Staffing file monitoring exercice

Submitted by Pamela D. Woods

October 2021

Table of contents

• I. Objective
• II.  Scope of monitoring exercise
• III. Methodology
• IV. Observations and recommendations
  • 1) Merit Criteria
  • 2) Area of Selection
  • 3) Priority Consideration
  • 4) When Advertising
  • 5) Assessment of Merit
  • 6) Preferences (External Processes)
  • 7) Informal Discussion / Notifications (Internal Processes)
  • 8) When Appointing
  • 9) Other Employment Methods
• V. File documentation – general observations
• VI. Moving forward
• VII. Conclusion
• Annexes
  • Annex 1: Expected Findings
  • Annex 2: List of Recommendations

I. Objective

• To determine the extent to which staffing processes conducted by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada (OIC) complied with the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Employment Regulations, the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) Appointment Framework, organizational human resources (HR) policies, and any other relevant legislative or regulatory authorities, which were in effect when the examined staffing processes were conducted.

II. Scope of monitoring exercise

• Table 1 provides a summary of the 17 staffing processes selected for review in the 2021 monitoring exercise. The staffing processes were conducted during an eight-month period from January to August 2021 when the last examined appointment was made.

Table 1: Summary of staffing processes selected for monitoring

III. Methodology

• A monitoring checklist has been completed for each examined staffing process in order to: a) capture information on whether the required documentation is on file; and b) record information on the quality and accuracy of file documentation.
• Copies of all completed monitoring checklists have been provided with this report.

IV. Observations and recommendations

• Observations and recommendations are presented in order of the key steps that typically occur in a staffing process, and are derived from the legislative, regulatory and policy requirements in effect during the monitoring exercise’s timeframe.
• A brief description of expected findings is provided in Annex 1.

1) Merit Criteria

Merit criteria well documented for all merit-based staffing processes

• For all 11 merit-based staffing processes included in this monitoring exercise, a copy of the statement of merit criteria (SoMC) was found on the examined files.
• The SoMC is available on file in both official languages, with no discrepancies found between the French and English versions of the merit criteria.

Qualification standards fully respected

• The education and/or professional certification requirements used in all merit-based staffing processes met or exceeded the qualification standard established for the group / level of the position being staffed.

Where demonstrated, merit criteria consistent with job requirements

• The files for seven of the 11 merit-based staffing processes contain a work description, allowing for verification that the established merit criteria are consistent with the job requirements.
• For the remaining four merit-based staffing processes, there is no work description on file; therefore, it was not possible to confirm that the merit criteria are consistent with the work to be performed.

Merit criteria generally consistent with other documentation on file

• File documentation was also examined to determine whether there are any discrepancies between the security and/or language requirements identified in the SoMC and those found in other documents. In most cases, position information in all other file documentation is consistent with the SoMC.
• In some staffing files, inconsistencies were found in the security and/or language requirements indicated in such documents as the work description, priority clearance request, poster, and/or offer letter. For example, in two staffing processes, the security requirements were advertised at one level but raised or lowered prior to making the appointment, resulting in the perception that they were altered to match the proposed appointee’s qualifications and not necessarily the position requirements.

2) Area of Selection

Area of selection / recourse fully compliant for all appointment processes

• In accordance with organizational and PSC policy requirements, a national area of selection was used for the external advertised process examined in this monitoring exercise. There were no exceptions to the use of a national area of selection that required the prior approval of the Commissioner.
• Although OIC’s Policy on Area of Selection allows for limiting the area to the public service regionally for positions lower than an EX level or equivalent, two internal advertised processes for lower level positions were open to the public service across Canada. In both cases, there was a provision for limiting the area to the public service within the National Capital Region (NCR) if a sufficient number of candidates applied; however, it was not necessary to use the limited area in either process.
• For all internal non-advertised processes, including two acting appointments, recourse rights were offered to OIC employees only in accordance with organizational policy requirements regarding minimum area of recourse. As all appointees were OIC employees, it was not necessary to expand the area of recourse to include other organizations where the appointee might have been employed. As stated in OIC’s Policy on Area of Selection, the area established for recourse purposes included “employees who are reasonably likely to be interested or would be most affected by the resulting appointment.”

