Canada Post Corporation

PSAC Canada Post Corporation Negotiations Update

The Job Evaluation Plan

NEW: The employer's proposal

January 7, 2002

As you know, your Bargaining Team wanted to separate, in November, the Job Evaluation Plan (JEP) from the rest of negotiations due to its complexity, importance, and in order to achieve a collective agreement before Christmas. Obviously, the Corporation disagreed and as predicted, we did not reach a tentative agreement before Christmas. Appendix D (item #10) of the current Collective Agreement states:

"Prior to the new job evaluation plan coming into force and replacing the current classification standards, the parties shall first establish pay levels and negotiate the rates of pay applicable to each level established, the rules governing conversion of employees to the new pay structure and salary protection provisions for any affected employees, as well as the changes in the collective agreement required to implement the new job evaluation plan."

The Corporation is trying to convince the members that the Job Evaluation Plan should be dealt with now without choices or options and without it being fully negotiated with your Bargaining Team (your Bargaining Team had submitted a first full counter proposal on December 10, 2001, before the Corporation included their revised plan in the "global/final offer" depriving us of further counter proposals). The parties have been working on a new Job Evaluation Plan for years (it has been in the collective agreement since 1994 but discussions have been taking place over the last 20 years). Millions of dollars have been spent to get a new plan. After all of this, we definitely should not be ramming it through before the problems have been corrected. In its current forced upon form, it still has serious equity and fairness problems. Some of which are:

1. Weightings and point rate factors not agreed upon. CPC has never given your bargaining team the actual point scores assigned to each position.

2. As of December 17, 2001, not all jobs had been evaluated. Some 300 jobs had not been properly evaluated (only estimates) and no mechanism to deal with them properly was included in the employer proposal.

3. The Steering Committee and the Working Committee assumed that there would be only one pay scale, not two. The employer never indicated in any way that they were contemplating two pay plans under one job evaluation plan.

4. No discussion was held regarding the status of surplus members.

5. In addressing the discriminatory overlap of some 300 positions (from the previous version), the employer took money away from the lowest paid end to put in the highest paid end. Although we are glad to see the higher end get more money, we do not think it should be done at the expense of the lower end.

6. 10% of our membership is identified as "overpaid".

Also, we have further concerns with the Corporation’s proposed language to implement this Plan (available at the bottom of this page). For example:

1. Dispute Resolution: If you do not agree with where you fall in their system, you can submit a request for review. However, the Corporation's proposal limits the Committee's jurisdiction in review and amendments. If you were in dispute with your supervisor/manager as to how work was reflected in this conversion period, you would not be able to dispute that part of your work at all. Currently, under the present classification grievance system, if you and your supervisor/manager do not agree with your job description you may provide documentation and this still is reviewed as support for your position. Under their proposed Dispute Resolution Committee, you do not have that option. Given the age of the data used and the rate of change at Canada Post, the accuracy of the information used could be a real concern for some.

2. Time frame if in dispute: They want all disputes in by February 15, 2002. Your bargaining team has never been provided with the point rating factors for your job, the Corporation has never fully disclosed all information. Keeping this in mind, let's hope the Corporation gives you all the information you will require if you need to dispute.

3. Are you planning to advance or get other opportunities within the bargaining unit? As you are aware, the JEP itself was only working on one scale not two. How do you get from the "A" group to the "T" group? In addition, getting opportunities will be harder if we cannot stop the Corporation's proposal to change Article 27.07 on temporary assignments from just within our bargaining unit to all personnel.

4. The employer also introduced, with its global offers, the concept of "designation" i.e. for all articles currently applicable only to certain "classifications". These articles would now be applicable only to certain "designations" (e.g. 25.07, 25.09, 33.02, 35.02, 44.02, 50. etc.). However, no explanation has been provided regarding the administration of these designations. We were supposed to do away with the old Treasury Board classifications. How will these designations work and be administered once there is mobility between positions? Will there be mobility restrictions imposed?

5. The employer is only willing to make reference, in the collective agreement, to job factors and degrees. We need a lot more than that. For example, it is essential that the benchmark jobs and their position description be part of the manual (as well as the Job Information Gathering Tool). In addition, the weightings and the bands used in the evaluation also need to be in the manual. Not to include them would allow the Corporation to UNILATERALLY change them.

Below is the proposed scales by the Corporation:

A1: cr2,cr3,cr4, oe2, oe3

A2: cr3, cr4, cr5, st2, st3, as2, as3

A3: cr3, cr4, cr5, as1, as2, fi1

A4: cr4, cr5, as1, as2, as3, as4, fi1, pg1, pm2

A5: cr4, cr5, as1, as2, as3, as4, fi1, fi2, fi3, dd4, pg3, pm1, pm2, pm3, cs3, cs2

A6: cr5, as1, as2, as3, as4, as5, fi1, fi2, fi3, fi4, dd4, pg3, pm2, pm3, pm4, pm5, is3, cs1, cs2, da4, gt1

T1: as1, as2, as3, as4, as5, fi3, fi4, dd4, pg2, pg3, pg4, pm2, pm3, pm4, is3, is4, cs1, cs2, cs3, gt5, eg8, eng1

T2: as3, as4, as5, fi3, fi4, pg3, pg4, cs2, cs3, cs4, eg6, eg7, eg8, eg9, eng2, eng3, eng4, el6

T3: cs2, cs3, cs4, eg8, eg9, eng3, eng4, el7

The Corporation's proposed Administration Scale has 8 levels to reach the maximum pay and the proposed Technical Scale has 10 levels to reach the maximum pay. Does it really take that long to be fully trained and qualified to perform the duties of your position? The Negotiating Team believes you should reach the maximum sooner.

Your bargaining team urges you to think carefully on this and support our efforts to get a fair and equitable collective agreement for you, the membership.

Canada Post proposal on the Job Evaluation Plan

It's time we get our share!

In Solidarity,
Your bargaining team