Merit criterion not assessed (official languages) – 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 whether the appointments of 2 candidates were based on merit.

Conclusion:

The investigation concluded that an omission occurred when the ability to write in French, for 2 candidates, was not assessed before they were appointed to a French Essential position. The assessment failed to demonstrate that both candidates met the essential qualifications of the position and that their appointments were based on merit. This omission affected their selection for appointment.

Facts:

The purpose of the appointment process was to create a pool of partially qualified candidates to staff officer-level positions providing services to the public. The positions had various language requirements: English Essential, French Essential, and Bilingual - Imperative (BBC / BBC).

According to the Appointment Policy, to be appointed to a position, candidates must meet each essential qualification, including official language proficiency.

Proficiency in the official language must be assessed for bilingual and unilingual positions:

• for a bilingual position, proficiency in both the first and second official languages must be assessed
• for a unilingual position, proficiency in English or French must be assessed, depending on the language requirement of the position

Assessment of qualifications other than official language proficiency must be conducted in the candidate’s language of choice, regardless of the position’s location or its language requirements.

Both candidates were appointed to a French essential position and French was their first official language. However, these candidates had chosen to complete the assessment for the other merit criteria in English, their second official language. For this reason, their proficiency in French needed to be assessed before they were appointed. While their oral proficiency in French was assessed in an additional interview, their ability to write in French was not.

The evidence showed those involved in designing the assessment strategy had not foreseen a situation where candidates might choose to be assessed in the other official language (not their first official language). The individuals interviewed recognized this oversight during the course of this investigation. The candidates’ appointment was therefore not based on merit.

Corrective action:

Following the conclusion of omission, the Commission ordered the following:

• that candidates’ writing ability in French be assessed to determine whether they meet this essential qualification
• that the hiring department communicate the assessment results to these candidates and to the Public Service Commission, in order for the Commission to either confirm or revoke their appointments

Investigation File No.: 21-22-01