3) Priority Consideration

Priority clearance generally requested / obtained appropriately, where required

• Priority clearance was required for appointments resulting from five of the examined staffing processes, with the priority clearance request and number appropriately documented on each staffing file.
• For each of the five priority clearance requests, the criteria are generally consistent with those used to make the subsequent appointment. More specifically, no differences were found in a) the essential qualifications; b) the tenure, location, group / level of the position being staffed; or c) the type of appointment process. As previously mentioned, however, the conditions of employment (i.e., security requirements) used in the priority clearance process did not match those used to staff two positions.
• For one internal advertised process, the position number used for the priority clearance process is not the same as the number of the position staffed. According to section 8.2.6 of the PSC’s Priority Administration Directive, organizations are required to “provide valid position numbers for vacant positions when requesting clearance and amend the clearance request if changes are made to these position numbers.”

Priority clearance generally allowed for timely consideration of priority persons

• In most cases, priority clearance was requested and received in a timely fashion, allowing for consideration of priority persons before others. With one exception, clearance was obtained prior to commencement of the assessment of the appointee and, where applicable, other candidates. For an external non-advertised appointment, assessment of the appointee was completed approximately one month before clearance was obtained.

Consideration / assessment of priority persons not required

• Priority persons were referred in response to three of the above-mentioned clearance requests, with auto-clearance obtained from the PSC for the other two requests. In all cases where persons were referred, assessment was not required (i.e., priority referrals did not respond within the allotted timeframe). As documented on the staffing file, appropriate feedback was then provided to the priority referral and the PSC.

Priority clearance process not conducted appropriately for PDP appointments

• As per section 1.5 of the PSC’s Guide on Priority Entitlements, priority clearance is generally not required for movement within or graduation from a professional development program. Nevertheless, based on advice from the PSC, it was determined that priority clearance was necessary for three appointments within OIC’s PDP for Investigators. The priority clearance process for these appointments, however, was not conducted in accordance with the PSC’s Priority Administration Directive (as per paragraph 2 of the PSC’s Appointment Policy). In response to the referral of several priority persons in each case, there is no evidence on file indicating how each referral’s priority entitlement was respected. More specifically, there is no documentation indicating whether priority persons responded within the allotted timeframe or whether assessment was required. Nor is there any documented evidence that feedback was provided to each priority person or to / from the PSC regarding the outcome of each referral. In addition, the position numbers used in the priority clearance process were not the same as those used for the subsequent appointments, but they were not updated, as required by section 8.2.6 of the PSC’s Priority Administration Directive.

4) When Advertising

Advertisements posted appropriately for advertised processes

• Posters for all three advertised processes, examined in this monitoring exercise, were issued on the Public Service Resourcing System (PSRS) website for a period of two weeks, exceeding the PSC’s minimum requirement of at least one business day.
• As referenced in Annex B of the PSC’s Appointment Policy, a copy of the advertisement is available on all three files in both official languages.

Advertisements provided appropriate information to potential applicants

• All of the advertisements provided potential applicants with the information required to apply appropriately for the position being staffed, including the established merit criteria and a point of contact for accommodation requests.

5) Assessment of Merit

Assessment conducted via appropriate methods / tools

• OIC uses written exams, interviews, and reference checks as typical tools for assessing merit in its advertised processes. In non-advertised processes, the organization typically uses a written narrative assessment to evaluate the appointee’s qualifications against the merit criteria.
• Tests requiring prior PSC approval (e.g., intelligence or personality tests) were not used in any of the examined staffing processes.

