Candidate was eliminated from the appointment process without having had the opportunity to fully answer the interview questions

Authority: The investigation was conducted under section 66 of the Public Service Employment Act, (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13).

Issue: The purpose of the investigation was to determine if an error, an omission or improper conduct affected the selection of the person appointed. The allegation received suggested that a candidate was eliminated from an appointment process without having been provided the opportunity to fully answer the questions asked during the interview.

Conclusion: The investigation concluded that an assessment board member made an error during the appointment process by interrupting the candidate during the interview and telling them that they had provided enough information, thus ending the formal interview. This error affected the selection of the person appointed because the candidate was eliminated from the process at the interview phase without having had the opportunity to fully answer the interview questions.

Facts: Before being interviewed in the context of the appointment process, candidates were given time to read the questions and prepare their answers. They were also told that they were responsible for monitoring their time during the interview and informing the assessment board if they wanted to revisit a question.

As the candidate was nearing the end of their answers, one of the assessment board members interrupted them and told them that they had provided enough examples. The candidate also claimed that the assessment board used the last 10 minutes of the interview time to discuss the positions to be staffed instead of letting them add more detail to their answers. The candidate did not meet one of the qualifications assessed in the interview and was eliminated from the appointment process.

During the investigation, the assessment board member admitted that they had interrupted the candidate during their answer to the final question. Both assessment board members testified that they gave the candidate enough time to answer the questions fully, as the candidate had provided a great deal of information in their answers. They also recalled that the candidate had returned to several of their answers near the end of the interview and had given more detail.

The candidate testified that they had planned to add more information to their answers but were unable to do so because of the interruption. They also felt uncomfortable raising the issue because the assessment board member had stated that they had already given enough information and they did not want to be seen as disrespectful.

The investigation demonstrated that time remained before the interview ended and that it was spent discussing the available positions, rather than the interview questions. The assessment board did not verify with the candidate whether they were satisfied with the information they had provided before ending the formal interview portion and moved on to discuss other matters.

The investigation determined that the assessment board member committed an error when they ended the formal part of the interview without checking that the candidate was satisfied with the information they had provided, while there was still time remaining. This error affected the selection of the person appointed because the candidate was not assessed fairly, thus potentially limiting the number of qualified candidates available for selection for appointment.

Corrective actions: Following the conclusion of error, the Commission ordered the following:

The department:

• Must reinstate the candidate’s candidacy in the appointment process and ensure that the assessment is conducted by a different assessment board
• if the candidate is deemed qualified, they will be eligible for an appointment for a period equivalent to that attributed to other qualified candidates in this appointment process.

The assessment board member who interrupted the candidate:

• must complete a departmental training session for assessment board members
• must have a discussion with the director of human resources
• must not participate in any assessment board until the training and the discussion are completed
• if the assessment board member fails to complete these corrective actions within the prescribed period, the Commission will send a letter to the deputy head advising them of the non-compliance

Investigation File No.: 23-24-06