FPSLREB Decisions

Decision Information

Uppal v. Deputy Head (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

Collection FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Rendered 2025-09-05
Citation 2025 FPSLREB 107
Before Guy Grégoire
Decision Type Staffing Complaints
Subject Terms Application of Merit
Bias / Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Definition of abuse of authority
Non-advertised process
Personal Favouritism
Keywords Staffing – Complaint – Abuse of authority – Application of merit – Personal favouritism – Bias – Choice of appointment process – Non-advertised appointment process
Original Language English
Note Please note that this decision will be published when it is available in both official languages. If you wish to obtain a copy of the decision in the official language it was written, please communicate with mail.courrier@fpslreb-crtespf.gc.ca.
Summary:

The respondent made two non-advertised appointments to disability management advisor positions. The complainant alleged that it abused its authority in the choice of process and in the application of merit in the case of one of the appointments. She claimed that the respondent lowered the education requirement to favour one of the appointees. She also claimed that the respondent should have selected from the pool of qualified candidates that she was in. The Board found that the complainant failed to demonstrate an abuse of authority in the choice of process. The respondent did not have to consider anyone in the pool of qualified candidates. It justified its choice of a non-advertised process by the type of work performed in the position, the urgency and high vacancy rate within the unit, and the high volume of cases to process. The Board also found that the complainant did not demonstrate an abuse of authority in the application of merit. The appointee’s assessment against the statement of merit criteria was extensive. This included the assessment against the education criterion established for the position. The respondent found him qualified. Further, the Board found that the complainant did not establish personal favouritism or bias. The hiring manager had no personal relationship with either appointee. The hiring manager justified the use of the education criterion and did not water it down to favour one appointee.

Complaint dismissed.

Decision Content

There is no document available for this decision.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.