Rules concerning conflicts of interest during recruitment

Content on this page:

• Lund University is a public authority
• Conflict of interest according to the law
• Examination of potential conflicts of interest
• Participation in processing, reporting conflicts of interest, and assessing conflicts of interest

Lund University is a public authority

Since universities and colleges are public authorities, the preparation and decision-making in recruitment must be characterised by objectivity and impartiality. To ensure that the recruitment process is impartial in all aspects and that impartiality cannot be questioned, there are rules regarding conflicts of interest (Sections 16–18 of the Administrative Procedure Act 2017:900).

A conflict of interest refers to a circumstance that undermines confidence in a particular member's or official's impartiality in the preparation of a matter. If a person who is to participate in a decision has a personal connection to the issue, that person's impartiality can be questioned, and for that reason, the person must not be involved in the preparation.

Those who are to participate in the preparation of a recruitment matter must carefully examine whether there is a conflict of interest. This applies to everyone involved in the process, not just those who make decisions in a matter. Employees who only register, print, dispatch, or perform similar tasks are not considered to have a conflict of interest.

Conflict of Interest According to the Law

Section 16 of the Administrative Procedure Act describes the conflict of interest provisions as follows:

Anyone who, on behalf of an authority, participates in the handling of a matter in a way that can influence the authority's decision in the matter is considered to have a conflict of interest if:

1. He or she or a close relative is a party to the matter or can otherwise be assumed to be affected by the decision to a significant extent*.
2. He or she or a close relative is or has been a representative or agent for a party in the matter or for someone else who can be assumed to be affected by the decision to a significant extent.
3. He or she has participated in the final handling of a matter at another authority and, as a result, has already taken a position on issues that the authority is to examine as a superior instance.
4. There is some other special circumstance that makes his or her impartiality in the matter questionable**.

If it is obvious that the question of impartiality is irrelevant, the authority should disregard the conflict of interest.

*Point 1: Party Conflict, Interest Conflict, and Close Relative Conflict

Point 1 can be divided into three different types of conflicts: party conflict, interest conflict, and close relative conflict.

• Party Conflict: This involves a person who participates in the preparation of the matter also being a party to the matter. For example, someone preparing an employment matter where they themselves are an applicant.
• Interest Conflict: This involves the outcome of the recruitment providing a clear advantage or disadvantage to someone involved in the preparation. An example could be a member of the teacher proposal committee having a joint project with one of the applicants in a recruitment matter, and thus could be assumed to have an interest in who is proposed for employment.
• Close Relative Conflict: This involves a person preparing a matter being considered to have a conflict of interest when a close relative is affected by the matter according to the aforementioned types of conflicts. For example, a member of the teacher proposal committee's sibling or partner applying for a position.

**Point 4: Delicacy Conflict

Point 4 aims to capture conflict situations, delicacy conflicts, that are not covered by the other grounds for conflict. According to this general clause, the person preparing a matter is considered to have a conflict of interest if there is some other special circumstance that makes their impartiality in the matter questionable.

It is not possible to precisely specify which cases fall under this point, but it could involve financial dependence as well as strong friendship or enmity.

In recruitment matters, it could, for example, involve delicacy conflicts if an expert and one of the candidates to be reviewed by the expert have jointly published scientific works recently. When it comes to situations with joint authorship, the assessment mainly depends on how extensive the collaboration has been and how much time has passed since the collaboration ended. It is difficult to specify exact limits for how long must have passed for the conflict of interest issue to be disregarded, as the assessment can be influenced by, for example, very rapid developments in the relevant research area.

In cases where there are objections to conflicts of interest due to disagreements between an expert and an applicant, which only stem from belonging to different schools of thought or research directions, it is not considered a conflict of interest. However, if there is a deeper disagreement between them that could lead to the expert's objectivity being questioned, it should be considered a conflict of interest.

Examination of Potential Conflicts of Interest

Everyone participating in the preparation of a matter must themselves examine whether there is a risk of conflict of interest. Preparation includes all work done in the recruitment process that affects the decision, i.e., everything from conducting a needs analysis and developing a requirement profile to the final decision to hire. Exceptions are made for people who only perform tasks such as booking rooms and refreshments or similar.

When assessing whether there is a risk of conflict of interest, one needs to look at the situation from the perspective of how an outsider would perceive it. Is there a risk that an outsider, who does not have the background clear, could perceive the situation as an employee of the authority having a conflict of interest? In such cases, it is reasonable to discuss together how it could be a conflict of interest. A thought experiment one can do is to think about how the situation could be described in a brief newspaper headline.

For recruitments handled through teacher proposal committees or similar, it is natural for such discussions to be ongoing. The discussion should be held both with the members and the handlers (HR-LFN), the institution's representatives in the recruitment, regardless of which part of the process they are involved in. Even the experts can benefit from participating in such discussions.

Participation in Processing, Reporting Conflicts of Interest, and Assessing Conflicts of Interest

According to Section 17 of the Administrative Procedure Act, anyone with a conflict of interest must not participate in the processing of the matter or in the decision-making process. Anyone with a conflict of interest in a matter at a meeting must not only refrain from speaking or voting but also leave the meeting room. Otherwise, their presence could influence the outcome of the matter.

Administrative Procedure Act:

Section 17: Anyone with a conflict of interest must not participate in the processing of the matter or be present when the matter is decided. However, they may perform tasks that no one else can perform without significantly delaying the processing.

Section 18: Anyone who becomes aware of a circumstance that could be assumed to create a conflict of interest must immediately report this to the authority. An authority must assess a conflict of interest issue as soon as possible. The person concerned by the conflict of interest may participate in the assessment of the conflict of interest issue only if it is necessary for the authority to be quorate and no substitute can be called in without significantly delaying the assessment.

A person with a conflict of interest may perform tasks that no one else can perform without significantly delaying the processing. In urgent matters that cannot be postponed, a person with a conflict of interest may even make decisions if this is necessary due to time constraints. However, this exception must be interpreted very restrictively, and it is very rare for such a situation to arise in recruitment matters. Poor planning of work can never justify a deviation from the main rule.

If a head of department or another person in a managerial position has a conflict of interest in a matter where they are expected to make a decision, they must not make the decision. The decision must be made by a deputy manager or a superior manager who does not have a conflict of interest.

Anyone who becomes aware of a circumstance that could be assumed to create a conflict of interest must immediately report this to the authority. The person with the conflict of interest is obliged to inform about it. Failure to report a conflict of interest may result in disciplinary action or even misconduct.

An authority must assess a conflict of interest issue as soon as possible. In such a situation, the person with the potential conflict of interest is generally considered to have a conflict of interest in participating in the assessment of the conflict of interest issue. If the situation is such that the authority is not quorate without them, and no substitute can be called in without significantly delaying the assessment, the person with the potential conflict of interest may participate in the assessment. If the authority decides in this assessment that there is no conflict of interest or that it does not need to be considered, the handler continues to participate in the processing of the matter.