As a result of the recent vacancy filling exercises, we are aware of a number of issues affecting members. We requested a meeting with the official side to discuss these and this is a report of those discussions.

1. Who is responsible for the various stages in the process?

We established that there are clear areas of responsibility. People Function are responsible for producing the policy that businesses operate within. Work Force Management are responsible for giving permission to advertise after checking the redeployment pool list and overseeing that aspect. Civil Service Recruitment provide the platform for advertising posts and applying for posts. Businesses are responsible for deciding if there is a vacancy, what the vacancy is, setting the selection criteria and appointing the most suitable candidate.

2. Lessons learned

The official side acknowledged that the exercises could have run smoother and have a number of ‘lessons learned’ to take forward. These include:-

It was recognised that this caused considerable problems for some staff and will be included in a PIR exercise.

The involvement of a manager in the application process

The official side felt that whilst there had been lots of information for applicants, not much was communicated to managers about their role. It is clear that managers have a role in determining that the facts an applicant has given are accurate but they are not responsible for deciding if an applicant is suitable for a particular posts. That is the job of the sift/interview panel.

It was accepted that the businesses need to be clearer on adverts about what, if any, relocation allowances are applicable. It is also not expected that if a part time worker applies for a full time post, they would be expected to remain on part time hours or that part time workers should be ineligible to apply for posts based on their hours

Reserve lists

Again, businesses need to be clear at the start of the process whether reserve lists will be used and how long they will remain in place.

There was some confusion for priority applicants about what they needed to complete against an ordinary applicant. This is partly due to the CSR platform being generic and not necessarily compatible with our processes. This is being taken forward.

It was acknowledged that a lack of GSI access for some staff caused considerable problems in completing the application and this is being taken forward by the official side. The concerns over Data Security where staff are completing applications at home is resolved. For reference, there is no issue with staff emailing information between work and home providing the information does not include restricted information such as customer information etc.

Eligibility

Again, the official side confirmed they were aware of the confusion over who was eligible to apply and are taking this forward along with Work Force Management with a view to reducing or removing essential criteria in future rounds.

Inconsistency over the approach to sifting, relative to the leadership behaviours for each HMRC vacancy

The official side explained the rationale for allowing businesses to decide on key criteria. This is because in some jobs the applicant will be expected to hit the ground running in certain areas or because it will be used as an initial sift to reduce applications were the volume is unmanageably high. Whilst we would not necessarily accept their view we have asked that at least it is made clear on each advert what, if any, the key criteria is.

The official recognise that staff may not have had the results of one exercise at the point were more vacancies become available. The view of both the official side and DTUS is that staff should not refrain from applying for a post they want simply because a previous application hasn’t been finalised. However, it is clear that due to the current job situation, staff will no longer have the option of refusing one post on the basis of wanting something better. Therefore if you apply for a post you should be absolutely sure that you want it as if you are successful, you will be appointed.

The official side has recognised that the quality of some feedback leaves something to be desired. A major piece of work has been commissioned by Mike Falvey to look at the quality of feedback with a view to achieving significant improvement.

It is clear from our discussions that whilst People Function and Civil Service Recruitment both have roles to play in the process, much of the responsibility for the clear and smooth running of vacancy filling is with the individual businesses, both of applicants and the vacancy holder.

PCS will continue to monitor the process in future exercises and continue discussions with People Function, however where individuals have concerns they should in the first instance seek advice from their Branch who will escalate it to the appropriate Assistant Group Secretary (AGS) if needed. Where there are overarching issues, the AGS’s will raise it with the AGS with the policy portfolio.