Appropriate information provided to candidates prior to assessment

• Candidates in all external and internal advertised processes were informed beforehand via email of the methods / tools to be used in the assessment process (e.g., written exam, interview), and of the criteria being assessed. Information was also provided concerning the process for requesting accommodation measures, if required.

Merit met in timely manner for all merit-based appointments

• For all eight internal processes that resulted in an appointment, documentation on file sufficiently demonstrates that merit was met in a timely manner. In each case, merit was met prior to issuing the Notification of Appointment / Proposed Appointment (NAPA) or the Notification of Acting Appointment (NAA).
• For the internal advertised process that resulted in a deployment, merit was met prior to the decision to proceed with a deployment rather than an appointment.
• Merit in the examined external non-advertised process was met prior to the date on which the offer of appointment was made.

Merit incorrectly demonstrated in one staffing process

• According to the description of OIC’s PDP for Investigators, progression through the program is based on each candidate’s ability to meet the essential qualifications listed in the SoMC for the next level, “as set out in Appendix B.” However, for a PM-05 appointment, representing graduation from the program, the appointee was assessed against a generic SoMC and not the version found in Appendix B. Given that the merit criteria in the generic SoMC are significantly different from those listed in the PDP’s PM-05 SoMC, merit is not correctly demonstrated on file in accordance with the PDP requirements for promotion.

Appointees met all criteria applied in appointment decision

• In two of the examined staffing processes, asset qualifications were assessed during the screening or assessment phase and thus, contributed to the appointment decision. In both cases, file documentation provides evidence that the appointee met the asset qualifications before being appointed.
• Operational requirements (e.g., working remotely) are included in ten letters of offer, thus also contributing to the appointment decision. In all cases, the operational requirements were met via the appointee’s acceptance of the appointment offer.
• Organizational needs were not used in the appointment decisions of any examined staffing process.

Screening generally conducted consistently / documented correctly

• The screening phase of each advertised process was examined to verify that: a) the screening criteria had been applied consistently; and b) the screening results had been recorded correctly. For each process, at least 25% of screened-in and screened-out applications were randomly selected for review.  No evidence was found of significant issues with the application of the screening criteria or with the accuracy of the results recorded on file.

Assessment conducted appropriately in advertised processes

• The assessment materials on file for all advertised processes were examined to ensure that: a) ratings were consistently applied during the written exam, interview, and reference verification, where applicable; and b) the assessment results had been recorded correctly. For each process, the relevant assessment materials were reviewed for the proposed appointee and at least 25% of the other assessed candidates. No evidence was found of significant issues with the assessment phase of any advertised process.

Assessment materials generally retained on all examined files

• In accordance with Annex B of the PSC’s Appointment Policy, the assessment documentation for all candidates has generally been retained on the examined staffing files. Missing assessment materials were relatively minimal and did not have a significant impact on documentation of the overall assessment process.

6) Preferences (External Processes)

No requirement for order of preference in external advertised process

• In accordance with section 39 (1) of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), preference for appointment ahead of other candidates must be given in external advertised processes to qualified veterans, Canadian citizens, and permanent residents. Although one veteran applied in the examined external advertised process, he was eliminated from further consideration during the screening phase. Similarly, a non-Canadian applicant was screened out on area of selection because he did not reside in Canada. All other applicants identified as Canadian citizens.

7) Informal Discussion / Notifications (Internal Processes)

Candidates informed appropriately of elimination from consideration

• There is sufficient evidence on the examined staffing files for two internal advertised processes that candidates were informed in a timely manner of: a) their elimination from further consideration in the appointment process; and b) their right to request an informal discussion concerning the reasons for their elimination. This information was typically provided via email after the candidates were screened out or were found not qualified following their assessment.
• Although not required, unsuccessful candidates in the examined external advertised process were informed by email of their elimination from further consideration and offered informal discussion.

