Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOD-044-06 C!lJ!illgron REPORT CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday September 5, 2006 Report #: COD -044-06 File#: By-law #: GP4-3J-3-0Cc, Subject: Pay Equity Review - Consultant's Findings and Phase 2 Pay Equity Plan Revision RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. THAT Report COD-044-06 be received; 2. THAT the Review Report of the existing Pay Equity Plan by D & G Dudar Consultants, be received; 3. THAT the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to include a pre-budget approved amount of $30,000 (inclusive of GST), in the 2007 Administration Consulting account, for the purpose of proceeding with the development and implementation of revised Pay Equity Plans and Questionnaires, for Union and Non-Affiliated Employees, including the Library; 4. THAT the CAO be authorized to engage Consultants to undertake Phase 2 of the Pay Equity review, by developing a revised plan beginning early 2007; 5. THAT the suspension of the pay equity job review process approved by report COD- 65-05, be lifted; 6. THAT the existing Pay Equity Plan job review process continue essentially in its current form with Supervisory Approval Criteria established by the CAO, until the revised pay equity plan and process is put into effect; 7 . THAT during the transition period until the revised pay equity plan is in place, any recommendations by the Pay Equity Committees regarding adjustment to compensation be approved by the CAO; REPORT NO.: COD-044-06 PAGE 2 8. THAT, the recommendations put forward by the Consultant, essentially as outlined in the body of this report, be approved for incorporation as appropriate in the future pay equity maintenance process; 9. THAT the CUPE President be provided a copy of this report for the purpose of reviewing the content with the Union members; 1 O. THAT the CAG be authorized to seek input from the Union President, for the revision of the Pay Equity Plan for Unionized employees, which will be posted as a revised plan at the conclusion of the review; 11. THAT the Library Executive Director be provided a copy of this report for information and opportunity for input into the revision of the Pay Equity Plans and process, and to advise the Library Board of Council's actions; and 12. THAT, at the conclusion of the review, the CAG be authorized to post the revised Non-Affiliated Pay Equity Plan as an amended plan for comment by the Non- Affiliated group as required under the ACT. S"bmoted bY'~ Marie Marano Director of Corporate Services Reviewed by :() ~ ~ Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Attachment: D & G Dudar Consultants; Municipality of Clarington Pay Equity Review Report REPORT NO.: COO-044-06 PAGE 3 BACKGROUND 1.0 Pay Equity Review Authorized 1.1 Report COD-65-05 authorized the CAO to undertake an independent review of the Municipality's existing Pay Equity Plan (McDowall Plan) for applicability to today's work environment, with a report back to Council. 1.2 The review of Pay Equity questionnaires was suspended by report COD-65-05, awaiting the review of the plan and process. 1.3 Report COD-10-06 provided an in-camera update to the status of the RFP, which closed on March 1, 2006. As advised in report COD-10-06, the RFP submissions were anticipated to be within the purchasing by-law limits and funding approved by Council. The selection of the firm of D & G Dudar Consultants was determined by the CAO in conjunction with the Director of Corporate Services, Purchasing Manager, and the Human Resources Manager. 2.0 D & G Dudar Consultants Review and Recommendations 2.1 Don Dudar, of D & G Dudar Consultants met with the members of both Pay Equity Committees, including the Executive Director of the Library, for a comprehensive review of the issues surrounding the existing McDowall plan and the maintenance process. 2.2 The report of the Consultant is attached for information and reference. Senior Management concurs with the results of the review and the recommendations. 2.3 Essentially the following recommendations put forward by the Consultant, are proposed to be incorporation as appropriate in the future pay equity maintenance process under the direction of the Chief Administrative Officer: a. That the McDowall Plan for Pay Equity, and the accompanying questionnaire, be replaced with an updated tool for continued compliance with the Municipality's Pay Equity maintenance obligations; b. That organizational changes continue to be approved by Council through the annual budget process, and the CAO be authorized to effect pay equity adjustments provided they are within the approved budget and overall Corporate goals and objectives; c. That the two Committee structure remain to evaluate the pay equity review requests put forward by employees, with recommendations to the CAO for decision; REPORT NO.: COO-044-06 PAGE 4 d. That a system be established to formally record decisions and justification for recommended adjustments including decisions to grandfather or red-circle employees; e. That screening criteria be established to assist the employee in determining if a change in job function constitutes a significant change requiring a pay equity review; f. That applicants who have qualified for a review, be advised of the decision and reasoning of the Committee, by the CAO for Non-Affiliated employees, and by the Chair of the Union Committee together with a Union Representative from the Committee for Union employee applicants; g. That Employees be educated on the revised Pay Equity Plan and process, with particular emphasis on the job worth changes that require a review; h. That Supervisors review the workflow attached to review request applications that have qualified for a pay equity review to assess whether the position is performing the authorized and appropriate function, prior to approval of the request to proceed to the Committee for final review; I. That the CAO prepare a recommendation for alternate forms of recognition to address temporary or occasional work, for Council's approval. j. That future updates to the Pay Equity process will be undertaken as deemed timely by the CAO, within a 10 year period if possible, and any recommendation of substantive change put forward to Council for approval. 