Section 69 – Founded – Fraud – False information regarding education
Authority: This investigation was conducted under section 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 a federal public servant committed fraud in 2 appointment processes by providing false information about their level of education.
Conclusions: The investigation concluded that the public servant committed fraud in 2 appointment processes by misrepresenting their level of education. The public servant’s dishonest actions compromised one appointment process and could have compromised another.
Facts:
Position at organization A
When applying to a position at a public service organization, a federal public servant indicated in their résumé and in response to a screening questionnaire that they had a college diploma. However, their profile in the Public Service Resourcing System, the government-wide system used to submit job applications, indicated that they had college credits. They had also provided a graduation date in their profile, since the system would not process the application without a date.
During the investigation, the college in question confirmed that the public servant had not graduated. The public servant explained that their brother had helped them write their résumé many years ago, when they were first preparing it for public service positions. They suggested that their brother must have thought they had graduated from the program and indicated this fact on the résumé. The public servant testified that they had never noticed the word “diploma” in their résumé, having simply updated the experience section when reviewing it for job applications. The public servant could not recall why they had used the word “diploma” in the screening questionnaire. They claimed that they must have simply copied the education information from the résumé into the questionnaire so that everything matched.
The investigation determined that the public servant’s testimony about the information in their résumé and in the screening questionnaire was not credible. The public servant had been using the same information in their résumé for a number of years, and it is unlikely that they would not have noticed the word “diploma.”
The investigation concluded that the public servant was dishonest in stating that they had a college diploma. It was their responsibility to ensure that the information was correct in their application. The public servant’s actions could have compromised the appointment process, had they been appointed.
Position at organization B
The public servant was deployed to another organization, and started an acting appointment the same day. When the organization later decided to extend the acting period, the public servant was asked to provide a copy of their college diploma, as indicated in their résumé, and to provide examples of their experience in writing for the narrative assessment. The public servant admitted that they had never completed the program, but indicated in the narrative assessment that they held a college diploma.
During the investigation, the public servant initially testified that they had simply reviewed the assessment written by the manager. They later indicated that they had written the assessment themselves, and that the manager must have inserted the college diploma upon reviewing it. The investigation determined that this testimony was not credible, and that the public servant, and not the manager, had indicated that they held a college diploma in the assessment.
The public servant testified that their brother had helped them write the résumé. The investigation determined that their testimony was not credible.
The investigation concluded that the public servant was dishonest, and had committed fraud in the appointment process by knowingly misrepresenting their level of education. The public servant’s actions compromised the appointment process.
Corrective action:
Following the conclusion of fraud, the Commission ordered that:
- for 3 years, the public servant must obtain the Commission’s written approval before accepting any position or work in the federal public service; failure to do so will result in the revocation of the new appointment
- for 3 years, the public servant must inform the Commission of any casual work or student work programs in the federal public service; failure to do so will result in the investigation report being sent to the responsible deputy head to advise them of the fraud committed by the public servant
- the public servant must complete training in values and ethics followed by a discussion between the public servant and their director or director general
Investigation File No.: 19-20-02