WHOLE OF

GOVERNMENT

SPECIAL MEASURES SELECTION REPORT FOR ATSI APPLICANTS

FOUND UNSUITABLE IN PRIORITY CONSIDERATION
[TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY OCPE]

Before proceeding to assess non-ATSI applicants, this report and the required attachments
must be emailed to Public Sector Appeals & Grievance Reviews (psab@nt.gov.au) for review and
approval. The review will be completed within a maximum of 5 working days.
Please ensure that the reports summarises (briefly) the previous work history, level,
experience and qualifications of the applicant. Example assessments are provided below.

Required attachments:
1. Job Description
2. Copies of applications and any information submitted by the applicants found unsuitable
3. Any notes of referee discussions, referee reports, etc
4. Copies of any other information considered by the panel, e.g. panel notes etc

PANEL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Agency Work Unit

Job Title Designation
Position Number RTF
Reason for Vacancy
Current Occupant (if any)

SELECTION PANEL
Name Position Contact Number
Chair
Member
Member

DETAILS OF THE ASSESSMENT OF SPECIAL MEASURES APPLICANTS

No. Summary of the Applicants claims and reasons why panel concluded
the Applicant did not meet one or more of the essential selection
APPLICANT NAME
criteria, or is not suitable at the level required for the position, including
description of any steps taken in assessing the applicants

EXAMPLE ASSESSMENTS ARE SHOWN BELOW PLEASE DELETE THE EXAMPLES, WHICH ARE
PROVIDED TO ASSIST THE PANEL IN UNDERSTANDING THE SORT OF INFORMATION SOUGHT IN

www.nt.gov.au -1-
THE ASSESSMENT REPORTS

Ms Y Ms Ys previous work history has been a very short stint of only a few weeks
as a relief teacher, and prior to that for various short periods back to 2010 in
positions such as a Coordinator for Camp Australia NT and Outside School
Care; Pre-service Teacher and a Teacher Assistant Placement. This
vacancy requires the applicant to have demonstrated experience in
managing front office functions and providing financial and administration
support, and it is apparent from Ms Ys work history that these have not been
responsibilities or duties in her roles and that she has not had to perform
management and financial functions, or utilise administrative skills, which
means that she does not meet Selection Criteria 1 or 2.

Ms X Ms X employment for the past 3 years has been with ABC where she has
been a Supply Chain Administration Assistant Trainee, and prior to that an
Administration Assistant Trainee in ABCs Business Services unit from 2012
to 2013. It is apparent from her duties as she describes them that her role as
a trainee in both of those positions was at a lower level than this AO4 position
and did not require her to do any management of cash or receipt and banking
of monies. She therefore does not meet selection criterion 2 which requires
that the applicant have demonstrated experience in the handling of cash and
purchasing, including receipting and banking monies.

Mr Z Mr Zs graduated from high school in 2012 and his work history has been in
food services industry and hospitality since then. Recently, after obtaining a
diploma in Tourism he has been employed since December 2015 as a
trainee manager with XYZ Hotels. The panel concluded that this work
experience has not been at a level anywhere comparable to that of this SAO1
vacancy, and has not included experience managing staff and/or leading a
team, or in doing written work comparable to that required in this vacancy
which requires proven high level management and leadership experience,
and demonstrated skills in delivering strategic policy advice and complex
reports. Therefore the panel finds he is not suitable at the level of the
position.

Ms B Ms Bs written application stated that she has experience in relevant work

areas with **** and in jobs, in particular her most recent role of ***** that are
of comparable level to that expected for this vacancy. The panel decided to
contact two of her most relevant nominated referees: **** Director of ***, and
her most recent supervisor **** Manager of **** - to seek more information
about Ms Bs skills and experience and performance on the job. The referees
confirmed Ms Bs claims in relation to high-level and effective stakeholder
engagement but, although both spoke about her good written skills, neither
was able to confirm her claims to experience in providing high-level policy
advice. This confirmed the panels preliminary conclusion based on Ms Bs
resume that, although some of her roles had a policy component, she had not
held any high-level policy positions and therefore did not meet Selection
Criterion 1 and must be considered unsuitable.