3.0 Next Steps; Phase 2 3.1 Phase 2 of the Pay Equity analysis was not addressed until the review of the existing McDowall plan was complete with recommendations advising on whether a new plan and process was appropriate. The recommendation from the Consultant clearly notes that the existing plan has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced. Management concurs with this recommendation. 3.2 It is recommended that a new plan and process be developed with the assistance of consultants, using the 2007 budget funds. Pre-budget approval is requested to permit the negotiation process to begin as soon as possible in 2007. 3.3 In the interim, it is therefore recommended that the existing Pay Equity review process continue so as not to impede any employee who feels that their job has changes substantially thereby warranting a review. The CAO will develop criteria applicable to the approval process of the review to ensure workflow analysis and substantial job changes are appropriately reflected; REPORT NO.: COD-044-06 PAGE 5 3.4 The consultant recommended that, consistent with the norm in both private industry, adjustments resulting from the review of pay equity applications be approved by the CAO. This is also the practice in the Durham area municipalities. It is recommended that this authority be extended over the existing and future adjustments, provided that the overall organizational goals are maintained, as approved by Council. 3.5 The intention in developing a new Union pay equity plan and process, in compliance with the Pay Equity Act, is to provide an opportunity for input by the Union into the plan applicable to its members. The plan, once agreed upon by the Bargaining Unit and the Municipality, will be posted in accordance with the ACT. It is not subject to comment by employees as the Bargaining Unit is empowered to negotiate the plan on behalf of its members. 3.6 The Non-Affiliated group, according to the ACT, have the opportunity to submit comments to the employer during the required 90 days when the plan is posted. The opportunity will be provided for the Executive Director of the Library to have input into the plans also considering that the Municipality is the Library employer for Pay Equity purposes. 3.7 It is proposed that the revised plans will incorporate a method to translate the existing pay equity scores into the new plan such that there will not be an analysis of each employee under the new criteria. The review may identify some employees who require adjustment to fit into the new plan, and it is recommended that these adjustments be approved by the CAO unless the overall adjustment is deemed to be of significant budgetary impact. 3.8 The Director of Finance concurs with the pre-budget approval recommendations outlined in this report. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-6506 Attachment II Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington Report of D & G DUDAR CONSULTANTS Rega rd i ng the Review of Existing Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................2 Brief History...........................................................................................................................................................2 Observations Regarding the McDowell Job Evaluation Plan (the "McDowell Plan")..4 Observations Regarding Practice..............................................................................................................5 Appendix "A" - Job Evaluation System Concerns................................................................9 Appendix "B" - Process Concerns .............................................................................................11 Executive Summary D & G DUDAR CONSULTANTS (the "Consultant", or "we") has completed its review of pay equity and job evaluation initiatives at the Municipality of Clarington (the "Corporation", "Municipality" or "Clarington"). Our review included meetings with members of the pay equity evaiuation committees for both the represented and non-represented groups, a review of corporate records related to pay equity and discussions with Administration. From these records, we note that Council has received a briefing on the history and practice of pay equity in Clarington. This was a detailed briefing, and set out the Municipality's obligations and experience in regard to pay equity. As a resuit of that briefing, Council directed Administration to obtain external, expert advice, specifically with regard to the appropriateness of the currently used McDowell Universal Job Evaluation Plan, and a range of related questions concerning compliance. Detailed recommendations follow in two parts below. However, in general, they are to: 1. Replace the McDowell Universal Job Evaluation Plan with a more appropriate and contemporary plan; 2. Change the focus of Council approval from the details of pay equity / job evaluation results to control of services and operational matters, such as use of technology, etc; 3. Explore a separation of the policy development and operational roles in respect of job evaluation. 