Audit of the Canadian Forces
Grievance Board
A report by the Public Service
Commission of Canada
October 2007
Public Service Commission of Canada
300 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0M7
Canada
Information: 613-992-9562
Facsimile: 613-992-9352
Cat. No. SC3-126/2007
ISBN 978-0-662-46583-6
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Public Service Commission of Canada, 2007
All of the audit work in this report was conducted
in accordance with the legislative mandate and audit policies
of the Public Service Commission of Canada.
Table of Contents
Summary
1. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board (CFGB) is an administrative tribunal with quasi-judicial powers, independent from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. Its mandate is to review grievances in order to render fair and impartial findings and recommendations in a timely and informal manner to the Chief of the Defence Staff and the grievor.
2. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the CFGB has an appropriate framework, systems and practices in place to manage its staffing activities and to determine whether the CFGB’s appointments and appointment processes complied with the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), other governing authorities and policies, and with the instrument of delegation signed with the Public Service Commission (PSC).
3. We found that for the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 the CFGB
had an appropriate framework, systems, and practices in place to manage its staffing activities. We also found that all advertised appointment processes complied with the PSEA, other governing authorities and policies, and the instrument of delegation signed with the PSC.
4. The PSEA allows for the use of non-advertised processes. However, deputy heads must ensure that the appointment values are respected. To this end, the PSC policy requires a written rationale. We found that all five non-advertised appointment processes reviewed did not comply with this policy requirement. Furthermore, one of these appointments involved a long-term acting situation. We recommended to the Chairperson of the CFGB that she regularise this long-term acting situation and ensure the adequacy of written rationales when using non-advertised processes.
5. While we are concerned with the need for improvements to non-advertised processes, overall we are satisfied with CFGB’s staffing activities.
6. The Chairperson has agreed with our recommendations. The detailed response
of the CFGB follows the recommendations.
Top of Page
Introduction
7. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board (CFGB) was created on March 1, 2000, in accordance with legislation enacted in December 1998 that contained amendments to the National Defence Act. The CFGB describes itself as an administrative tribunal with quasi-judicial powers, independent from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. The mandate of the CFGB is to issue fair, impartial, transparent and expeditious findings and recommendations on grievances from members of the Forces.
8. Grievances referred to the CFGB pertain to issues such as: deductions from pay
and allowances; reversion to a lower rank or release from the Forces; the application
or interpretation of policies relating to the expression of personal opinions, political activity or candidature for office, civil employment, conflict-of-interest and post-employment compliance measures, harassment or racist conduct; or entitlement
to medical care and dental treatment.
9. The Board consists of full- and part-time members who are appointed by the Governor in Council. The Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson and other Board members are primarily supported in their work by the Director, Grievance Analysis and Operations. An Executive Director is responsible for providing corporate services, including human resources management. As of November 1, 2006, the organization had a workforce of 37 employees who were appointed under the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA).
Top of Page
Focus of the audit
10. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the CFGB has an appropriate framework, systems and practices in place to manage its staffing activities and to determine whether the CFGB’s appointments and appointment processes complied with the PSEA, other governing authorities and policies, and with the instrument of delegation signed with the Public Service Commission (PSC).
11. The audit covered the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. We audited 11 processes conducted under the PSEA. We excluded deployments, casuals and student appointments. We interviewed CFGB human resources specialists, employees, managers involved in staffing activities, and bargaining agent representatives. We also reviewed documentation regarding plans, policies, programs, communications and reports related to staffing at the CFGB. For more information, refer to the About the audit section at the end of this report.
Top of Page
Observations and recommendations
The human resources plan is a work in progress
12. Since its creation, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board (CFGB) has faced a number of human resources challenges. In January 2006, three out of twelve grievance officer positions were vacant and senior management recognized an ongoing challenge to recruit and retain grievance officers, who are classified at the PM-5 level. It had targeted recruitment of newly graduated lawyers, but found that these individuals soon left to pursue legal careers elsewhere in the federal public service. Other grievance officers left the CFGB because of a perceived lack of opportunity for advancement or to obtain similar employment classified at higher levels elsewhere in the federal public service. In addition to the retention challenge, as of October 2006, the CFGB cited that 20 percent of its workforce was eligible to retire within three years.
13. We expected to find a human resources plan integrated with the business plan, and to find that staffing processes were consistent with this plan. We found that the CFGB developed an integrated human resources and business plan in 2006. The plan identifies operational objectives and contains an environmental scan, including a demographic profile. It presents a human resources and staffing action plan for each business unit and a training plan for each employee. The integrated plan also identified the creation of a pool of pre-qualified grievance officers, which was established in 2006 and subsequently depleted.
14. The CFGB’s integrated plan serves primarily as an operational rather than a strategic plan. It addresses specific courses of action against current fiscal needs. However, the CFGB’s monitoring system has pointed to the need to develop a strategy in 2007–2008 to address the impact of the high number of employees eligible for retirement. The CFGB is currently expanding its human resources plan to include a strategic exercise that will identify long-term solutions to impending human resources challenges.
