Candidate believes deadline extension to respond to an invitation in appointment process created bias and resulted in unfair assessment

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 an error may have occurred when a hiring organization extended the deadline to respond to an assessment invitation. The candidate alleged that this might have resulted in the unfair assessment of candidates.

Facts

Candidates in an appointment process were given a deadline to confirm their participation in a written test. The hiring organization then sent another email extending this deadline by a few days. One of the candidates requested an investigation because of this extension, alleging that:

• it was unfair for those who respected the initial deadline
• setting a cut-off date essentially creates a new merit criterion: the ability to meet deadlines

The hiring organization provided the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) with information related to the appointment process.

The PSC reviewed this information and determined that it appeared that the decision to extend the deadline was made to mitigate potential biases and barriers in the assessment, as many candidates were on vacation given that the initial deadline was near a holiday period.

While the candidate who requested an investigation raised concerns that the deadline extension was unfair, the PSC noted that its Appointment Policy sets out the following expected result: “appointment processes that are inclusive, free from discrimination, and where reasonable efforts have been made to remove biases or barriers, or mitigate their impact.”

This may include flexibility when planning an assessment, such as extending a deadline to accommodate candidates during a known vacation period. This means that hiring managers have the discretion to extend a deadline to confirm candidates’ participation in an assessment.

Jurisdiction decision

The Commission found that the information provided by the candidate and the hiring organization was insufficient to suggest the possibility that an error, omission or improper conduct occurred in the appointment process. As a result, the Commission decided that an investigation was not warranted.

File Number: 23-24-16