The Department of Immigration refused to follow the advice of the Ombudsman following a Bermudian’s complaint about being overlooked for a job.

The Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 2014, tabled in the House of Assembly yesterday, also claims that the Minister for Home Affairs declined the recommendations of the Department of Immigration to revoke a work permit related to the complaint.

According to the report, in December 2013 the Ombudsman received a complaint from a Bermudian professional — not named in the report — about both the Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Immigration.

The professional stated that she had applied for an advertised post but, out of concern that the employer had inflated experience requirements, provided the Ministry and Department with a copy of her application along with her concerns.

She complained she was never contacted by the employer and was informed three months later that a work permit had been issued in connection to the advertised post.

The department had reportedly asked the employer whether any Bermudians had applied, and the employer said no.

The professional, however, gave the department evidence that she had applied within the advertised period.

After an investigation, the Minister decided against revoking the work permit.

The Ombudsman then investigated the matter, and found that it is the ministry and the department’s duty to ensure that its policies are being adhered to.

“In this case, the professional provided information which was received by the department, but nothing of consequence was done with that information prior to the work permit being issued,” the report stated. “In the circumstances, a failure to enquire further of the professional amounted to maladministration.”

The investigation also revealed that the employer had closed their mailbox one day before the advertised deadline — something the department had not made any reference to; and that the department had recommended that the work permit be revoked, but the Minister disagreed.

“The Minister gave written reasons for his decision which differ from the findings of the department,” the report stated. “These reasons were not provided to the professional.”

As a result of the findings, the Ombudsman recommended that the department write a without prejudice apology for failing to follow proper process, including a detailed explanation about what went wrong and what steps were being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.

The Ombudsman also recommended the department look carefully at how the employer conducts itself after the work permit expires and give the professional the minister’s reasons to not revoke the permit.

More general recommendations were also listed, including that the department review its file management system and amend its advertising guidelines so that changing closing dates or application addresses render the advertisement invalid.

The ministry did not respond to the recommendations, but the department responded that it would not provide an apology or provide the reasons for the minister’s decision; it did pledge to look carefully at the employer’s actions and amend advertising guidelines.

“The department has not provided us with specific information on how it will consider the employer’s conduct in the future,” the report stated.

“It has advised that the recommendation regarding the ‘Work Permit Advertising Criteria’ has been included already in the department’s draft Work Permit Policy, which was implemented in March 2015.

“We draw the public’s attention to the ministry’s and the department’s failure to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations, purposely crafted to address the unfairness to the professional in this complaint,” the report states. “The Ombudsman has no power to compel a department to implement our recommendations.”

Asked about the report yesterday, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Home Affairs said: “The Ministry has fundamental disagreements with the assessments and intends to address these at a press conference next week.”