4. Explore the possibility of introducing an internal job evaluation appeal process, as opposed to relying on the Pay Equity Commission to adjudicate disputed matters; and 5. Introduce process improvements in terms of job evaluation practices Brief History The Pay Equity Act, R.S.O.1990,c.P.7, (the "Act") was introduced in the late 1980s. The Act provided for as a one-time adjustment to the relationship between positions in an organization, as a step toward reducing pay inequalities between positions heid predominantly by women as compared to those held predominantly by men. This could be phased in over a period of time, which time period would depend on the nature of the responsible corporation. Corporations in place at the initial implementation dates were required to develop pay equity plan, which served as a communication and verification tool REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINAL.DOC D & G DUDAR CONSULTANTS Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville, Ontario, L6L 6W9 PaQe 2 of 14 Toronto Phone: (905)890.9968 Local Phone (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudart8>svmDatico.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington to demonstrate pay equity compliance (this took place between 1990 through 1994, again, depending on the nature and size of the corporation; municipalities were all required to do this in the first impiementation year). After a corporation achieved pay equity (as defined by the statute), the pay equity plan above would became redundant. Notwithstanding, the corporation would have an on-going responsibility to maintain equitabie pay practices. To this end, many organizations simply continued to apply their original pay equity process. As reported to Council, Clarington completed Its pay equity analyses within the prescribed time frames, and produced two pay equity plans for the organization, applying to positions held by unionized inside workers (including those in the Library), and those held by non- unionized workers, incorporating library positions. Positions covered by the collective agreement for outside workers and firefighters were all found to constitute male dominated job classes and no pay equity plan was required vis-i-vis these position. The plan covering non-unionized workers was posted as per the legislation, and no unresolved complaints existed at the conclusion of the ninety day posting period, such that, once ratified by Council, the plan was "deemed approved". The plan covering unionized inside workers was ratified by Council and the bargaining agent. In effect, at that time, Clarington achieved pay equity. From that point forward, Clarington is bound to a duty to maintain practices that are compliant with the law, meaning that they are equitable as between positions held predominantly by men and women. To this end, Council approved a decision authorizing Administration to continue use of the original McDowell Universal Job Evaluation Plan. Further, Council adopted a motion to ratify terms of a Memorandum of Settlement which resulted in a renewal of a collective agreement with the union representing outside workers, to deploy the same tool for establishing and maintaining internal equity as between positions for that group of workers. Since that time, Administration has routinely received and processed requests by supervisors for evaiuation of new positions, as approved in annual budgets, or from employees for re-evaluation of existing positions where there is some belief that the position has changed. This allows the Municipality to meet its pay equity maintenance obligations. The appropriate committees meet semi-annually to review such requests, and, based on the evaluation results, recommend changes to pay grades assigned to various positions. The deliberations of the committees are meant to be a factuai review, applying the Job Evaluation tool to reported job content. There should be little or no dispute as to the result, which flows through to placement on the pay grid, and, consequently, to pay rates for individual employees. As a resuit, such requests for approval of changes to job valuations (using the pay equity job evaluation manual) are far too late in any process to allow meaningful control by Council over wage rates at the position level. In this context, we draw the following conclusions from our review: 1. The current pay equity evaiuation guidelines and the supporting evaluation processes have outlived their useful life, and a comprehensive updating is required. 2. There may be validity in Council's concern that employees have used the pay equity process in an attempt to achieve upward movement in wages, based on flaws in the existing system; this is a concern shared by senior management. 3. To the extent that Council seeks to exercise control over wage costs, oversight of the work of the existing pay equity committees is far too late in the process. By the time a position has been evaluated by a committee, any changes that gave rise to the re- REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINALDOC PaQe 3 of 14 D &:. G DUDAR CONSULTANTS Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville, Ontario, L6L 6W9 Toronto Phone: (905)890-9968 Local Phone (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudarrfi>svmDatlco.