Sub-delegated manager’s failure to recuse themselves from an appointment process and hiring manager’s failure to ensure that the rationale used for an appointment is accurate – 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 if an appointment was made on the basis of merit and whether an error, an omission or improper conduct affected the selection of the person appointed following an external advertised appointment process.

Conclusions:

The investigation concluded that the sub-delegated manager, who was related to the appointee, committed improper conduct by not recusing themselves from the appointment process.

The investigation also found that another manager, the hiring manager who had also sub-delegated authority, committed an error when they signed the selection decision used to justify the appointment, without ensuring that the information contained was accurate.

The evidence also did not support that the appointment was made on the basis of merit, as information related to the assessment of the essential qualifications was inconsistent or missing, and the selection decision contained inaccurate information.

Facts:

An external appointment process was advertised to staff entry-level positions. Following one of the appointments, concerns were raised that the appointee may have been favoured for the position as a result of their relationship with the sub-delegated manager.

The sub-delegated manager signed an impartiality statement confirming they were not related to any of the candidates. They also indicated that they had consulted the value and ethics group before proceeding with the appointment to determine if there were any impartiality issues regarding this relationship. The group responded that they saw no impartiality issues, however, the sub-delegated manager had not fully disclosed the real nature of the relationship. The evidence demonstrated that the sub-delegated manager was related to the appointee.

The evidence also demonstrated that the sub-delegated manager had access to the assessment materials, and had:

• alerted the appointee to the job opportunity
• encouraged them to apply
• offered them advice on how to prepare their job application
• signed their letter of offer

The appointment process resulted in the appointee being hired within the sub-delegated manager’s branch. The sub-delegated manager acknowledged that, in hindsight, they should have recused themselves from the appointment process.

The evidence demonstrated that the hiring manager was not aware of the relationship between the appointee and the sub-delegated manager. Nonetheless, the hiring manager committed an error by not ensuring that the information in the selection decision used to justify the appointment was accurate before signing it. Statements included in the selection decision (for example, that the appointee met all essential qualifications) were not supported or were contradicted by available information on file. The hiring manager admitted that they had signed the selection decision without reading it.

With respect to whether the appointee met merit, the evidence demonstrated that several lapses contributed to the appointee being screened into the appointment process and selected for appointment. The information the appointee provided in their job application was inconsistent and did not sufficiently detail how they met the essential qualifications in the job advertisement. Some essential qualifications were not properly assessed during the initial screening (for example, the information in the appointee’s job application, including their resume, did not readily lend itself to the qualification being assessed), and one essential qualification was not assessed at all during the appointment process. There were inconsistencies between the written exam and the rating guide, and the appointee received ratings in certain assessment areas that were higher than the rating guide responses indicated. The staffing file was missing information (for example, assessor notes), which further hindered the ability to fully verify and understand what happened in the appointment process. Though the organization screened the appointee into the appointment process, and deemed them a successful candidate, the evidence did not support that decision. Therefore, it could not be concluded that the appointment was based on merit.

The evidence demonstrated that, on the balance of probabilities, the sub-delegated manager committed improper conduct in the appointment process by not recusing themselves from all facets of the appointment process from the onset. The hiring manager made an error when they did not ensure that the information in the selection decision used to justify the appointment was accurate before signing it. The actions of the sub-delegated manager and hiring manager, in addition to several lapses in the appointment process, affected the appointment selection in that they contributed to the overall outcome. The evidence also demonstrated that the appointment was not made on the basis of merit as not all of the essential qualifications were properly assessed, and the selection decision contained inaccurate information.

Corrective actions:

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

The sub-delegated manager:

• must not be sub-delegated appointment and related authorities for a period of 3 years
  • failure to do so will result in revocation of their appointment
• must complete the course, Staffing: A Resourcing Tool for Managers (P901)[i], 6 months before the end of this 3-year period, followed by a discussion with their deputy head
• 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
• must complete the Values and Ethics Foundations for Managers course (C355)[ii] and participate in a discussion with their deputy head
  • failure to do so will result in revocation of their appointment

Hiring manager:

• must have a discussion with the director of human resources to avoid repeating the error
  • failure to do so will result in a letter to the Deputy Head advising of the non-compliance with the corrective action.   

Organization:

• must appoint a different board to assess the appointee for all the essential qualifications of the position

Investigation File No.: 22-23-04

 

[i] At the time the corrective action was ordered, the course code was not yet changed to COR132.
[ii] At the time the corrective action was ordered, the course code was not yet changed to FON302.