Skip to footer
My InfoUniversity of Ottawa Information Technology Professionals

(A) Joint evaluation Committee (JEC) for the Group of Information Technology Professionals at the University of Ottawa (UOITP) represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC)

Commitee mandate:

The committee's mandate is to maintain the job evaluation and classification system for those positions held by members of the Group of Information Technology Professionals at the University of Ottawa (UOITP) represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (Institute). The job evaluation process is designed to objectively measure the true value of a position relative to other positions by assigning a salary class and ensuring pay equity.

Principles:

  • The parity committee exercises in a transparent, fair and objective manner.
  • Committee discussions are confidential.
  • Job evaluations are based on the job description and the evaluation request form. The performance of the incumbent in the position has no bearing.
  • The personal interests of any committee member may at no time have an effect on a job evaluation.
  • The job evaluation and classification system is applied equally and consistently for all UOITP positions represented by the Institute, without exception.
  • The job evaluation and classification process are neutral and meet the requirements of the Pay Equity Act.
  • In order to maintain internal pay equity, the committee ensures that new evaluations are equitable and with respect to the evaluations previously carried out before the JEC was formed.

Composition:

  • The UOITP Joint Evaluation Committee is comprised between the Institute and the employer.
  • The committee is made up of an equal number. At each meeting, three (3) Institute members and three (3) employer members will be present.
  • Quorum is four (4) members, composed of at least of two (2) Institute members and two (2) employer members. The Parties will act with due diligence in order to ensure that the committee can continue to sit as often as possible when a member must be absent.
  • Each party designates a committee co-chairperson, who will alternate in presiding over meetings.

Roles and responsibilities:

Employer co-chairperson:

  • Is a JEC member whose presence is always required.
  • Ensures the participation of two (2) other employer representatives at each committee meeting.
  • Manages the classification request process from the reception of the request until the result is communicated.
  • Prepares the information and documentation required for the evaluation.
  • Informs committee members of their obligation to maintain confidentiality and to disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • Ensures that the justification of the evaluations is recorded and documented.
  • Ensures the training of University members of the evaluation committee.
  • Documents conflicts of interest that were disclosed and the way in which they were managed.

UOITP co-chaiperson:

  • Is a JEC member whose presence is always required.
  • Ensures the participation of three (3) member representatives (including co-chairperson) at each committee meeting.
  • Signs, together with the employer co-chairperson, the notice communicating the results of the evaluation.
  • Informs committee members of their obligation to maintain confidentiality and to disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • Ensures that the justification of the evaluations is recorded and documented.
  • Ensures the training of UOITP members of the evaluation committee. The University will assume the costs associated with training a maximum of two (2) members per fiscal year.
  • Documents conflicts of interest that were disclosed and the way in which they were managed.

Operation:

  • The Hay Group job evaluation method is used to evaluate all positions, without exception. When the committee receives a request to evaluate a position, it may ask the dean or service director to make a short presentation before the committee or answer questions. The committee will forward, in advance, the questions in writing to the dean or service director. The dean or department chair and the incumbent will sign the answers submitted to the committee.
  • Committee decisions are taken by all members present and must be unanimous. A final decision cannot be contested by a member on the basis of being absent for an evaluation.
  • Lists of all UOITP position evaluations and breakdowns of attributed points are distributed during committee meetings.
  • A member in conflict of interest with any evaluation taking place must not participate in the evaluation in question. A conflict of interest arises when a committee member is a member of the immediate family of the incumbent whose position is being assessed or if the committee is evaluating the member's own position, or the position of one of the member's superior or direct subordinate. The conflict of interest must be documented. If a member must refrain from participating due to a conflict of interest, an alternate will take the member's place.
  • Committee members hold a two-year (2) term, which may be renewed if the two co-chairs agree.

Evaluation requests:

  • Evaluation requests must be submitted by the dean of the faculty in question or by the service director, or be filed in accordance with Article 47 of the Agreement..
  • Documents to accompany the request for evaluation include a description of the duties (previous and new description, with changes highlighted), the organizational chart (before and after) and the completed evaluation request form (the evaluation form must be made before the first meeting occurs). The new description of duties must be signed by the incumbent and all documentation must be signed by the manager as well as the dean or director.
  • All evaluation requests will be reviewed by the co-chairs. They will submit these requests to the committee in the following circumstances:
    • A new position is created.
    • The responsibilities of an existing position substantially change.
    • When a faculty, service or department is reorganized and significant changes have been made to position responsibilities.
    • The description of duties is three (3) years or older and the responsibilities of a position have changed substantially.
    • Any other position evaluation requests deemed necessary by the co-chairs.
  • Within ten (10) working days following the committee meeting, the co-chairs provide written notice of the committee's decision to the dean or director and forward a copy to the manager. The manager communicates the results of the evaluation to the employee. The dean or director can meet with the co-chairs if they would like further details of the evaluation decision.

Appeal Process:

  • Re-examination:

  • Within ten (10) days following the receipt of the JEC decision, the employee, the dean or department director, depending on the case, or their representative may request in writing that the evaluation of the job description is the subject of a review if they believe that the JEC did not consider some elements at the time of evaluation. A letter explaining the reasons shall be submitted to the JEC with the request for review.

  • The JEC will review the request and make a binding decision without prejudice to an appeal to the Classification Appeal Committee (CAC).

  • Classification Appeal Committee (CAC)

  • The Classification Appeal Committee is composed of the following three (3) members:

  • The costs for the external consultant are shared equally by the University and the Institute.

  • Motives and procedures for presenting a request to the CAC:

  • In witness whereof, the parties have signed on February 22, 2018.