Errors related to the types of appointment process.

Authority

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

Issue

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if an error, an omission or improper conduct affected the selection of the person appointed. The information received suggested that there may have been irregularities related to the type of process used for the appointment.

Conclusion

The investigation concluded that the sub-delegated manager made an error when they sent an email to people in 2 units indicating they were “running an internal appointment process” to staff a position. This error affected the selection of the candidate for appointment.

Facts

After a position became vacant, the sub-delegated manager sent an email to people in 2 organizational units located in a specific building, indicating that they would be conducting an internal appointment process to staff the position. The email specified the tenure of the position and the language requirements and included a copy of the job description. It also specified that interested candidates should provide their curriculum vitae by a specific date. The manager also clarified that they would attempt to staff the position internally at first, but that if unsuccessful, they would then attempt to fill the position through an “external hiring practice.”

Two people expressed their interest. One was a public servant while the other was a contractor, working in one of the units located in the building.

Following the assessment phase, the contractor was found to be the most qualified candidate and was offered an indeterminate appointment, which they accepted. The information from the articulation of selection decision signed by the sub-delegated manager indicated that the candidate was appointed through an external non-advertised process.

During the investigation, the manager explained that the email soliciting candidates referred to an internal appointment process because it was sent internally to the people working in the specific building. They further explained that the human resources advisor later informed them that the process was to be considered external since people who were not public servants were also being considered.

The evidence showed that the sub-delegated manager believed that the appointment process was an internal process, even though a non-public servant was being considered for appointment. Given this and considering that the sub-delegated manager had limited experience in staffing under the Public Service Employment Act, the explanation that they intended to consider anyone working internally in the specific building for the appointment was determined to be credible.

The evidence showed, on the balance of probabilities, that the sub-delegated manager intended to conduct an external appointment process from the onset but made an error when they sent the email indicating they were running an internal process. The investigation determined, on the balance of probabilities, that this error affected the selection of the candidate for appointment, as the terminology used may have misled some non-public servants to believe that only federal public servants were eligible to apply, and as a result, may have limited the pool of applicants.

The evidence also showed that the employment opportunity was advertised in an email that indicated the group and level of the position to be staffed, sought candidacies by a certain date and informed candidates on how to apply. While the email did not include all the merit criteria for the position, it included a job description and language requirements of the position. As well, the evidence showed that the sub-delegated manager intended to consider all candidates who showed interest.

When informed that the sub-delegated manager considered that they had advertised the position, the human resources advisor clarified that the appointment was considered a “non-advertised appointment”, noting that all advertisements “must be posted on GC Jobs.”

The Public Service Commission (PSC) Appointment Policy sets out specific requirements for advertised appointment processes, including the following:

• advertisements must be posted on the Government of Canada public resourcing website for a minimum of one complete business day (at least 24 hours)
• external advertised appointment processes must be subject to a national area of selection (with some exclusions and exceptions)

The term “advertised process” is not defined in the Public Service Employment Act or in the PSC Appointment Policy. Nevertheless, failing to follow the advertising requirements established in the policy does not automatically constitute an appointment process non-advertised.

Considering the above, the investigation determined that the appointment process was not a non-advertised appointment process, contrary to the reasons stipulated in the articulation of selection decision. Instead, based on the specific circumstances of the case, the appointment process was an advertised appointment process. Based on these considerations, the investigation concluded that the human resources advisor erred in advising the sub-delegated manager to proceed with a non-advertised appointment. On the balance of probabilities, this error affected the selection of the candidate for appointment.

Corrective actions

Following the conclusion of error, the Commission ordered:

• the sub-delegated manager and the human resources advisor must have a discussion with the director of human resources
  • failure to do so will result in a letter being sent to the deputy head of the organization to advise them of the non-compliance.

Because the person appointed in the position is no longer an employee of the organization, no corrective action related to their appointment could be ordered.

File No.: 23-24-09