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington rating would have been well established and the rating simply reflects the changed reality. Effective control must exist much earlier in the process, for example, at the time that changes to positions or new positions are implemented. Observations Regarding the McDowell Job Evaluation Plan (the "McDowell Plan") Ciarington was one of many municipalities that adopted the McDowell Universal Job Evaluation Tooi as its job evaluation tool for pay equity purposes. In those days, Municipalities in general had little experience with pay equity, there were only a few consultants available to meet the overwhelming need for support, and there was a desire to comply within the statutorily required time lines. There was little sense among employers that any selected job evaluation could or should be customized to their unique circumstances and, as a result, there was no effort aimed at aiigning the tool with any unique operating conditions or organizational values. That same system has been in place at Ciarington since its initiai adoption. Pay equity rules prescribe that jobs must be compared, using a system that measures the extent of Skill, Effort, Responsibility and Working Conditions, in the work place. Each factor is, in turn, further sub-divided into sub-factors. There is, with accumulated experience, increasing awareness that these sub-factors must mirror those components of work that differentiate between the value or contribution of positions to the success of the business operations of the organization. The McDowell system wasn't customized at Clarington to ensure alignment with organizationai values, and, as demonstrated below, it is not clear that the weights relate appropriately to the values of the business. 60th management and the bargaining agent agree that the Plan is deficient and should be replaced. While we concur with their conclusion, we did not simply accept their concerns as definitive, and conducted our own review of the Plan. Following is a summary of observations regarding the Plan: By members of the Evaluation Committee: . the McDowell Pian terms are ambiguous and permit too much interpretation and interpoiation of fact by Committee members; put another way, the Plan is not anchored sufficiently in recognizable or measurable behaviours; . the Pian has an "industrial flavour", and does not speak to the types of activities or behaviours relevant to a municipality in generai, and Clarington in particular; . the process appears to at least some empioyees to lack transparency; . some employees do not correctiy understand the purpose of job evaluation, and its relationship with pay equity, and . there is some evidence that employees reiate the value of their position to work volume, which is not normally factored into job value. By the Consultant: We agree that the McDowell system has outlived its ability to distinguish the value of positions within the organization. Details of the following points are set out in ADDendix "A": 1. The sub-factor definitions are inappropriate for an increasingly "knowledge work" environment. 2. The sub-factor weights seem out of align with the full range of work undertaken by the Municipality REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINAL.DOC D & G DUDAR CONSULTANTS Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville. Ontario, L6L 6W9 PaQe 4 of 14 Toronto Phone: (905)890-9968 Local Phone (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudarta>svmDatico.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington 3. There are too many levels on some sub-factors Observations Regarding Practice By the Job Evaluation Committee The Job Evaluation Committee reflected several valid concerns. These include: . There are no criteriajstandardsjpre-requisites that job holders must achieve, prior to submitting requests for re-evaluation. . There is a prevailing belief among empioyees anticipating increases when submitting requests for re-evaluation. In fact, about 50% of requested re-evaluations produce higher ratings and in two instances, positions have been red-circled. The process of reviewing and commenting on requests by employees for re-evaluation needs to be strengthened, and better tied to changes in operational requirements. More on this point later. . There is no mechanism for addressing un-resolved disputes, without reference to the Pay Equity Commission, which involves a tedious and expensive process. . There is some concern that evaluations over the years have become inflated, as a result of a variety of possible factors, inciuding "whip-sawing", or a desire to have some employees in some positions rated higher than other perceived comparators in other departments. The fact that department heads are involved in evaluations of positions under their responsibility has the potentiai for undue influence, although there are no concrete examples reported to support this concern. . There is consensus that the process is not transparent or understood by employees. . There may be some confusion in minds of employees, and maybe some supervisors, that evaiuation is done on basis of title and not job content. . The approach to highly occasional tasks is problematic, and there are iikely better ways of dealing with this than job evaluation. . Some employees appear to confuse the evaiuation of their position, with an appreciation for long service and excelient performance. . Employees may have a mistaken view of their roie in establishing (versus recognizing) education and experience requirements. Although information about position requirements offered by employees may be persuasive, it ought not replace management's role in setting such requirements. Of course, management can be held to a standard of ensuring that their reported education and experience requirements are accurate when evaluating positions. By the Consultant The first and most pressing concern has iittle to do with actual job evaluation or pay equity, but rather work fiow controi and change management. This is reflected in the fact that information to Council and subsequent motions for adoption of changed evaiuations are attributed to pay equity, and not changes in operational requirements. Job evaiuation is a review of what is (or is planned). So, when Council approves new initiatives, whether REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINAL. DOC D &. G DUDAR CONSULTANTS PaQe 5 of 14 Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville. Ontario, L6L GW9 Toronto Phon.: (905)890-9968 local Phone (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudarl'6>svmcstico.