The complaint

Following the issue of a call for applications and interviews for the post of secretary to the Development Control Commission (DCC) of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa), an employee of the Authority lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman that his failure in the interview was unjust. Maintaining that the evaluation by the selection board did not reflect his merits and capabilities, complainant also expressed concern that his request for the setting up of a promotions appeal board to consider his grievance in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement had been turned down.

Facts of the case

An internal call for applications for the post of secretary to the DCC listed the educational requirements, certificates and work experience which candidates needed to possess in order to apply for this position. When the results were published, complainant found that he failed to obtain the minimum pass mark and had not been considered for the post.

Complainant had subsequently written directly to the Mepa chairman to contest the marks which he had been awarded for interpersonal skills and supervisory skills and to request the setting up of a promotions appeal board because he felt that these marks did not adequately reflect his merit. A few weeks later complainant was informed by the Mepa chairman that following consultation with the chairman of the interviewing board, the appointment of an appeal board was not considered justified.

While these developments were taking place the Authority issued another call for applications for the post of senior administrative assistant relative to Land Survey and Mapping, a position that is considered analogous to the post of DCC secretary. Complainant applied for this post as well but was again unsuccessful. However, as things turned out, the same person was selected to fill both posts; and faced with this choice, the successful candidate selected the second position. As a result the post of secretary, DCC remained vacant.

Considerations by the Ombudsman

Complainant brought forward a number of points in order to substantiate his claim that he deserved to be selected for the post of secretary to the Development Control Commission. He argued that the marks which he had been awarded for communication skills and for supervisory skills were unfair and that the decision not to appoint the promotions appeal board was in violation of the provisions of the collective agreement.

The Ombudsman’s investigations showed that the marks awarded to candidates in communication skills were based on the subjective judgement formed by members of the selection board on the basis of the performance of candidates during their interview. Even marks allocated for supervisory skills reflected candidates’ performance during their interview. While it was admitted that complainant was experienced in supervisory work, members of the board were unanimous in their view, however, that complainant’s experience in this field had not emerged in a particularly positive light throughout his interview.

In his investigations the Ombudsman ascertained that the three members of the selection board had separately given their marks to every candidate and that the final result of each candidate was the mean of these three scores.

Obviously the Ombudsman is not in a position to verify the evaluation that was undertaken of complainant since this was based on subjective criteria adopted by each of the three examiners.

According to subsection 14(6) of the collective agreement for employees of the Authority, complainant’s request for the appointment of a promotions appeal board had to be preceded by a letter to the Authority’s Human Resources manager through his Unit manager. Although complainant did not follow these procedures, the Ombudsman found that Mepa chairman had sought the views and comments of the chairman of the selection board on the issues raised by complainant and had assured himself that in the circumstances the setting up of an appeal board was unwarranted and would not have served any useful purpose.

Outcome

The Ombudsman concluded that the evidence which he collected showed that complainant’s plea that he was not awarded the marks which he deserved in communication skills and supervisory skills could not be substantiated.

Neither was there any violation of the provisions of the collective agreement when the chairman of the Authority failed to set up the promotions appeal board because complainant had failed to observe the established procedures.

Although the Ombudsman did not uphold complainant’s grievance, he still felt that the following critical comments were appropriate:

• the fact that six months elapsed between the date of the interviews and the publication of the results might have given rise to suspicions;

• the method that was adopted for the award of points to candidates was somewhat doubtful;

• although the successful candidate as well as complainant did not possess all the necessary qualifications that were listed in the call for applications, yet both were asked to attend an interview;

• there were indications that the members of the selection board were not fully convinced that the two candidates in fact possessed the potential to fill the post successfully and although it appeared that members were of the opinion that taking everything into account the candidate who was placed first possessed a slight advantage, the board and management were hesitant until a call for applications for an analogous post was issued and the first placed candidate was awarded a position which seemed to be more in line with her qualifications and work experience;

• Appendix F of the collective agreement states that: “The selection board will communicate in writing to all interviewees, prior to the interview, the criteria upon which the assessment will be made and the weighting given to each criteria as well as the pass mark set for the position.” The letter to complainant dated 14 November 2002 shows that Mepa did not observe these procedures.

The Ombudsman concluded by stating clearly that these critical comments should not in any way be taken to mean that the selection board had acted unjustly towards complainant. His comments were primarily meant to reflect a lack of transparency which might tend to erode the expectation that a staff selection process should at all times be limpid, straightforward and transparent and should also be seen to be so by all candidates.