Chris Aylward, president of The Public Service Alliance of Canada, says “old-fashioned favouritism” is alive and well in the public service.

The federal staffing watchdog doesn’t believe favouritism is alive and well in Canada’s public service, with people landing jobs because of whom they know.

Patrick Borbey, president of the Public Service Commission (PSC), said the commission’s regular audits of staffing simply don’t bear out union claims that an increasing number of people are hired or promoted on the strength of personal connections or “whom they know.”

Borbey said he’s puzzled and concerned by the claims, and intends to dig into what could be feeding such perceptions.

The PSC is the government’s recruitment arm and merit watchdog that is supposed to ensure a neutral and non-partisan public service.

“I think the problem is with communication and perceptions,” Borbey said. “Audits have not shown issues with merit. They show managers are doing a good job, but maybe they aren’t communicating their decisions, which is contributing to perceptions.”

But union leaders recently told MPs on the government and operations committee that favouritism is a consequence of a “broken staffing system” that takes 197 days to fill a job. The committee is holding hearings into why it takes so long to hire.

They claim that: the merit principle that governs staffing has become watered down; hiring has become arbitrary and unfair; and a growing number of employees feel “whom you know” is a ticket to a job promotion.

Chris Aylward, president of the giant Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), called it “old-fashioned favouritism.”

Ironically, unions backed up their claims with the PSC’s most recent — and first — survey on staffing and non-partisanship. It found just over half of employees say appointments depend on whom you know.

The survey also found that less than half — about 46 per cent — felt the staffing in their work unit was fair. About 44 per cent said it was transparent.

That’s a far cry from what managers who do the hiring thought. They overwhelmingly felt staffing was fair and open and that hiring was based on merit.

Nearly 92 per cent of managers believed people meet the performance expectations of the job for which they were hired. A similar proportion said people hired are a good fit with the team.

About 75 per cent of managers said they have not felt any outside pressure to hire particular employees. Most — about 88 per cent — do feel staffing is burdensome, and 63 per cent say it’s “not quick enough.”

Borbey said he thought the divergence of views could be a problem of communication.

He said managers have to be more transparent in their decision-making, explaining to employees how jobs will be filled, what skills they’re looking for, and why someone was selected.

Borbey said recent audits, which examined 25 departments and the records of 400 staffing actions, found they met nearly all the requirements of meritorious hiring “with compliance rates in the high 90s.” That audit has yet to be released.

The staffing survey was the first since the PSC introduced its new Direction in Staffing. It reduced 12 policies to one and reinforced that deputy ministers have the authority and flexibility to hire the talent needed in their departments.

It was sent to all full-time or term employees, hiring managers and staffing advisers for their views on staffing issues, such as fairness, transparency and merit. About 102,000 employees completed the survey, conducted between February and April 2018.

The PSC used to audit every department every seven years, but now relies on departments to conduct compliance audits. The PSC will examine those audits as part of a broader “horizontal audit” to spot trends or risks that undermine the merit principle.

Unions aren’t surprised managers are happy with the system and consider it fair. They say managers are following the rules, which allow them to fill jobs without advertising them with candidates they think are the “best fit.”

“The deck is stacked in their favour,” said one union official. “They may think it takes too much time, but they aren’t going to complain, because they can get the candidates they want.”

Dany Richard, president of the Association of Canadian Financial Officers, recently told MPs that the rise in unadvertised competitions “undermines the very goals of the staffing system, and reinforces the belief that public-sector hiring is about whom you know.”

“There are times when unadvertised competitions are necessary. They are useful tools for exceptional circumstances. However, they should not be used to circumvent a broken staffing system.”

Some say the PSC’s efforts to streamline policy and build a faster recruitment system won’t address perceptions of favouritism that come with the rise of non-advertised and acting appointments to fill jobs.

“I’d say the more senior in the hierarchy the job is, the less the (PSC) inventory is used and it’s more whom you know,” said one longtime senior executive.

“The PSC is focused on creating an inventory of jobs, but if you can look down the hall and see who you have, then you have to ask: Will that inventory get used?”

The PSC’s GC Jobs website is an inventory of all advertised external and internal competitions. Managers have to post a “notice of consideration” if they hire someone as an unadvertised appointment before the decision can be confirmed.

The number of non-advertised appointments is not included in the 47,900 people the PSC reported were hired into the public service last year.

Aylward said employees question the fairness of hiring when they see permanent jobs being filled that they didn’t even know were vacant.

“It’s not necessarily the best-qualified people getting those jobs, and our members see that,” Aylward told MPs. “They see that in just about every staffing process. They can see the favouritism.”

Aylward said the PSC’s new direction pushes deputy ministers to delegate staffing to the lowest-level managers, which is creating an accountability gap.

“The lack of accountability opens the door to arbitrary staffing decisions and, at the very least, the appearance of favouritism,” said Aylward.

He said employees who qualify to be included in various talent pools are disheartened when they see jobs filled by people who weren’t even in the pool.

“The expectation, because you get into this pool is like, ‘Great, I’m in the pool. I’m qualified, and now all I have to do is wait to get picked out of the pool.’ Then all of a sudden, along comes Mr. Richard and then, boom, he gets the job.”

Aylward said favouritism is also evident in internal and external hiring. He said most new hires previously worked on a casual or term basis, and developed relationships that helped them get jobs.

“They’re terms. They’re casuals. Therefore, once they’re in, then, as we talked about, it becomes whom you know.”

Follow @kathryn_may