Recommendations not implemented: Final Opinion on procedural unfairness in recruitment at MCAST

Recommendations not implemented: Final Opinion on procedural unfairness in recruitment at MCAST

Published November 06, 2024

Pursuant to Article 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Education have forwarded to the House of Representatives the Final Opinion on a case concerning alleged procedural unfairness in a recruitment process at the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST). This case raises issues regarding transparency and impartiality in recruitment for senior administrative roles within the institution.

The complaint

The complaint was submitted on 28th November 2023 by a non-academic staff member at MCAST. The complainant expressed concerns about the outcome of an interview held on 13th September 2023 for the post of Human Resources Director. He alleged that he was unfairly evaluated, resulting in low marks that led to his failing to reach the required pass mark. He considered that this treatment was linked to his history of raising concerns over procedural irregularities within MCAST.

The complainant raised concerns about potential bias, noting that two members of the interviewing panel—the College Principal and the Deputy Principal Administration—had close professional relationships with him, which he felt could affect their impartiality. Moreover, when he appealed the interview outcome, he found that two members of the Appeals Board were also senior members of MCAST’s management whose direct line relationship was with the College Principal, creating what he perceived to be a conflict of interest and procedural unfairness.

Facts and findings

The Commissioner for Education conducted a thorough investigation, obtaining all necessary documentation from MCAST. The information included detailed scoring by each panel member across seven applicants for the position. Upon review, the Commissioner found no direct evidence of bias in the allocation of marks, as only three applicants achieved a passing score, with the complainant ranking the highest among those who did not pass.

However, the lack of video recordings of such interviews made it impossible to assess whether all candidates were dealt with fairly and equitably.

Regarding the composition of the interview panel, the Commissioner observed that it is standard practice for senior administrative staff, such as the College Principal and Deputy Principal Administration, to participate in panels for posts that require close collaboration with them. Therefore, their presence on the interview panel was considered justified.

However, the Appeals Board's composition raised serious concerns. The Commissioner noted that it is a fundamental principle of natural justice that any right of appeal must be practical and effective, with members who are independent of the parties involved. In this case, two of the Appeals Board members had a direct line relationship with, and their posts were dependent upon, the College Principal, creating a clear conflict of interest. Although there was no evidence of intentional bias, the lack of independence in the Appeals Board rendered the appeal process procedurally unfair.

Conclusions and recommendations

The investigation revealed that MCAST’s recruitment practices lack sufficient transparency and safeguards against procedural unfairness. The Commissioner concluded that, while there was no concrete evidence of bias during the interview, the composition of the Appeals Board compromised the fairness of the entire recruiting process, leading to procedural injustice.

• To address these issues, the Commissioner recommended that MCAST implement the following measures to ensure greater transparency and accountability in future recruitment processes:
• Advance Notification of Panel Composition: Applicants should be informed of the interview panel’s composition ahead of time, allowing them to challenge the participation of any member if necessary.
• Video Recording of Interviews: All interviews, including those for teaching and senior administrative positions, should be fully video-recorded with the interviewees’ consent. These recordings should be retained for a set period to facilitate any appeals or reviews.
• Independent Appeals Board: Any Appeals Board established by MCAST should be genuinely independent of the parties involved in the initial decision, avoiding the dependency on line relationships.

Outcome

MCAST informed the Commissioner for Education of their decisions as to the recommendations. Regarding advance notification of the interview panel composition, MCAST stated that it disagreed with the recommendation and would not disclose in advance the identities of Interviewing Board members to candidates. With regard to the second recommendation on video recording of interviews, MCAST responded that it would not permit any recordings under any circumstances. However, as to the recommendation for an independent Appeals Board, MCAST indicated that it would amend its Appeals Board composition procedure to ensure independence and impartiality.

The Commissioner for Education responded to MCAST, emphasising that the three recommendations were aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in MCAST’s recruitment process. He further noted that adhering to a previous practice, even a practice followed by the Ministry for Education itself, is not a valid reason for rejecting improvements to transparency and accountability. Since two recommendations were not accepted, the Ombudsman and Commissioner wrote to the Prime Minister. When no action was taken, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Commissioner forwarded the final opinion and related correspondence to Parliament for further consideration.