Bias in qualifying interview

Statement

At their session held on February 21 2019, the members of the CFPM analyzed a complaint regarding a staffing process for a white-collar position relating to the following allegation:

BOTH MEMBERS OF THE INTERVIEW COMMITTEE WERE PARTIAL AS THEY APPEARED TO HAVE REJECTED THE COMPLAINANT’S CANDIDACY ON THE BASIS OF NEGATIVE BIAS AGAINST HIM[1].

In order to fully understand the nature of the complainant’s allegation, the Commission carefully gathered his testimony and went over the elements contained in his complaint form, as well as any other relevant facts that he wished to bring to our attention.

Investigation methodology

  • A meeting with the complainant was held to determine the nature of the complaint, analyze its admissibility and study the complaint thoroughly.
  • Interviews with the respondents were then held, with the consent of the complainant, to obtain their version of the facts.
  • The CFPM interviewed other witnesses concerned with the complaint.
  • All parties met or interviewed were informed of the confidentiality of the process and agreed to abide thereby.
  • A review of the documentary evidence was also conducted.
  • The investigative process, including meetings or telephone interviews, analysis of testimonies and documentation, as well as conclusions, was then presented during a board meeting with CFPM members. 

Facts

  • According to the complainant’s testimony, the members of the interview panel briefly discussed prior to the beginning of his interview. This exchange led the complainant to believe that the panel members had a negative bias against him.
  • To determine whether any unfairness occurred during the interviews, the Commission compared the templates of all the candidates interviewed during this staffing process, including the complainant. A review of this evidence shows that there was fairness among the participants in terms of the questions asked and how the answers were analyzed. Accordingly, there is no indication that the complainant was assessed differently from other persons.
  • Furthermore, there is no testimonial or documentary evidence to support the theory of bias against the complainant. 

Conclusions

After an analysis of all the facts brought to their attention, the CFPM members found that there were no demonstrated irregularities in relation to this allegation. The complaint was therefore declared unfounded.


[1] Note: The use of the masculine gender includes the feminine and is employed to ensure conidentiality of the complainant as well as to facilitate reading.

 

Sitemap  -  

Terms of use  -  © All rights reserved CFPM 2018

Made by