Top of Page
Most appointments complied with the PSEA
15. Staffing files are official records of the appointment decisions made by officials exercising their staffing authority on behalf of the deputy head. We expected all staffing files to contain sufficient and appropriate documentation to support the selection and appointment decisions. We also expected that each process would comply with the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), other governing authorities and policies, and the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI). We further expected that each appointment would respect the core appointment values of merit and non-partisanship and the guiding values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness.
16. We examined 11 processes conducted by the CFGB in 2006 that resulted in 13 appointments. Six processes were advertised and five were non-advertised (Table 1).
Table 1: Overview of audited files
| Processes audited under the PSEA |
Number of processes |
Number of appointments |
| Advertised external appointment process |
1 |
3 |
| Advertised internal appointment processes |
5 |
5 |
| Non-advertised processes – acting over four months |
3 |
3 |
| Non-advertised process – promotion |
1 |
1 |
| Non-advertised process – reclassification |
1 |
1 |
| Total processes audited under the PSEA |
11 |
13 |
Source: Audit, Evaluation and Studies Branch, Public Service Commission
17. All six advertised appointment processes complied with the PSEA, other governing authorities and policies, and the ADAI. The advertised appointment processes were supported by sufficient and appropriate documentation.
18. We are concerned about the non-advertised appointment processes. These five processes were not included in the CFGB’s human resources plan; among others, one transaction involved an individual who was repeatedly reappointed two levels above the individual’s substantive level on an acting basis for a total duration of over four years. The CFGB should have regularized this long-term acting situation. In not doing so, this process restricted access to other potential candidates.
19. The five non-advertised appointment processes did not comply with the Public Service Commission (PSC) policy on choice of appointment process that requires a written rationale demonstrating how a non-advertised process meets the appointment values. This policy is designed to ensure staffing decisions are made objectively and practices reflect the just treatment of employees and applicants. We found no written rationale on the staffing files for the three acting appointments. The two written rationales found on the staffing files for the promotion and the reclassification did not adequately demonstrate how the non-advertised processes met the appointment values.
Recommendation 1
The Chairperson of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board must regularize
the long-term acting situation.
Canadian Forces Grievance Board’s Response. The Chairperson of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is aware that she must regularize the long-term acting situation. The Board had planned, even prior to the audit, to post on Publiservice, in September 2007, an internal advertised appointment process.
Recommendation 2
The Chairperson of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board must ensure that every staffing decision respects appointment values. When a non-advertised process is used, the rationale must be on file and must demonstrate how the process meets the established criteria and the appointment values.
Canadian Forces Grievance Board’s Response. The Chairperson of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board will ensure that every staffing decision respects the appointment values. When a non-advertised process is used, the Board will have a monitoring and review mechanism to ensure a rationale is put on file and is consistent with the appointment values and the criteria established by the organization for using such a process.
Top of Page
The staffing management framework is in place
20. A key requirement under the ADAI is for the organization to develop a staffing management framework based on the PSC’s Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF). The latter sets out the expectations for a well-managed appointment system that respects the PSEA. It also clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the PSC and those of delegated public service departments and agencies.
21. The CFGB approved its own staffing management accountability framework in
October 2006. We found that it includes the required elements, including indicators
to facilitate monitoring and reporting on performance.
22. In 2006, as part of its monitoring activities, the PSC expressed its concern to the CFGB that the organization had only taken initial steps toward developing its monitoring framework for staffing. During the course of the audit, we found that the CFGB had improved its monitoring framework. It had developed an ongoing monitoring tool including a staffing risk assessment, which identified seven staffing risks of importance, one of which was long-term acting appointments. However, the CFGB did not address the aforementioned long-term acting situation. The CFGB has committed to continually improving its staffing monitoring system and the Executive Committee has begun monitoring its staffing risks based on human resources reports on a quarterly basis.
23. The Chairperson accepted and signed the ADAI with the PSC in December 2005.
We found that the CFGB developed a policy on the delegation of human resources authorities, which included the sub-delegation of appointment and appointment-related authorities. Line managers were required to complete two mandatory courses
prior to receiving sub-delegated staffing authority. We also confirmed that
the human resources advisors are validated by the PSC in their knowledge
of the appointment framework.
24. We found that roles and responsibilities with respect to staffing were clearly defined. The managers we interviewed demonstrated an understanding of their roles and those of their human resources advisor. Each of them was aware of the requirement to consult the human resources plan, seek approval from the Executive Committee and to develop statements of merit criteria. We also noted that accountabilities for appointment-related authorities were outlined in managers’ accountability agreements. The agreements included specific performance measures with respect to establishing staffing plans.