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington discretionary or mandated by statute or regulation, this may lead to new work processes. When new technology is introduced (whether computerized or not), then there may be a corresponding change to work processes and corresponding demands. It is these changes which should lead to changes in positions and, subsequently, as the underpinning for requests for (re- )evaluation of a position. Any Council review of requested re-evaluation is simply too late, since, as reported above, the evaluation simply reflects the facts as they are or meant to be. So, requests for evaluation of new or revised positions should be accompanied by a supporting explanation of the reason, including a confirmation that such a change has been authorized or a necessary result of changed business processes or practices. Training for managers on workflow management would assist significantly. Further, there are gaps that can be identified in the practice of the Job Evaluation Committee. Some of these are mirrors of concerns expressed by Committee members, while others are based on what practitioners have learned from the introduction of Province- wide pay equity. The flowing points are described in greater detail in Aooendix "B" to this report: 1. Need for improved note keeping and improving the transparency of the process. 2. Sub-factor by sub-factor process. 3. The Need for transparency and disclosure 4. Control of Cost Impact 5. Need for Dispute Resolution Process 6. The Need for Formal Pay Equity Maintenance 1 In fact, there would likely be two committees, one for non-union positions and the second for bargaining unit positions, in a process to be defined in collaboration with the Union. REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINALOOC D & G DUDAR CONSULTANTS Paqe 6 of 14 Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville, Ontario, L6L 6W9 Toronto Phone: (905)890-9968 Local Phone (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudar@svmcatico.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington 2 The collective agreement already includes provision for such occurances, and these will apply with respect to bargaining unit positions. New rules will be required for positions held by non-affiliated staff. REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINAL.DOC D &. G DUDAR CONSULTANTS Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville, Ontario, L6L 6W9 Paqe 7 of 14 Toronto Phone: (905)890-9968 Local Phone (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudaN8>svmoatico.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINAL. DOC D &. G DUDAR CONSULTANTS PaQe 8 of 14 Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville, Ontario, L6L 6W9 Toronto Phon.: (905)890-9968 Local Phon. (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudarta>svrnDatico.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington Appendix "A" - Job Evaluation System Concerns 1. The sub-factor definitions are inappropriate for an increasingly "knowledge work" environment. The current sub-factor definitions seem to flow from an original industrial model, and fail to appropriately reflect those components of work which are critical to success In municipal organization, which increasingly focuses on "knowledge work" as opposed to more traditional labour. As an illustration, we reviewed the "Influencing Others" sub-factor, which refers to the extent to which a position is responsible for communicating with others and influencing others, both inside and outside the organization. This would include, for example, the responsibility for influencing the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing with respect to all matters of governance. According to this tabie, Influencing Others can have a maximum value of 3.3%, and holds approximately the same possible value as Physical Effort. It also attracts less value that Mental Stress and Working Conditions. Clearly, the system has a bias in favour of traditional "labour" or "production" work, as opposed to "knowledge work". 2. The sub-factor weights seem out of align with the full range of work undertaken by the Municipality In at least some cases, the internal weighting of the scales favours lesser requirements. The Chart below - showing the relationship between years of experience and their corresponding point vaiues - illustrates the diminishing value of additional experience. Clearly, the current evaluation tool favours lesser levels of experience, or, put another way, each year of added experience attracts more value at the lower end of the scale than at the higher end. Chart of Possible Points By Length of Experience 180 160 140 III 120 ~ 100 '0 80 Do 60 40 20 o . Years of Experience -Poly. (Years of Experience) o 5 10 15 20 Length of Experience (Years) 25 The point distribution on each sub-factor does not distribute weights equally. For example, Education represents over 12.5% of total job value for a position that scores at the REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINAL.OOC PaQe 9 0114 D &. G DUDAR CONSULTANTS Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville, Ontario, L6L 6W9 Toronto Phone: (905)890-9968 Local Phone (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudar@svrnDatico.