Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) for administrative staff positions of the University of Ottawa member of the Bargaining Unit

Committee Mandate : The JEC mandate is to maintain the job evaluation and classification system for positions for the Bargaining Unit of SSUO. The job evaluation process aims at accurately and objectively measures the relative worth of positions over one another by assigning a salary class and ensuring pay equity.

Principles:

The parity committee functions in a transparent, honest 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 consistently for all SSUO positions without exception.
The job evaluation and classification process is neutral and meets 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 creation of the joint committee.

Composition of the Committee:

The job evaluation committee of the SSUO Bargaining Unit is comprised of the Bargaining Unit and the University.
The committee is made up of an equal number from both parties. At each meeting, the Bargaining Unit and the University, will be both represented by three (3) representatives.
Quorum for the committee is four (4) members wherein at least two (2) representatives of the Bargaining Unit and two (2) representatives of the University. All necessary efforts will be undertaken to ensure parity during meetings when a member must be absent for any reasons.
Each party appoint a co-chairperson for the committee. Each co-chairperson shall alternate in chairing each meeting.

Roles and responsibilities:

Employer Co-Chairperson:

Is a member of the JEC whose attendance 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 communication of the result. Jointly signs communication of the evaluation results with the co-chair of the Bargaining Unit.
Prepares and shares the information and documentation required for the evaluation with committee.
Informs committee members of their obligations 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 members of the evaluation committee representing the employer.
Documents conflicts of interest that were disclosed and how they were dealt with.

Bargaining Unit Co-Chairperson:

Is a member of the JEC whose attendance is always required.
Ensures the participation of two (2) other Bargaining Unit representatives at each committee meeting.
Manages the classification request process including the communication of the results. Jointly signs the communication of the evaluations results with the co-chair of the University.
Informs committee members of their obligations 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 the Bargaining Unit members of the evaluation committee.
Documents conflicts of interest that were disclosed and how they were dealt with.

Operation of the Committee:

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 manager or the dean or the service director to make a short presentation before the committee or to answer its questions. The committee will forward, in advance, the questions in writing to the manager, dean or director. The manager, dean or director and the incumbent will sign the answers submitted to the committee.
Decisions are only made by consensus of all members present during the evaluation by the committee. A final decision cannot be contested by a member on the basis of being absent for an evaluation.
List of all evaluated Bargaining Unit SSUO positions and breakdowns of attributed points are distributed during committee meetings.
A member in conflict of interest with any job evaluation taking place must not participate in the job 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 replace the member.
The Committee members' mandate is two (2) years and may be extended with the agreement of the Bargaining Unit and the employer.

Evaluation Requests :

Evaluation requests must be submitted by the dean of the faculty or by the service director, or be filed by a delegate possessing this power.
Documents required to evaluate a position include the job description (previous and new description, with changes highlighted), the organizational chart (before and after) and the completed evaluation request form. All documents must be signed by the incumbent, 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 or vacant.
- The responsibilities of an existing position substantially change.
- When a faculty, service or department has been restructured and significant changes have been made to position responsibilities.
- The job description is three (3) years or older.
- 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 with copy to the manager. The manager communicates the results of the evaluation to the employee. The employee can meet with the co-chairs if he wants further details.

Appeal Procedure:

If the incumbent and / or manager are not satisfied with the evaluation of a position and the dean, the director or the person with the delegated authority agree, they can submit an application to review the committee's decision. In this situation, a detailed letter explaining the reasons for the review will be reviewed by the Co-Chairs and subsequently submitted to the committee for consideration. This last assessment by the evaluation committee will be final.

Process provided when there is no consensus on the evaluation of a position:

Committee members agree in good faith to make every effort to reach consensus when evaluating positions. Where consensus is not possible, the evaluation is forwarded to a committee comprised of three (3) members:

The Associate Vice-President, HR or designate;
A member of the Bargaining Unit;
An external expert in Hay classification system appointed by the first two members.

The parties will agree on the selection of the external expert in Hay classification system. The evaluation made by this committee is decided by the majority and the decision is final. The costs of the expert shall be shared equally between the University and the Bargaining Unit.

Signed on this 16th day of December 2016