Non-disclosure of the relationship between the sub-delegated manager and the candidate appointed

Section 66 – Founded – Improper conduct – Non-disclosure of the relationship between the sub-delegated manager and the candidate appointed

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 the sub-delegated manager committed improper conduct when they failed to disclose their personal relationship with the candidate appointed.

Conclusion: The investigation concluded that the sub-delegated manager committed improper conduct when they favoured a candidate for appointment. The sub-delegated manager responsible for the appointment process was involved in many aspects of the appointment process and failed to disclose the nature of their relationship with the appointee. This improper conduct affected the selection and appointment of the appointee to the position of human resources assistant, at the CR-5 group and level.

Facts: During a meeting to discuss the sub-delegated manager’s team’s staffing needs, a decision was made to staff a human resources assistant position on a casual basis. The sub-delegated manager mentioned that they knew someone that could be considered for a casual appointment. This person provided their résumé for consideration.

The day after receiving the résumé of the candidate they had referred for the position, the sub-delegated manager decided to adopt a different staffing approach and staff the position indeterminately via a non-advertised appointment process instead of proceeding with casual employment as well as reimbursing relocation related expenses.The management team was uncomfortable with this strategy in part because they already had casual workers on site that were not considered for the indeterminate appointment.

A few months after the appointment, it was discovered that the employee was in fact the child of the sub-delegated manager’s partner. Once the nature of the relationship was discovered, the file was sent to the Public Service Commission to determine if there should be an investigation.

The sub-delegated manager was a human resources executive with a diverse professional background in staffing and leadership. During the investigation, they admitted telling the employee not to disclose the nature of their relationship to colleagues. The sub-delegated manager also indicated that they intentionally decided not to disclose their relationship with the candidate, as they knew, that senior management would not have agreed with the appointment.

The evidence also showed that the sub-delegated manager was involved in many aspects of the appointment process, such as the choice of appointment process which includes the decision to offer the candidate indeterminate employment through an external non-advertised appointment process, offering the candidate relocation allowance, and the signing of the articulation of the selection decision and the letter of offer.

The evidence demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that the actions taken by the sub-delegated manager constituted improper conduct when they failed to disclose the nature of their relationship with the appointee in order to hire them on an indeterminate basis. By doing so, the sub-delegated manager favoured their partner’s child for appointment. This improper conduct affected the selection and appointment of the employee to the position of human resources assistant.

Corrective action:

Following the conclusion of improper conduct in the appointment process, the Commission ordered that for:

• The appointee:
  • their appointment be revoked retroactively to the day preceding their deployment and that, following the revocation, the public servant no longer be employed in the federal public service
  • the Commission does not authorize the department, pursuant to section 73 of the Public Service Employment Act, to appoint the individual to another position for which the employee meets the essential qualifications, as set out in paragraph 30(2)(a) of the Act
• The sub delegated manager:
  • they must complete the Values and Ethics Foundations for Managers (C355) course offered by the Canada School of Public Service, and then have a discussion with the deputy minister of the department
    • failure to complete the course or to participate in the discussion will lead to the revocation of their appointment
  • for a period of 5 years, appointment-related authorities must not be sub-delegated to them
  • six months before the end of this 5-year period, they must complete the course, Staffing: A Resourcing Tool for Managers (P901), and then have a discussion with the deputy minister of the department
    • failure to complete the course or to participate in the discussion will lead to the revocation of their appointment
  • for a period of 5 years, they must notify the Public Service Commission before accepting any position or work within the federal public service
    • failure to do so will result in the revocation of the appointment

Investigation File No.: 20-21-02