PSAC-UPCE at Canada Post
Information Bulletin

23% Overpaid? 100% Outraged!

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.

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).

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

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 evaluation plan.

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 accepted.

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.

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

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.

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 opposition.

top of page

What is the employer's job evaluation plan

Why did we agree to work with Canada Post at the beginning?

What happened to force us to REJECT the new job evaluation plan?

Give me an example of this weight problem?

I understand how the job evaluation plan works, but what is its impact on the pay scale?

But isn't it fair to pay more for jobs that are evaluated at a higher level?

What are we going to do?

What can I do to make sure this plan is not forced on us?