Inequitable decision after an evaluation test

Statement

At their session held on March 25, 2020, the members of the CFPM analyzed a complaint regarding a staffing process for a white-collar position related to the following allegation:

HR TOOK AN INEQUITABLE DECISION TOWARDS THE COMPLAINANT BY ASSIGNING HIM¹ A FAILING GRADE FOR HIS EVALUATION TEST.

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 the complaint form, as well as any other relevant facts the complainant wanted to bring to our attention.

Investigation methodology

• A meeting with the complainant was held to determine the specifics of the complaint, analyze its admissibility and study the complaint thoroughly.
•  Interviews with the witnesses identified by the complainant were then held to obtain their version of the facts. This was done with the consent of the complainant.
• 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, and conclusions, was then presented during a board meeting with CFPM members. 

Facts

• The complainant’s examination test had to be cancelled due to factors outside of HR's control. 
• The complainant was informed of the date of the supplemental examination session by an e-mail sent by HR department. This e-mail also stated that an absence to this session would lead to a fail result.
• HR has offered alternative dates to the complainant to complete the supplemental examination session as it was not possible for him to be present at the initial session date. However, the CFPM found that the complainant did not return HR’s most recent e-mail and failed to be present at any of the offered session dates.
• The complainant then received a fail result for the examination test in question.
• The Commission is of the opinion that the complainant’s absence to all of the alternative session dates could be considered an abandonment to the examination test. HR took a fair decision toward the complainant to whom many alternative dates were offered and to whom the consequences of an absence were clearly communicated.  

Conclusions

Following the analysis of all the facts brought to the attention of the CFPM, the members found that HR had committed no breaches with respect to the complainant’s allegation. 
For this reason, the complaint was considered to be 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.