointment process by falsely stating in their job application that they had a Secondary School Diploma (SSD), when this was not the case.

Conclusions: The investigation showed that the employee committed fraud in an appointment process by claiming to hold an SSD in their job application when they did not.

Facts: In 2010, an organization launched an appointment process to staff security positions for which an SSD was required. An employee of that organization indicated in their job application that they had successfully completed high school. They submitted a transcript that included a short paragraph outlining the conditions that were needed to obtain an SSD. After the assessments, the employee was appointed to one of the vacant positions.

The employee claimed not to have read the paragraph outlining the conditions. They stated that they were thus convinced that they had finished all of the secondary school courses needed to graduate. However, they had never requested a copy of their diploma from the issuing provincial agency.

As requested, the employee showed their transcript to the hiring manager at their interview. The manager accepted the transcript as proof of education without reviewing it and without any additional checking, since the manager assumed that the employee held an SSD. The employee insisted that they had never confirmed nor denied holding an SSD, since the manager had appeared to be satisfied with the transcript submitted.

The investigation showed that the employee had a second document, which, in their opinion, proved that they had an SSD. The employee testified that they gave a copy of this document to the manager before being appointed. The manager refuted that testimony. Finally, a review of the second document did not show that the employee was eligible to receive an SSD. Further, this document indicated that the former student had not met the graduation criteria and a handwritten note specified that the employee still had one more course to complete.

The investigation determined that the employee’s explanation that they had not read the two documents in their possession was not credible. It was more reasonable to believe that the employee had noticed the indications of non-compliance with the SSD and that the employee was fully aware of their status when they applied for the job and met with the manager. Thus, on the balance of probabilities, the employee knowingly provided false information in their job application and failed to indicate that they did not hold an SSD, in order to deceive and to be appointed to the position. During the investigation, the employee admitted to not having received an SSD, contrary to what they stated on their job application. This was dishonest.

On the balance of probabilities, the appointment process was compromised, since the employee was appointed to a position in security services without meeting an essential qualification, namely holding an SSD. This constitutes an error by the manager.

Corrective Action: Further to the determination of fraud by the employee, the Commission ordered that:

• The appointment of the employee be revoked;
• For a period of three years, the employee be required to seek and obtain the written approval of the Commission before accepting any position or job within the federal public service, without which the appointment would be revoked; and
• For a period of three years, the employee be required to notify the Commission of any casual work within the federal public service, failing which a copy of the investigation report would be sent to the responsible deputy head to advise them of the fraud committed by the employee.

No corrective action was taken against the manager, given the organizational context at the time and the fact that the manager has completed staffing courses since the appointment process under investigation.

Investigation File No.: 16-17-03