Notification of consideration issued appropriately

• Six internal appointments, one advertised and five non-advertised, required the posting of a Notification of Consideration (NOC). In all cases, the notification of persons being considered for these appointments was posted on the PSRS website, with a waiting period of at least five days before the appointment could be made.

Notification of internal appointments issued appropriately

• The same six internal appointments also required the posting of a Notification of Appointment / Proposed Appointment (NAPA). These notifications were issued appropriately on the PSRS website and included information concerning a) the right and grounds to make a complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB); and b) the manner and time period within which a complaint could be filed.
• Two acting appointments required the posting of a Notification of Acting Appointment (NAA). In both cases, the notification was issued appropriately on the PSRS website and provided information concerning the complaint process.

Notification process used inappropriately for deployment

• After a deployment was made in an internal advertised process, notifications were issued on the PSRS website to inform the unsuccessful candidates of the process results and of their right to request informal discussion and/or to file a complaint. However, section 48 of the PSEA clearly states that the notification process applies only to internal advertised processes that result in an appointment. Similarly, section 77 (1) indicates that the right of complaint exists only “when an appointment (emphasis added) has been proposed or made in an internal appointment process.”  Given that section 53 (1) states that “a deployment is not an appointment”, use of the notification process in this situation is contrary to legislative requirements. Candidates should have been advised by email that, in lieu of an appointment, a deployment was being made, which is not subject to notification or complaint.

8) When Appointing

Appointment offers signed by sub-delegated managers

• All offers of appointment in the examined staffing processes were signed by a manager with the appropriate level of sub-delegated authority. No issues of non-compliance with OIC’s Sub-Delegation of HR Authorities were found in this monitoring exercise.

Conditions of employment included in all offers

• In compliance with paragraph 17 of the PSC’s Appointment Policy, the appointment offers made in the context of the examined staffing processes set out all conditions of employment required for the position being staffed.

Timely verification that conditions of employment met

• There is sufficient documented proof on the examined staffing files that the appropriate level of security clearance was met and verified prior to the effective date of appointment or deployment.

Oath administration required for four appointments

• According to section 54 of the PSEA, administration of the oath or solemn affirmation is required for persons appointed “from outside that part of the public service to which the PSC has exclusive authority to make appointments.” By consulting the PSC’s Reference List, it is possible to determine whether administration of the oath or solemn affirmation is necessary when appointing an employee of another federal organization to an OIC position. Thus, for an internal advertised appointment from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the oath was administered in a timely manner prior to the effective date of appointment. As referenced in Annex B of the PSC’s Appointment Policy, documented evidence of the oath administration is provided on the staffing file.
• The oath was administered, as required, for two students re-employed from outside the public service via the Federal Student Work Experience Program (FSWEP), as the per the documented evidence on file.
• Administration of the oath or solemn affirmation was also required for an external non-advertised appointment from outside the public service; however, there is no evidence on file that the oath was administered.

Selection decisions compliant with OIC policy requirements

• To comply with OIC policy requirements regarding articulation of the selection decision, the sub-delegated manager must explain in writing “the choice of appointment process and the basis for the selection decision.” All selection decisions documented on the examined files include confirmation that the person selected for appointment met the essential criteria and all other qualifications applied in the selection decision. In some cases, there is additional reference to specific criteria that formed the basis of the selection decision (i.e., why the appointee was selected over other qualified candidates). For two acting appointments, the basis for the selection decision is included in the narrative assessment.

Explanation for choice of process on file for all non-advertised appointments

• For eight non-advertised appointments, the explanation for choice of process is not included in the selection decision per se. Instead, it is typically provided in the Rationale for Use of a Non-Advertised Process on file.

