Employee claimed she was passed over for promotion in favour of less-qualified co-worker
A government employee’s complaint she was denied a promotion because of abuse of authority has been dismissed by the Public Service Staffing Tribunal.
Jeannette Tibbs applied for the position of production manager at the Canadian Forces Warfare Centre at the Canadian Forces Base in Trenton, Ont., on Feb. 20, 2006. The job posting outlined two essential qualifications:
A university degree in computer science or its equivalent in similar education and training plus experience in supervision and budget management. Two weeks later, she was informed she had been screened out of the appointment process because she didn’t have acceptable experience in supervision, office and budget management.
Tibbs felt she did have some experience as she had supervised two employees who had replaced her in her own position while filling in for another. She also felt she had the same supervisory experience as the employee who ended up in the position.
The selection board told Tibbs the successful candidate had experience in volunteer work and as a section manager where she had demonstrated the ability to guide, coach and mentor, whereas Tibbs worked in “a one-person office” without subordinates and limited budget responsibilities.
Tibbs disagreed and filed a complaint, claiming she was qualified for the promotion and denying her the job and appointing someone who was less qualified was an abuse of authority. She argued the appointee did not have the degree in computer science the original job posting had required nor had she demonstrated supervisory experience.
The tribunal accepted the members of the selection board were satisfied the appointee’s coaching and mentoring experience over a year as a section manager was sufficient to meet the job’s supervisory experience requirement. It found the advertisement for the position did not require a degree in computer science but stated a combination of equivalent education and experience was acceptable, which the appointee did have.
The tribunal found Tibbs’ assertion the selection board based its decision on inadequate material was without merit and the appointee successfully met the education and experience requirements of the job.
“The appointee provided sufficient information concerning the essential qualifications of experience in all three areas (supervision, office management and budget management) in her application documentation, which was deemed acceptable by the selection board,” the tribunal said. “I find no evidence that the board exercised its discretion with any improper intention or improper result.” See Tibbs v. Canada (Deputy Minister of National Defence), 2006 CarswellNat 5410 (Can. P.S.S.T.).
Jeannette Tibbs applied for the position of production manager at the Canadian Forces Warfare Centre at the Canadian Forces Base in Trenton, Ont., on Feb. 20, 2006. The job posting outlined two essential qualifications:
A university degree in computer science or its equivalent in similar education and training plus experience in supervision and budget management. Two weeks later, she was informed she had been screened out of the appointment process because she didn’t have acceptable experience in supervision, office and budget management.
Tibbs felt she did have some experience as she had supervised two employees who had replaced her in her own position while filling in for another. She also felt she had the same supervisory experience as the employee who ended up in the position.
The selection board told Tibbs the successful candidate had experience in volunteer work and as a section manager where she had demonstrated the ability to guide, coach and mentor, whereas Tibbs worked in “a one-person office” without subordinates and limited budget responsibilities.
Tibbs disagreed and filed a complaint, claiming she was qualified for the promotion and denying her the job and appointing someone who was less qualified was an abuse of authority. She argued the appointee did not have the degree in computer science the original job posting had required nor had she demonstrated supervisory experience.
The tribunal accepted the members of the selection board were satisfied the appointee’s coaching and mentoring experience over a year as a section manager was sufficient to meet the job’s supervisory experience requirement. It found the advertisement for the position did not require a degree in computer science but stated a combination of equivalent education and experience was acceptable, which the appointee did have.
The tribunal found Tibbs’ assertion the selection board based its decision on inadequate material was without merit and the appointee successfully met the education and experience requirements of the job.
“The appointee provided sufficient information concerning the essential qualifications of experience in all three areas (supervision, office management and budget management) in her application documentation, which was deemed acceptable by the selection board,” the tribunal said. “I find no evidence that the board exercised its discretion with any improper intention or improper result.” See Tibbs v. Canada (Deputy Minister of National Defence), 2006 CarswellNat 5410 (Can. P.S.S.T.).
