Canada Post Corporation wants to introduce a new job
evaluation plan during this round of bargaining. PSAC-UPCE agreed
several years ago to work with the employer towards developing a new job
evaluation plan that would reflect the evolving nature of our jobs and
be consistent with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value as
reflected in the Canadian Human Rights Act. But, the job evaluation plan
presented at the bargaining table, together with the employer’s
proposed pay plan, is inconsistent with our objectives and differs so
much from what was expected that we can't accept it. If the current
proposal was to be accepted, and the employer's pay scale used, 23% of
the membership will be either "red circled" at their current
rate of pay or faced with a salary decrease. In addition, it would
create unequal pay for work of equal value for some of our members.
Here are some answers to questions you might have on
the employer's classification plan and the employer's pay scale.
Q.1 What is the employer's job evaluation plan and
how does it differ from the current plan used to evaluate my position?
A. Under the proposed plan, all the positions
occupied by UPCE-PSAC members of the Canada Post bargaining unit will be
evaluated under a new set of factors. In the past, all UPCE-PSAC members
were evaluated using one of 15 classification plans inherited from the
federal government (under the Treasury Board classification system).
Q.2 Why did we agree to work with Canada Post at the
A. We agreed to work jointly to develop the factors
for this plan in order to introduce a new plan that would respect
section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, would not be
discriminatory, and at the same time would reflect the nature of modern
work. The current classification structure is incapable of measuring
work on the same criteria and therefore is incapable of identifying work
of equal value within the bargaining unit. The existing plans originated
in close to 40 years ago. They reflect old ways of working and predate
the use of computers in the work place.
top of page
Q.3 What happened to force us to REJECT the new job
A. We jointly developed the nine factors used in this
plan. We wanted to jointly develop the weighting of each factor but CPC
did not want to do so. Instead they wanted us to accept their weightings
at the bargaining table. We now understand why. CPC’s proposed
weightings we feel are inconsistent with the CORPORATE values we both
value highly and may be discriminatory. They would not have been
endorsed by the joint steering committee which developed the job
Q.4 Give me an example of this weight problem?
A. The employer’s proposal weights
"Knowledge" at 40% of the total value. It also weights the
"Information" factor at 15% and "Contacts" at 10%.
The three "Effort and Working Conditions" factors are weighted
at only 6%. We feel that these weighting may unfairly favour particular
jobs and be discriminatory. In addition, the weighting of the contacts
factor is contrary to the emphasis placed on this factor in the design
of the plan.
top of page
Q.5 I understand how the job evaluation plan works, but what is its
impact on the pay scale?
A . The job evaluation plan results in each position
receiving a total score based on the nine factors in the plan. Point
ranges can then be established for different levels or classifications
of work and all positions receiving total point scores within that range
are considered to be classified at the same level. For each level, pay
ranges are then established.
The pay ranges proposed by the employer for the new
classification levels are so low that they would result in the 23% of
our members being placed in a lower salary range. So far the employer
has not agreed to provide salary protection even if their proposal was
The employer’s proposal also creates a significant
inequity for some of our members. The employer’s pay proposal actually
creates two different classification streams. The first is the A scale
and consists of six levels. These progress from 200 to 1,171 points. The
second scale is the T scale and it consists of three levels starting at
848 points and going as high as 1,797 points.
The employer’s proposal creates a situation where
the A5 point range overlaps with the T1 point range and where the A6
point range overlaps with the T1 and T2 point ranges. The employer’s
proposal is to assign only those positions that receive degree 4 for the
"Knowledge" factor and have a point total over 848 points to
the T scale. All other positions would be assigned to the A scale. For
example, to be classified in the level 5 of the Administrative Group,
you need between 848 and 1,009 points. To be classified in the first
level of the Technical Group, you need between 850 and 1,165 points.
But the maximum pay for a A5 job would be $46,379,
while the maximum for a T1 would be $59,944, a difference of $13,656 for
jobs that have the same number of points in the job evaluation plan.
Q.6 But isn't it fair to pay more for jobs that are
evaluated at a higher level?
A. The employer recognizes that positions in the A5
and T1 classifications are jobs of equal value, but Canada Post wants to
pay them differently because some of the jobs received a higher score
under one factor. This is not fair and is not consistent with the
concept of equal pay for work of equal value and it may be in violation
of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
top of page
Q.7 What are we going to do?
A. Your bargaining team has rejected the employer's
rationale and its pay proposal. So should you. We made clear in our
discussion with Canada Post that their plan is not acceptable to us, nor
will it be acceptable to you.
Q.8 What can I do to make sure this plan is not
forced on us?
A. Talk about the plan with your colleagues. Let your
supervisors know that this is not acceptable and that you are ready to
challenge the employer if they insist on introducing this job evaluation
plan and a new pay scale. Support all the mobilization actions of your
bargaining team so that Canada Post knows we are united in our
top of page