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington minimum level on all sub-factors but weighs in at only 10.4% at the top rating level. The corresponding levels for Experience are 12.5% at the minimum level and 9.5% at the top end. This approach to assigning weights was more in favour when pay equity was initially introduced, however, more recent practice has been to try to ensure that sub-factor weights remain constant across the various possible levels. The Table below provides details of the number of steps, sub-factors point values and how points are distributed across the various sub-factors. Table of Distribution of Sub-Factor Wei hts Skill. Education 12 10 12.5% 92.5 10,5% 175 10.4% Experience 12 10 12.5% 85.0 9.6% 160 9,5% Decision & Skill in Operations 12 10 12,5% 95.0 10.7% 180 10.7% Ingenuity and Creativity 8 5 6.3% 87.5 9,9% 170 10.1% Independent Action 10 5 6.3% 82.5 9.3% 160 9.5% Budgets and Funds 16 5 6.3% 87.5 9,9% 170 10.1% Mental Effort 9 10 12.5% 67.5 7.6% 125 7.4% Physical Skill & Effort 9 5 6.3% 27.5 3.1% 50 3.0% Confidentiality 9 5 6,3% 52.5 5.9% 100 5.9% Supervision and Staff Advice 29 0 0,0% 117.5 13.3% 235 13.9% Influencin9 Others 11 5 6.3% 30,0 3.4% 55 3.3% Mental Stress & Working Conditions 11 10 12.5% 60,0 6.8% 110 6.5% Effort ResponSibility Working Conditions 3. There are too many levels on some sub-factors There are multipie degree levels for most sub-factors, typically in the range of 9-12 degrees or levels per sub-factor. This is unique to the McDowell system, and out of keeping with more common approaches which typicaily are able to evaluate the full spectrum of work within no more than seven or eight levels. It may be that this flows from the fact that the McDowell Plan was designed for wall-to-wall evaluations, including all positions from labour through management roles, however, as explained above, seems to be biased in favour of lower level requirements. In particular, the Supervision sub-factor has 29 separate degree levels, designed in a matrix that expressly factors in the reach of the position under evaluation (number of subordinates or individuals advised). This model fosters the belief that the value of a position is in fact in direct proportion to the work volume. In addition, it may encourage managers to expand the size of their work force, and penalizes those who are able to encourage economy and efficiency of operation. One consequence of the multiplicity of degree levels is that the organization must adopt much narrower point bands to distinguish positions on the pay band, which may encourage employees to submit requests for re-evaluation, since only a few points can result in a re- classification. REPORT OF THE PAY EQUiTY CONSULTANT FINAL.DOC o &. G DUDAR CONSULTANTS Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville, Ontario, L6L 8W9 Paqe 10 of 14 Toronto Phone: (905)890-9968 Local Phon. (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudar/2i)svmDatico.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington Appendix "8" - Process Concerns 1. Need for improved note keeping and improving the transparency of the process. Clarington should endeavour to maintain a comprehensive record of all sub-factor levels assigned, along with an explanation of the reasons for such evaluations. The first point refers to what notes are kept regarding committee deliberations and decisions, and who has access to these notes. Although a comprehensive record is retained by one of the Director of Corporate Services, who is a member of both committees, these are often found in various forms and locations, such as notations on the original submission by the employee, or spreadsheets maintained during each session. Memos which may be circulated among committee members to address disputed items are not collected as part of a single, comprehensive file for each (re-)evaluation. Such a comprehensive file needs to be accessible to each committee member whenever a subsequent request for re-evaluation is submitted. In one instance that we examined, a position had been evaiuated provisionally at the time it was created. On the sub-factor of experience, the job data indicated that five years of experience was required. Some years later, after the position had been filled for several years, a new questionnaire was completed by the now in-place incumbent, who indicated that the same five years of experience were required. However, the Committee raised the sub-factor degree level by one step. It may be that the decision on this sub-factor change may not have changed the overall result (ie other sub-factor changes may have resulted in a change anyway), however, such an unexplained anomaly suggests that the system suffers from deficiencies. 2. Sub-factor by sub-factor process. The generally accepted practice today is for job evaiuation committees to proceed through their deliberations by considering all positions across any given sub-factor in turn, before moving on to the next. Only sub-factor degree levels would be recorded, and only after any given job evaluation session has been completed would the resulting point score be computed. This aliows the Committee to focus on only one sub-factor definition at a time, rather than having to repeatedly refresh their understanding of each sub-factor definition as they move across the start for each position. By following this approach, Committee members would enjoy two benefits. The first would be to avoid the temptation to whole-job rating. The second would be to then allow greater attention to sore-thumbing within the sub-factor itself. By this, we