9) Other Employment Methods

a) Casual Employment:

• The PSC has not established specific information requirements for casual employment processes. However, for two casual employment files examined in this monitoring exercise, there is sufficient documentation to support the hiring of a casual worker. In both cases, a copy of the hired person’s CV provides evidence that they have the qualifications to perform the work, as described in a duty summary on file. There is also evidence on each file that the person hired meets the required conditions of employment.
• Additional information concerning the source of hire (i.e., how the manager learned of the person’s availability and interest in being hired) would increase the perception of fairness and transparency in hiring a casual worker.

b) Deployment:

•  The PSC has not established specific information requirements for deployment processes. However, in accordance with section 51 of the PSEA, file documentation should demonstrate that the deployment did not constitute a promotion or change the employee’s tenure. In addition, there should be evidence on file that the person was previously employed in an organization where deployment to the core public administration (including OIC) is permitted, as per the PSC’s Reference List. 
• Staffing files for each of the two deployment processes examined in this monitoring exercise contain a copy of the employee’s appointment letter with their previous organization, providing evidence that all the requirements for deployment were met. Similarly, sufficient evidence is available on file to demonstrate that the deployment resulting from one of the examined internal advertised processes also met these requirements.

c) Student Employment:

• It was noted in a recent audit of the Federal Student Work Experience Program (FSWEP) that the PSC’s Appointment Policy does not currently include specific information requirements to support student hiring decisions. As a result, the audit recommended that, at a minimum, file documentation should include evidence that the eligibility criteria, established by the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Directive on Student Employment, have been met. More specifically, the person hired: a) must be registered as a full-time secondary or post-secondary student in an accredited academic institution; and b) must be returning to full-time studies in the next academic term or be in their final year of studies.
• For both FSWEP re-employment processes examined in this monitoring exercise, there is sufficient evidence on file that the persons being re-hired were full-time post-secondary students at the time of their re-employment. However, there is no documentation on either file that provides verification that the students were returning to full-time studies in the next academic term or were in their final year of studies. In both cases, the required documentation was found on a separate file for a subsequent re-employment (e.g., one student, who was in their final year of studies at the time of the examined re-employment, began a higher-level degree in the next term). If such information was not readily available at the time of the examined re-employments, it would have been acceptable to obtain a signed attestation from the students confirming their intention to return to full-time status in the next academic term.

V. File documentation – general observations

As part of this monitoring exercise, specific observations concerning the documentation and organization of individual files have been recorded on the monitoring checklist completed for each staffing process. The following is an overall summary of general observations pertaining to OIC’s staffing files.

• In examining the file documentation, specific attention was given to the PSC’s information requirements, provided in Annex B of its Appointment Policy. Although issues with accuracy and completeness of the required documentation were found in some cases, the majority of the examined staffing files are fully compliant with the PSC’s information requirements.
• Using the Records Document and Information Management System (RDIMS) to store OIC’s electronic staffing files severely limits the capacity to organize documentation in a coherent manner. Documents cannot be organized chronologically or in order of the steps in a staffing process. Clear and accurate labelling and minimal duplication of documents would also allow for efficient and effective accessibility to staffing file documentation.
• The documentation process should not include the placement of policy or planning documents on file to demonstrate compliance with staffing-related requirements. A copy of OIC’s Policy on Area of Selection was found on many of the examined files; however, this does not mean that the staffing action’s area of selection complies with policy requirements. Similarly, placing a copy of OIC’s 2013-15 HR Plan on file does not provide confirmation that staffing processes conducted in 2021 are linked to the organization’s HR planning process. Moreover, there is no current legislative or policy requirement to document such a linkage.
• In some staffing files, discrepancies were found in the security and/or language requirements used to staff the position and those recorded in such documents as work descriptions, posters, or priority clearance requests. Placing a copy of the relevant organizational chart or Expanded Position Action Report (EPAR) on file would demonstrate clearly that the security and language requirements used in staffing the position are consistent with those established in classifying the position.
• Impartiality statements are present on most of the examined files, typically signed by the responsible sub-delegated manager. Given that the PSC’s Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI) requires sub-delegated managers to sign an attestation form that includes information similar to that contained in the typical impartiality statement, many federal organizations no longer use such statements as part of their staffing processes. When used, they are intended for completion by assessment board members who are not sub-delegated and thus, would not have signed an attestation form. It should also be noted that the impartiality statement’s wording indicates that it is intended for use early in the staffing process and not at its conclusion, as is the case with most of OIC’s staffing actions examined in this monitoring exercise.
• Staffing checklists are considered an effective tool in verifying that: a) all the required steps in a staffing process have been completed; and b) the appropriate documentation has been placed on the staffing file. All files examined in this monitoring exercise contain a checklist specific to the type of staffing process conducted; however, many of the checklists are not fully completed and/or are completed incorrectly (e.g., checking off an item that has not been done), thus reducing their effectiveness. OIC’s checklists also require updating to reflect changes in staffing process requirements (e.g., student re-employment no longer requires PSC referral).
• Best practices of other federal organizations in file documentation, which OIC should implement, include:

• Use of an overall assessment summary allowing for efficient verification that the results of all assessed candidates have been recorded accurately on file, as per the information requirements in Annex B of the PSC’s Appointment Policy.
• Use of notes to file to clarify specific issues or circumstances in the staffing process, particularly when they may lead to the perception of errors or omissions (e.g., missing documents).

VI. Moving forward

Considering that the recommendations raised in this monitoring report were mainly administrative in nature, the Human Resources Directorate was able to conclude that several good practices were already implemented within OIC.

As part of a continuous improvement process, the OIC's Human Resources Directorate is committed to maintaining its good practices, but also to following up on the recommendations made in this summary report. Specifically, by implementing the following actions:

• Updating some of its tools such as essential forms and documents required for various staffing actions, including file checklists;
• Providing the team members, consisting of administrative staff and human resources advisors, with an information session to make them aware of the various administrative requirements raised in this report;
• Review all of its human resources policies to ensure consistency and to facilitate their interpretation.

These actions, which should be implemented over the next year, will allow the Human Resources Directorate to provide its team members with the tools they need to better support managers in fulfilling their human resources responsibilities as well to ensure compliance with the related policies and legislation.

VII. Conclusion

This report presents the observations and recommendations resulting from a review of 17 staffing processes conducted by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada conducted during an eight-month period from January to August 2021. For the majority of staffing processes examined in this monitoring exercise, the documentation on file demonstrates sufficiently that merit-based appointment processes and other employment methods were a) generally conducted in compliance with legislative, regulatory and policy requirements; and b) respected the appointment values and merit, where required.

Annexes

Annex 1: Expected Findings

Derived from organizational and PSC policy, legislative and regulatory requirements in effect during the time frame covered by the monitoring exercise.

Merit Criteria (Merit-Based Appointments)

• Merit criteria should be consistent with a) the work to be performed; b) the qualification standard for the group / level of the position being staffed; and c) position data, including security and language requirements, as recorded in other documentation on file.
• Merit criteria must be documented electronically or on file as per the PSC’s Appointment Policy, Annex B.

Area of Selection

• The area of selection should comply with organizational and PSC policy requirements.
• A national area of selection must be applied for external advertised appointment processes, except as set out in Annex A of the PSC’s Appointment Policy.
• Exceptions to the requirement for a national area of selection in external advertised processes must receive the prior approval of the Commissioner.

Priority Consideration

• Priority clearance must be requested and obtained from the PSC in a timely manner for all staffing processes where required.
• The criteria used to request priority clearance should be consistent with those used to make the appointment (i.e., essential qualifications; tenure, location, group / level; conditions of employment; type of appointment process), allowing for appropriate consideration of persons with a priority entitlement.
• Persons with a priority entitlement should be considered and assessed, where necessary, in a timely manner: a) prior to assessing other candidates in an advertised process; b) prior to assessing the appointee in a non-advertised process; and c) prior to identifying or requesting names from a pool.
• Feedback on the consideration and/or assessment of each priority referral must be provided to the PSC and the priority person.
• The following must be documented electronically or on file as per the PSC’s Appointment Policy, Annex B: a) priority clearance number and request; and b) assessment and results for all priority referrals.