25. We found that the CFGB provided staffing tools to guide managers in the appointment process. For example, the human resources unit developed staffing checklists that outline the steps for each type of appointment. Managers told us these checklists were helpful. Although appointment processes are identified in the human resources plan and are discussed at the Executive Committee, the CFGB also developed a tool designed to assist managers with their choice of appointment process.
26. All the managers we interviewed reported that they had timely access to advice from their human resources advisors. In addition, the human resources manager has been a member of the Executive Committee for the past two years. Human resources management is a topic on the Executive Committee’s agenda for every meeting.
27. The CFGB developed and approved the mandatory appointment policies and criteria on Area of Selection, Corrective Action and Revocation, and criteria for non-advertised processes. The CFGB’s mandatory staffing policies and criteria were discussed and adopted by the Executive Committee.
28. We found that the CFGB consulted managers in the development of departmental appointment policies. The CFGB presented those policies and criteria for discussion
at their Labour Management Consultation Committee in March 2006, and they were subsequently shared with employees.
Top of Page
Conclusion
29. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board (CFGB) has an appropriate framework, systems and practices in place to manage its staffing activities. It implemented a staffing management accountability framework, developed an integrated human resources and business plan, developed a set of mandatory policies through consultation with stakeholders, sub-delegated staffing authorities to trained managers, defined and communicated roles and responsibilities, and has a process to monitor its performance. The CFGB is currently revising its human resources plan to address current
and future needs.
30. We found that all advertised appointment processes complied with the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), other governing authorities and policies, and the instrument of delegation signed with the Public Service Commission (PSC). All of the non-advertised processes did not comply with the PSC’s policy on choice of appointment process requiring a written rationale demonstrating respect for the appointment values. We also identified the need for the Chairperson to regularize the long-term acting situation.
31. While we are concerned with the need for improvements to non-advertised processes, overall we are satisfied with the CFGB’s staffing activities.
Top of Page
About the audit
Objectives
The objectives of the audit were to determine whether:
- the Canadian Forces Grievance Board (CFGB) has an appropriate framework, systems, and practices in place to manage its staffing activities; and,
- appointments and appointment processes comply with the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), other governing authorities and policies, and the instrument of delegation signed with the Public Service Commission (PSC).
Scope and approach
The audit covered the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. We audited 11 staffing processes conducted under the PSEA.
We conducted interviews with CFGB human resources specialists and the managers involved in staffing activities, as well as employees and two bargaining agent representatives. We also reviewed documentation related to staffing at the CFGB, including plans, policies, programs, communications and reports.
Criteria
We drew the following audit criteria from the Appointment Delegation
and Accountability Instrument (ADAI) as well as the Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF):
- The CFGB has in place a staffing management framework, based on the PSC’s SMAF.
- The CFGB has undertaken human resources planning that is integrated with business planning to enable the entity to identify its current and future human resources needs.
- Staffing decisions are consistent with human resources planning, with any variances being monitored and explained.
- Written sub-delegation of appointment authorities has been granted to officials who will be exercising these staffing authorities.
- The CFGB has clearly defined, communicated and understood roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for appointment-related authorities.
- Sub-delegated officials have received the necessary training, have access to appropriate advice and have the tools to exercise their staffing authorities.
- The CFGB has an approved set of policies that guide the organization in its appointment processes.
- The CFGB has consulted with all stakeholders, including bargaining agents, in developing and revising its appointment policies.
- The CFGB has a process to track and monitor the overall performance of its appointments and appointment-related authorities.
- In carrying out its appointments and appointment processes, the CFGB has respected merit, non-partisanship, and the appointment values of fairness, transparency, access and representativeness.
- The CFGB’s appointments and appointment processes adhere to the PSEA, other governing authorities and policies, and the instrument of delegation signed with the PSC.
- The CFGB’s appointment-related decisions are supported by sufficient and appropriate documentation.
Audit team
Vice-President, Audit, Evaluation and Studies Branch:
Mary Clennett
Acting Director General, Departmental Audits:
Denise Coudry-Batalla
Audit Manager:
John Corbeil
Auditors:
Dominique Charlebois
Lise Lanthier
Micheline Newberry
Top of Page
Glossary
Acting appointment
The temporary promotion of an employee.
Advertised appointment process
When persons in the area of selection are informed of and can apply to an appointment opportunity.
Appointment
An action taken under the PSEA to hire someone.
Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI)
The formal document by which the PSC delegates its authorities to deputy heads. It identifies authorities, any conditions related to the delegation and sub-delegation of these authorities and how deputy heads will be held accountable for the exercise of their delegated authorities.
External appointment process
A process in which persons may be considered,
whether or not they are employed in the public service.
Internal appointment process
Appointments for which only persons employed in the public service may be considered.
Non-advertised appointment process
An appointment process that does not meet the criteria for an advertised appointment process.
Promotion
An appointment to a higher level position.