refer to the practice of reviewing the list of results of all positions in descending order of degree levels assigned, to ensure that the list has internal integrity. So, for example, after completing the evaluation of positions on the Education sub-factor, the Committee would then produce a list of all positions on the Education dimension, including those most recently evaluated, to make sure that all positions make sense in the current order. (A similar approach can be used to vet the final result, however, reconciliation of any concerns would be done by reviewing individual sub-factor levels once again, rather than simply slotting the position into the assumed more appropriate level. Finally, we note that the McDowell tool provides for reference to both the sub-factor level and the associated point score when recording evaluation results. This could allow Committee members to keep a running score of a position as it proceeds through REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINAL.oOC D & G DUDAR CONSULTANTS PaQe 11 of14 Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville. Ontario, l6L 8W9 Toronto Phone: (905)890~9968 Local Phone (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudar@svmoatico.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington evaluation, further supporting the notion of whole-job ranking (although there is no evidence that this actually occurs here in Clarington). 3. The need for transparency and disclosure. We understand that the Committee has not been comfortable with advising employees of detaiis arising from the job evaluation process, and prefer to only advise the overall score. It is likely that this relates to the fact that sub-factor definitions are ambiguous and it would likely be difficuit to expiain certain decisions, once made. As a consequence of this, when a request arrives, the employee is often doing it "blind", meaning that they have no prior evaluation resuit or reasoning to which to refer. For that reason, while they are invited to explain why they believe that their position has changed, they will find this difficult to do. In our experience, when a request for re-evaluation is presented, the employee should be required to explain how the position has changed, why, and how, in their view, this affects the existing evaluation. In fact, as evidenced above, it may be that the supervisor who is present at an evaluation of a position within his or her department may play an undue role in encouraging that a position be rated higher than is presently the case, the evidence notwithstanding. There is no evidence that any individual manager, Human Resources staff member or other member of the Administration team is guilty of improper behaviour. Simply, the current system permits such ambiguity and could lead to undue and unnecessary pressure on both supervisors and union representatives to advocate for evaluation results that are not sufficiently supported by the facts. That there is no means of addressing unresoived matters without recourse to the Pay Equity Commission raises the stakes on this particuiar issue. 4. Cost Control Administration is responsible for maintaining operations within the direction of Council, of which the budget is a major element. Once the budget is set, then changes or amounts above the planned levels require Council approval. As set out above, pay equity in and of itself is not a rationale for exceeding budget plans; rather, changes to operations, brought about by new direction of Council, whether discretionary or regulatory, including changes to headcount to meet increased service levels serve as the basis for such exceptions. Thus, requests for additional salary dollars are better reviewed in the context of new services, technologies, or other operational requirements. Within these approved levels, Administration should be free to change individual job descriptions and corresponding pay grade assignments within the approved budget targets. Shifting to this model - which is consistent with practice in all neighbouring municipalities - wiil require that Council be fully apprised of potential cost impacts, including re-c1assification of positions, when considering new initiatives. 5. Need for Dispute Resolution Process As expressed on a number of occasions earlier in this report, pay equity is about applying an agreed job evaluation tool to the facts of job content. Thus, disputes should be rare. It is anticipated that such will be the case, once an updated, and more clearly defined job evaluation tool is adopted. REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINAL.DOC D &. G DUDAR CONSULTANTS Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville, Ontario, L6L &W9 Paqe 12 of 14 Toronto Phone: (905)890-9968 Local Phone (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudartii>svmDatico.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington There is no current system in place to address employee disputes. In a pay equity context, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal has ruled that where a pay equity process has involved the union representing employees, those employees have limited grounds of complaint before the Tribunal. Essentially, the Tribunal recognizes that a bargaining agent is empowered to make informed and balanced decisions regarding matters affecting the bargaining unit. Consequently, in order for individual employees to have standing before the Tribunal, they must show that the process used was fundamentally flawed, ie meaning that it fails to meet the minimum statutory requirements. Until this threshold is reached, the Tribunal will not investigate the details of compiaints by individual, represented