Concern that candidate was wrongly eliminated from appointment process

This summary highlights the importance of providing complete and relevant information in response to screening questions.

It also serves as a reminder for candidates to thoroughly review and adhere to all instructions outlined in a job advertisement and screening questionnaire. Failure to do so could result in being screened out.

Jurisdiction

The review of the investigation request was conducted in accordance with section 66 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13).

Issue

The review aimed to determine whether an investigation was warranted to examine the concern that a candidate was wrongly eliminated when applying to an inventory, and that the department’s decision not to evaluate their second application was unreasonable.

Facts

The candidate was informed that the department had screened out their application from the inventory because they did not meet an essential experience qualification assessed by a screening question. The candidate corrected their response to the screening question and re-applied to the inventory.

The analysis of the collected information indicated that the assessment tool used was linked to the required qualification. Candidates were required to provide a detailed response when answering the screening questions, and were informed that if they failed to do so, their application could be screened out. The candidate’s response to the screening question did not appear to demonstrate the experience required by the qualification.

While the candidate mentioned the required experience elsewhere in their job application, in this instance, the department assessed only the response provided to the specific screening question. When a candidate does not provide the required information in response to a screening question and does not demonstrate they meet the qualification, the department is not required to rely on information provided elsewhere in the job application or to pursue further assessment.

Regarding the candidate’s concern that their application was not reconsidered after resubmission, candidates had been informed in the job advertisement that they would only be assessed once, and that re-applications to the inventory would not be considered. If the department had decided to assess the candidate’s second application, it could have been perceived as unfair treatment compared to other candidates.  

Decision to conduct an investigation or not

The information obtained from the source of the investigation request and from the department was insufficient to suggest the possibility that an error, an omission or improper conduct may have occurred in the treatment of the candidate’s candidacy. As a result, the Commission determined that an investigation was not warranted under section 66 of the Public Service Employment Act. An investigation was not conducted.

File number: 25-26-04