When Advertising

• Advertisements must be posted on the Government of Canada public service resourcing (PSRS) website and must be accessible to persons in the area of selection for a minimum of one complete business day (at least 24 hours).
• Advertisements should provide potential applicants with the information required to apply appropriately, including the established merit criteria and a point of contact for accommodation requests.
• The merit criteria used in the poster should be consistent with other file documentation (e.g., priority clearance request, assessment tools).
• The advertisement in both official languages must be documented electronically or on file as per the PSC’s Appointment Policy, Annex B.

Assessment of Merit

• Prior PSC approval must be obtained for certain tests (e.g., intelligence, personality, integrity and aptitude tests or tests of mental health).
• In advance of the assessment process, candidates should be informed of the methods and/or tools to be used, and of the opportunity and process to request accommodation measures.
• The person to be appointed must meet each essential qualification, including language proficiency: a) on or before the date the Notification of Appointment or Proposed Appointment (NAPA) or Notification of Acting Appointment (NAA) was issued in an internal appointment process; or b) on or before the date that the offer of appointment was signed by the sub-delegated manager in an external appointment process.
• The Employment Equity self-declaration form or the Affirmation of Aboriginal Affiliation form must be completed and placed on the staffing file, where required.
• For non-imperative appointments to bilingual positions, the appointee must enter into an agreement to become bilingual by signing the required form prior to a) the appointment in an external appointment process; or b) prior to the date that the Notification of Consideration (NOC) was issued in an internal appointment process. Alternatively, the appointee may also be excluded on medical grounds or be eligible for an immediate annuity.
• The appointee must meet any asset qualifications (not applicable to priority persons), operational requirements and/or organizational needs applied in the appointment decision.
• The assessment and results for all candidates must be documented electronically or on file as per the PSC’s Appointment Policy, Annex B.

Preferences (External Advertised Processes)

• In an external advertised appointment process, preference for appointment must be given in the following order to: a) a person in receipt of a pension by reason of war service; b) a veteran or survivor of a veteran; and c) a Canadian citizen and a permanent resident whenever a person who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident is also a candidate.

Informal Discussion / Notifications (Internal Appointment Processes)

• Persons eliminated from consideration in internal appointment processes must be informed of the decision to eliminate them, following which they may request informal discussion.
• The notification of persons being considered for appointment (NOC) must include the end date of the waiting period, which must be a minimum of five calendar days.
• The Notification of Appointment or Proposed Appointment (NAPA) or the Notification of Acting Appointment (NAA) must include information regarding the rights and grounds to make a complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) as well as the manner and time period within which a complaint may be made.
• Notifications must be documented electronically or on file as per the PSC’s Appointment Policy, Annex B.

When Appointing

• The offer of appointment must be made in writing and signed bya managerwith the appropriate level of sub-delegated authority at the time of the appointment.
• The offer of appointment must set out allconditions of employment. Evidence of confirmation should be available on the staffing file, indicating that conditions were met by the appointee prior to the effective date of appointment.
• For an appointment from outside the public service (as defined by the PSC’s Reference List), the oath or solemn affirmation must be taken and subscribed by the person appointed on or before the effective date of appointment.
• The reasons for the selection decision must be articulated in writing using the Selection Decision Rationale, explaining the choice of process and the basis for the selection decision, including confirmation that the appointee met the essential qualifications and any other criteria used to make the decision.
• The following information related to the appointment must be documented electronically or on file as per the PSC’s Appointment Policy, Annex B: a) signed offer of appointment; b) articulation of the selection decision; and c) administration of the oath or solemn affirmation.

Annex 2: List of recommendations