Candidate appointed from an advertised appointment process, without being assessed or found qualified

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 a candidate’s appointment was based on merit, or whether an error, omission or improper conduct affected their selection for appointment.

Conclusions:

The investigation concluded that the sub-delegated manager committed an error in appointing the candidate without checking that they were qualified in the appointment process. The evidence also showed that the human resources advisor committed an error by authorizing the issuance of the letter of offer without checking if the candidate was qualified. The evidence demonstrated that these errors affected the selection of the candidate for appointment. The evidence also demonstrated that the candidate was not assessed against the merit criteria for the position; for this reason, the appointment was not based on merit.

Facts:

The candidate applied to an appointment process through the GC Jobs website, and their application was placed in an inventory of candidates. The job advertisement indicated that candidates were not applying for a specific position, but for an inventory to fill future job openings. The candidate also dropped off a curriculum vitae at the office where the position was to be staffed. Following a telephone interview, the candidate was hired as a casual employee. As there were several casual employees on the team, the sub-delegated manager shared the job opportunity advertisement with team leaders so that they could share it with their casual employees.

The candidate told their team leader that they were already in the pool of qualified candidates, when in reality their candidacy had simply been placed in an inventory of candidates who had not yet been assessed. During the investigation, the candidate explained that they were not aware of the different steps in an appointment process, and that they did not know that they had to complete a series of assessments before being considered fully qualified. Similarly, the team leader also testified that they were not clear on the difference between an inventory of partially assessed candidates and a pool of fully assessed candidates.

As a result of this misunderstanding, the team leader told the sub-delegated manager that the candidate was qualified in the appointment process when this was not the case. The sub-delegated manager, relying on the information provided by the team leader and without checking any assessment documents, completed a “justification of selection” decision and indicated that the candidate’s appointment was based on their having met the essential qualifications. If the sub-delegated manager had checked the information provided by the team leader, they would have realized that the candidate had not been assessed. As a result, the sub-delegated manager committed an error in completing the justification of selection decision document without checking that the candidate was qualified in the appointment process.

During the investigation, the human resources advisor indicated that they could not remember this appointment, but that given their heavy workload at the time, it was possible that they had not checked whether the candidate was qualified. This means that the human resources advisor committed an error by authorizing the issuance of a letter of offer without checking whether the candidate was qualified in the appointment process.

The candidate was hired on a one-year determinate contract as a result of this appointment process. Shortly after the candidate was appointed, the sub-delegated manager saw a news article linking the candidate with a close family member of the team leader. This article raised concerns that there may have been a pre-existing relationship between the candidate and the team leader. It was upon bringing this information to the assessment board that the sub-delegated manager realized that the candidate was not in the pool of qualified candidates, that their application had not been extracted from the inventory, and that they had never been assessed.

Despite concerns that a personal relationship existed between the candidate and their team leader, the investigation could not conclude that favouritism occurred, because the evidence did not show that the candidate and the team leader had a close relationship when the appointment occurred and, the team leader had no decision-making power in the appointment process.

The evidence showed that the errors committed by the sub-delegated manager and the human resources advisor affected the selection of the appointed person, since their appointment was not based on merit. The candidate should not have been appointed to the position without having been assessed against the statement of merit criteria.

Corrective actions:

Following the conclusion that there were errors and that the appointment was not based on merit, the Commission ordered that:

the organization:

• reassess the candidate against the position’s merit criteria in order for the Commission to confirm or revoke the appointment

the sub-delegated manager:

• must have a discussion with the director of human resources to address the irregularities involving the candidate’s appointment
  • failure to do so will result in a letter being sent to the deputy head advising them of the non-compliance with the corrective action

the human resources advisor:

• no corrective action was ordered for the human resources advisor because they have since retired from the public service

Investigation File Number: 23-24-01