Appointment Policy Questions and Answers

Choice of Process

Q. How will the Commission ensure the value of access if no preference is given to advertised processes?

A. . Organizations are required to respect the Commission's appointment policies including the three appointment values of fairness, access and transparency. In the case of non-advertised appointment processes, organizations will be required to establish and communicate criteria for their use as well as prepare a written rationale that shows how each non-advertised process meets the established criteria and the appointment values. In the case of advertised processes, access will be supported by the requirement for national areas of selection in certain situations and the use of common portals such as jobs.gc.ca. The Commission will also be monitoring organizations' use of appointment processes. Abuse of authority in the choice of process will also be reviewable by the PSST.

Q. Is there a preference in the legislation for advertised or non-advertised processes?

A. No. The choice of process should be based on an organization's HR plan and the circumstances of the position being staffed. While the PSC policy does not state which method is more favourable, the requirements of the policy respond to areas of risk in selecting an appointment process. For example, there is a requirement for deputy heads to monitor and review the use of non-advertised processes for the appointment of casual workers to term or indeterminate positions and for appointments to the EX group. Deputy heads will also be required to establish criteria for the use of non-advertised processes.

Q. Why does the Commission require the establishment of criteria for the use of non-advertised processes?

A. The Commission assessed this as a risk area which needs to be more closely managed by the deputy head in order to uphold merit and ensure respect for the appointment values. This will allow the deputy head, who is accountable for appointments in the organization, to focus on this issue which has been problematic because of the increased use of non-advertised processes to appoint casuals to term or indeterminate positions. There may be a number of circumstances where non-advertised appointment processes would be appropriate, e.g. promotions within a professional development program, but in the interests of fairness and transparency, organizations need to identify what these circumstances will be so that employees can understand. This can also help avoid delays in the appointment process due to a better understanding of how and why decisions were made and it could reduce the use of formal recourse.

Q. What type of criteria for non-advertised appointments would be acceptable?

A. Each deputy head will have to assess the organization's structure, environment, culture etc. to determine what criteria would be appropriate for the organization. Deputy heads should include unions in their consultation in establishing the criteria.

Q. What exclusions will exist for acting appointments?

A. The Commission is proposing the establishment of a regulation for the exclusion of all acting appointments of four months or less from: merit, priorities, notification and recourse. This will apply to acting appointments for all groups and levels, including EX and acting appointments of employment equity group members.

Q. Why is a monitoring and review mechanism for acting appointments over 12 months required?

A. This was established because of the risk involved with lengthy acting appointments; the longer the length of an acting appointment, the greater the possibility of providing the person with an unfair advantage. The Commission did not want to impose conditions that would limit the flexibility on when an acting appointment could be extended beyond 12 months, but given that acting appointments are intended to be temporary, the Commission wanted to ensure that deputy heads would be able to review and respond to potential risks to the integrity of the appointment system.

Back to main Q&A page