Hiring manager assessed and proposed the appointee’s candidacy without disclosing the nature of their relationship

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 affected the selection of the appointee following an external advertised appointment process.

Conclusions:

The investigation concluded that the hiring manager’s actions constituted improper conduct, as they failed to disclose the nature of their relationship with the appointee and were involved in many aspects of the appointment process, including the assessment. This improper conduct affected the selection of the appointee.

Facts:

The organization advertised an external appointment process to establish an inventory to fill various administrative positions. A casual employee within the organization applied to the process, and their application was screened in. The casual employee was then assessed, found qualified and appointed to the position for a specified period, which was later extended.

The evidence showed that after the appointee’s application was screened in, the hiring manager, who did not have sub-delegated staffing authority, was solely responsible for the appointee’s assessment against the merit criteria for the position. Also, they completed and submitted all the required appointment-related documents to the Human Resources Advisor.

The investigation revealed that the hiring manager and the appointee lived at the same address and were in a long-term relationship throughout the appointment process. Although the hiring manager had ample opportunity to inform the organization of their relationship with the appointee, they chose not to do so. Instead, they deliberately hid the nature of their relationship with the appointee when they stated that the appointee had been brought to their attention through a professional networking platform.

The evidence showed that the hiring manager favoured the appointee by completing the assessment and proposing the appointment without disclosing the nature of their relationship to anyone. This improper conduct affected the assessment of the appointee’s candidacy and their selection for appointment. It also prevented the sub-delegated manager from making an informed and impartial decision before signing the letter of offer. Therefore, the sub-delegated manager cannot be held responsible under the circumstances.

The appointee and hiring manager left the federal public service during the investigation.

Corrective action:

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

• must notify the Public Service Commission of Canada 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
• if the person accepts a position or work in the federal public service within 3 years, they must complete the Values and Ethics Foundations for Managers course offered by the Canada School of Public Service, followed by a discussion with their director general
  • failure to do so will result in the revocation of their appointment

Investigation File No.: 22-23-08