employees. Given the levels of good faith demonstrated by both union and management representatives involved in the pay equity and job evaluation processes at Clarington, and the level of expertise both have brought to the process in order to compiy with their pay equity obligations, there is no reason to believe that bargaining unit members couid succeed in impugning elements of decisions arising from this process. However, the door has been opened, since at ieast on some occasions, management and union representatives have been unable to resolve disputes about proper application of the existing job evaluation guidelines, and these complaints have been referred to the Commission for its review. There has been no objection to the jurisdiction of the Commission to become involved in such matters. While it may be inevitable that not every matter can be resolved amicably, every effort should be made to do so (as has, generally, been the experience at Clarington). And, saying that, one could argue that the need for such references to the Tribunal is effectively a faiiure of the system. Should this occur in the future, it may be prudent to take steps to explore how this couid be avoided, including introduction of internal appeal processes or use of other resources. It may not be sustainable to continually rely on the Pay Equity Commission for this purpose, as its mandate and/or resources may changed by the Provincial Legislature, making it unavailable. Further, under the Act, employees are limited to filing complaints only where they are related to issues of compensation and gender, and not issues flowing from general job evaluation results. Therefore, while it may be an arbitrary distinction, it should be clear that a complaining employee in a male dominated job class has no recourse to the pay equity commission, and, should such complaints be lodged, the first defense by Clarington should be based on this jurisdictional point. In such cases, the Pay Equity Commission should correctly refuse to become involved, even under the current rules. Consequently, Council may wish to consider adoption of some form of appeal process. As indicated in the body of this report, this may be pOSSible by the establishment of separate policy and operational roles in respect to job evaluation. 6. The Need for Formal Pay Equity Maintenance The fact that the Union has been involved in the pay equity/job evaluation processes most likely satisfies the organization's obligation to maintain pay equity for positions held by affiliated employees. However, it is clear that the Union believes that the current evaluation tool and related processes are out of date, and need revision. Under a collective bargaining regime, it is common for parties to agree to formal review of pay equity on a periodic basis, for example every 10 years. This review would include the continuing relevance of the sub-factors and their definitions, the sub-factor weights, and the REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINAL.DOC PaQe 13 of 14 D &. G DUDAR CONSULTANTS Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville, Ontario, L6L 6W9 Toronto Phone: (905)890-9968 Local Phone (Halton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudar@svmoatico.ca Report of the for Pay Equity Consultant Municipality of Clarington currency of job descriptions. Once this review has taken place, and if changes flow from the review, then positions would need to be re-evaluated in light of the new evaluation guidelines, and a new analysis to ensure pay equity compliance would take piace. Although there has been no formal posting of an update with respect to positions held by non-affiliated employees, there is ample evidence that Clarington has met its obligation to maintain pay equity in its compensation practices to date. That said, given the recommendations set out above, it would be prudent - once an updated job evaluation tool and process has been adopted - for the Municipality to ensure regular updates to employees. Doing so would contribute to any defense that may be required in the event of future employee complaints. 7. Market Rates and Skills Shortages Occasionally, Clarington requires individual employees who possess skills that are in short supply in the market. Alternately, individuai employees may be asked to take on duties outside of the scope of their defined role in the organization structure. For sound compensation reasons, these situations shouid not invite a re-evaluation of the employee's job description. Alternate methods to deal with these circumstances mirror provisions set out in the collective agreement, and include processes like step-up pay, or temporary re- assignment to other positions. With respect to skills shortages, Clarington may wish to consider a process whereby the overall employee rates are broken into separate components, to reflect the rate based on the internal job value, and a premium to reflect "temporary market shortages". These separate components could in fact be reported as unique items on the employee's pay statement, and would permit routine review and reporting, to ensure that the triggering conditions remain, and that the "market premium" continues to be appropriate. In cases where the premium is no longer justified (ie when the skills shortage abates), then Administration can address how to treat affected employees, through processes such as "red circling". REPORT OF THE PAY EQUITY CONSULTANT FINAL.DOC D &. G DUDAR CONSULTANTS Donald Dudar, C.H.R.P. Principal Consultant 3376 Hayhurst Crescent Oakville, Ontario, L6L 6W9 PaQe 14 of 14 Toronto Phone: (905)890-9968 Local Phone (Hatton): (905)827-9967 Fax: (905)825-1409 ddudartii>svmDatico.ca