Public Service Commission blasts IRB on hiring practices

The Public Service Commission (PSC) has given the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) a failing grade on its hiring practices. Only 38% of the appointments reviewed met both the requirements of merit and guiding values, and this finding adds to the criticism of the IRB raised by the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, in the spring of 2009.

The PSC reviewed 54 appointments at the IRB and found that only 21 met merit and guiding values requirements. The remaining 62% were deficient in either merit or guiding values, or both. In addition to the appointments reviewed, the PSC found that human resources planning was uncoordinated and that it failed to provide adequate direction to sub-delegated managers and HR professionals.

The audit found significant fault with the IRB on the issue of Governor in Council (GIC) appointments, stating:

The IRB identified that they require the services of former Governor in Council (GIC) appointees of the IRB who possess knowledge of the tribunal proceedings and have in-depth experience in dealing with the tribunal operations. We are concerned that preferential treatment of the appointment of former GIC appointees to public service positions in the IRB compromised the PSEA’s core value of merit, along with the guiding values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness. Appointing former GIC appointees where merit is not met or demonstrated further compromises both the core and guiding values of the PSEA. Similarly, appointing former GIC appointees either through non-advertised processes or in advertised processes, where the experience can only be obtained as a former GIC appointee of the IRB, does not respect the guiding values of the PSEA. We are also concerned with preferential treatment in certain executive (EX) and executive equivalent appointments.

For its part, the IRB’s overall reply to the audit consisted of the following:

The IRB is of the view that weaknesses in the audit methodology appear to have been a major factor in leading the auditors to draw unsubstantiated conclusions. For example, their conclusion that insufficient documentation on the staffing files in certain appointment processes is indicative of merit not being met or values not being respected or demonstrated is unsustainable. All that can be stated with certainty is that the documentation the auditors reviewed does not allow them to draw a conclusion one way or the other with regard to merit and staffing values being demonstrated or met.

“This is priceless” responded CEIU National President Jeannette Meunier-McKay, “The IRB is saying that if they don’t provide adequate staffing documentation, no one can say they did anything wrong. Getting it right, and being able to show you did, is what everyone really wants – everyone except IRB management.”

“We won’t let this matter rest” continued Meunier-McKay, “we will vigorously pursue corrective measures in both internal and public forums. Staffing is a key issue for our members.”