Candidate believes that their application was unjustly rejected at the screening stage

Authority

The review of the request for investigation was conducted pursuant to section 66 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13).

Issue

The review aimed to determine whether an investigation was warranted to examine a candidate’s concern that they had been eliminated from the process at the screening stage, despite believing they had demonstrated they met the required essential qualifications.

Facts

In their request for an investigation, the candidate indicated that they had clearly answered the screening questions by providing concrete examples to demonstrate that they met the essential qualification of experience in providing advice or recommendations to managers. The candidate explained that the organization reviewed their application a second time, but that the assessment board’s decision to eliminate their candidacy had not changed. The candidate asked for clarification about their elimination again but received no response from the organization.

The organization provided the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) with documentation and information explaining why the candidate was eliminated. In summary, the assessment board found that the candidate had not demonstrated in their application that they had the requested experience.

The PSC reviewed the job advertisement and noted that it included instructions to candidates to provide concrete, detailed examples that clearly explained where, when and how they had acquired the required experience. Failure to do so could result in their application being rejected.

The PSC reviewed the candidate’s response to the screening question that was used to demonstrate the required experience. This review revealed that it did not appear to include any details about providing advice or recommendations to managers in the context of the job cited as an example. Pursuant to section 30 of the Public Service Employment Act, a candidate must meet all the required essential qualifications established for the appointment. In addition, pursuant to section 36 of the Act, departments and agencies have the flexibility to determine the essential qualifications required for a position as well as the methodology used to assess candidates in an appointment process.

As for the candidate’s concern about not getting clarification from the organization, there is no requirement pursuant to the Act for departments and agencies to provide feedback to eliminated candidates in an external appointment process.

Jurisdiction decision

The information obtained from the candidate and the organization was insufficient to suggest the possibility that an error, omission or improper conduct occurred in the assessment of the candidate’s application. As a result, the Commission decided that an investigation was not warranted.

File Number: 23-24-12