Union News - December 2017
Prior to the creation of the Agency in 1999, there was a very different recourse process in place to deal with situations where an unsuccessful candidate believed they had not been treated fairly in the staffing process. This was called an Appeal and provided for far more disclosure of information relating to the staffing process. Included was access to board interview notes, board member comments, along with test scores and various other information. The other very significant difference was that arguments relating to the challenge of the staffing process were presented to an independent Appeal Board who had significant latitude in any corrective action. While there were criticisms raised with respect to the length of time that these processes often took, in the opinion of the union, it provided for a more transparent process.
With the advent of the agency in 1999, legislation was enacted that amongst other things created CRA’s own staffing framework, including recourse processes. It is the belief of UTE that these new staffing processes initially very much restricted employees access to information relating to how they were treated or assessed during the staffing process. Over the last 17 plus years through the hard work of UTE and its staffing committee, some success has been achieved in convincing the employer to adapt these policies to make them, we believe, more fair and transparent.
The recourse system was put in place with three levels of recourse:
Level I – Individual Feedback (IF)
Level II – Decision Review (DR)
Level III – Independent Third-party Review (ITPR)
This article will discuss Individual Feedback and is the first in a series of three articles about the various staffing recourse levels.
Level I – Individual Feedback (IF)
Individual Feedback is defined in the Staffing Process as:
A review of an employee’s concerns of arbitrary treatment as a result of a staffing decision or voluntary assessment. It must be completed before requesting either decision review (DR) or independent third-party review (ITPR), if available. (Note DR and ITPR will be discussed in future articles)
The review includes a formal discussion between an employee and a manager.
During the staffing process where a candidate feels that they may not have been treated or assessed fairly they can file for IF. This is done by completing the RC136 form. Assistance can be obtained from a local union executive or a steward in the completion of this document. Contained in the form is a question that the employee must complete advising how they feel they have been treated arbitrarily. Since the creation of this form, UTE has challenged and continues to challenge its use. Basically, what the employer is asking you, is to explain how you have been treated unfairly, without providing you access to any information which you could use to determine if that was the case.
As part of the process, prior to actually having a meeting with the hiring manager, the employer is required to provide to you copies of all relevant materials related to you from the staffing process. This would include board notes recording the answers you had provided, board comments or opinions on your answers, as well as copies of any reference checks done as part of the process. This allows the member the opportunity to review their own information and raise any concerns they may have at the IF meeting.
An example of this might be:
A question was asked by the board that you provide an example of how you dealt with a problem in the work area. You provided an example and reading through the board notes you see comments suggesting that the example was not complex enough. There was nothing in the board comments to suggest you had not fully answered the question, just that in the opinion of the Board the example was not complex enough. When you review the question asked by the board, you see nowhere in it where it makes specific reference to provide a complex example. This is a situation where it could be argued the member was treated arbitrarily.
In the IF meeting members are not allowed to bring anyone with them, so it is important that you prepare ahead of time with respect to any questions or concerns that you may have. In most cases this meeting is held with the chair of the selection process you are challenging. You must be provided a written response to your IF after which, if you are not satisfied with the decision, you can file for DR.
Suggested generic wording to use on the RC 136 prior to receiving proper disclosure.
If screened out of a process for not having the pre-requisites.
The Hiring Manager/Selection Boards did no properly evaluate my application against the screening criteria, thus I have been treated arbitrarily.
If not being placed in a pool for failing on one ore more of the assessments.
The Hiring Manager/Selection Board failed to mark my assessment correctly, thus I have been treated arbitrarily.
If not being selected for an appointment from a pool.
The Hiring Manager/Selection Board failed to properly assess me against the appointment criteria, thus I have been treated arbitrarily.
If you would like more information on Individual Feedback please refer to the following document on the CRA Infozone: “Procedures for recourse on staffing (Staffing Programs)”.
Recourse checklist – It’s your right (Part 1)
- If you believe you may have been treated arbitrarily in a staffing process consider filing for individual feedback.
- Ensure you are provided with all the relevant documentation in relation to you. This includes board notes, interview answers, reference check notes from all references including supervisor, peer or other prior to your IF meeting.
- Do not accept to attend a meeting before you have been provided with the information noted above and have had a chance to review it.
- You are entitled to an IF response in writing, ensure that you receive it.
- If not satisfied with the IF response consider filing for DR.
Gary Esslinger
Communications Committee