Mr K It appeared from Mr Ks resume that he met the selection criteria, so the

panel contacted his nominated referee, Ms BB, Manager ****, who is his
direct supervisor in his current positon. She confirmed that his duties were as
he had stated on his resume, but said that she was unable to confirm that he
performed them to a high standard because he had a record of being
frequently absent from work without explanation and had therefore not gained
-2-
 good experience performing the duties of the position. She said she had
spoken to Mr K about this several times but that the behaviour had continued,
and she was therefore unable to recommend him as either a well-performing
or reliable employee. The panel then contacted a non-nominated referee, his
previous supervisor, who also cited a pattern of absenteeism leading to
unreliable performance, and to his eventual termination. The panel raised the
issues with the applicant, who confirmed there had been concerns, and did
not provide a explanation that satisfied the panel. On this basis the panel
concluded Mr K was not suitable at the level of the position because he does
not have the personal qualities and work ethic required to perform
satisfactorily as an NTPS employee.

Ms J Selection Criterion 1 for this role requires applicants to be a registered nurse

and to have had experience working at that level, and Ms J stated in her
application that she is an enrolled nurse but is not a registered nurse and
thus has no nursing experience at the level required. Ms J therefore does not
meet Selection Criterion 1 and the panel found her unsuitable.

Mr S The panel considered Mr Ss application and resume and noted that his
entire work history and his actual work experience have been in the
electrical industry, and that any training he has done has been vocational
training in that area, specifically in relation to electrical systems. The panel
concluded that he does not meet Selection Criteria 2 and 3 due to his never
having working in a statutory complaint handling environment and also, on
the basis of his resume, it is likely his training experience does not equate
to that contemplated in Selection Criterion 1. The panel considered it was
not necessary to consult referees because it was clear from Mr Ss resume
that he did not have the necessary qualification, or experience to the level
required.

Ms Y The panel found the information in Ms Ys resume about her experience with
records management systems to be unclear but, because she appeared to
have some relevant work history at the AO5 level of this position, the panel
decided to meet with her to clarify her experience. At interview the panel
explained that, because this is a short-term contract position, applicants
needed to have the extensive experience set out in Criterion 4 in order to
become proficient in the agencys system within a brief period. Ms Y told the
panel that, although she had worked in records management area, she had
not done so at a senior level, and had not been required to have full
knowledge of the system used in her workplace. After discussion with her
about the duties she indicated that she felt she would not be able to perform
the job without training. There is no one in the work place do provide the
training, and the position is vital. On this basis the panel concluded that Ms
Y did not meet Criterion 4 and had to be found unsuitable.

Mr G Mr Gs resume showed that he had a number of years experience in HR

(since 2010) and had recently completed his Cert IV in Training and
Assessment. However, so far he had not actually carried out any workplace
training, and therefore he did not meet Selection Criterion 1 which requires
extensive experience as a workplace trainer delivering complex material to
high level audiences. This meant he had to be found unsuitable for the
position, and the panel did not assess him against the remaining criteria.

-3-
___________________ ___________________ ___________________
***Panel Chair Name*** ***Panel Member Name*** ***Panel Member Name***
***Job Title*** ***Job Title*** ***Job Title***

Date: Date: Date:

HUMAN RESOURCES APPROVAL (optional depending on each Agencys process)

APPROVED/NOT APPROVED

________________________
***Name of HR Officer*** Date:

HR Comments if any:

OUTCOME OF PSA&GR REVIEW OF PANEL FINDING OF UNSUITABILITY

APPROVED THE PANEL MAY NOW PROCEED TO NOT APPROVED

ASSESS NON-SPECIAL MEASURES APPLICANTS

_______________________________
Name & Signature of PSA&GR Officer Date:

PSA&GR Comments if any:

-4-