FPSLREB Decisions

The complainant alleged that the respondent abused its authority in the choice of process and in the application of merit in two non-advertised acting appointments. She claimed that one of the essential experience qualifications was lowered, to favour the appointees. She also alleged that the acting appointments were personal favouritism toward the appointees. The Board found that the complainant failed to demonstrate that there was abuse of authority in the choice of process and in the reduction of the essential experience qualification. There was a rationale for choosing the non-advertised appointment processes and for changing the experience qualification. The respondent provided uncontradicted testimony that there was an urgent organizational need to fill the two positions and that it lowered the experience qualification because, over time, it learned that the qualification was too rigid and that it did not reflect the actual experience required for the job. Further, the Board found that the complainant did not meet her burden of establishing personal favouritism. There was no evidence that the manager responsible for the staffing processes had any personal relationship with the appointees or that she selected either of them because of any interest other than professional. During the hearing, the complainant made two additional allegations that the respondent objected to because they were not in her initial complaint or allegations. The Board dismissed one of those allegations based on the respondent’s objection. However, the Board found that the complainant’s other allegation, which was that one of the appointees did not meet the experience qualification, was made before the hearing and did not take the respondent by surprise. In any event, the Board found that the appointee met the experience qualification.

Complaints dismissed.