august 2014 work 2014.pdf · 2017-11-02 · job evaluation appeal page 2 however, if an employee...
TRANSCRIPT
@WORK
August 2014 Volume 3, Issue 8
The Job Evaluation Appeal
Your position has been evaluated and a grade level determined; however, you disagree with the evaluated level. What can you do about it?
As noted in last month’s @Work article, if you disagree with the evaluator’s decision, you and your supervisor need to meet with the evaluator to get a clear understanding of why the decision was made. The evaluator will review the Aiken Plan as well as review each of the plan factors and provide an explanation as to why your position was given the ranking it was for each factor. Positions on campus used as comparators will also be reviewed. If following that meeting you still disagree with the decision made, you can appeal the evaluator’s decision. Article 16 of Common Provisions of the Collective Agreement details the job evaluation appeal process. You have 60 working days from the date you were officially notified of the evaluator’s decision in which to initiate the process.
It is important to note that the appeal process does not deal with any dispute regarding the content of the Job Fact Sheet, i.e. position duties, educational requirements, etc. Any disagreements about the content would have been handled through the job documentation stage when the job fact sheet was written. The job evaluation appeal deals with the job evaluation process which includes the application of the factors of the Aiken Plan and the positions on campus used as comparators.
There are two stages of the appeal process. Employees are not required to have NASA representation through the job evaluation appeal process;
(Continued on page 2)
Inside this issue
The Job Evaluation Appeal .......... 2
The PPE Initiative ........................ 3
Executive Information ................ 4
Job Evaluation Appeal
P AGE 2
however, if an employee wishes NASA’s assistance at any stage of the appeal process, NASA will certainly provide that assistance.
At the first stage, the employee writes to the Manager of Compensation, Job Design & Recruitment (CJD&R). The letter must contain the reasons why the employee is appealing and may include any other information that the employee feels is relevant to the appeal. At this stage, the Manager (CJD&R) has 20 working days to provide a response. The response will be one of the following: advice that the appeal has been successful outlining reasons for the success; advice that the appeal has been unsuccessful and providing reasons (failure/denial of the appeal); notification of the name of another CJD consultant who will conduct a second evaluation. If the appeal has been unsuccessful/denied, the employee has 20 working days to advance it to the next stage.
If another consultant is appointed, a second complete job evaluation is conducted and the Manager (CJD&R) is provided the results. The time lines associated with this phase of the process are 65 working days. The Manager compares the two evaluation results, makes a decision and provides the employee with the decision and rationale. If the employee is not satisfied with the Manager’s response following the second evaluation, the employee has 20 working days to advance the appeal to the next stage.
The second stage of the job evaluation appeal process is a hearing before the Job Evaluation Appeal Committee (JEAC). The JEAC is made up of an equal number of members appointed by the University and appointed by NASA. The Chair of the committee rotates between being a University appointee or a NASA appointee and is agreed to by both the University and NASA. The current Chair is a University appointee.
The letter advancing the appeal to the second stage is sent to the Chair of JEAC with a copy to the Manager (CJD&R). The letter needs to briefly state the reason the appeal is being advanced and include a copy of the original letter to the Manager (CJD&R) as well as a copy of the Manager’s response. Shortly before the appeal hearing date, both the appellant (with or without NASA’s assistance) and CJD submit detailed documentation supporting their respective positions. The employee’s Department/supervisor may also include a submission, but this is not a requirement. These submissions are made available to the members of JEAC in advance of the hearing.
At this level, in-depth discussion about the position and the evaluation takes place before a panel of five members (two University appointees, two NASA appointees and the Chair). These members are hearing the details for the first time as they have had no involvement whatsoever in the process until this stage. Please note that no new information can be presented at the JEAC hearing. If new information becomes available in advance of the hearing, the matter may be referred back to CJD for further review.
The JEAC hearing is normally held within 20 working days of receipt of an appeal, although timelines can and are extended if there is difficulty scheduling the hearing. At the hearing, the employee (or NASA representative, if involved) makes a presentation and provides rationale and relevant information in support of the appeal. Following the employee’s presentation, CJD will respond and present the rationale and supporting documentation for the unit’s decision. A supervisor/manager
(Continued from page 1)
(Continued on page 3)
P AGE 3
will also be requested to attend and present any information relevant to the appeal. There is ample opportunity provided for questions from the members of JEAC. At the conclusion, both the employee (or NASA representative) and CJD are provided an opportunity to present concluding remarks.
In making a decision on the appeal, the JEAC members take into consideration all the information provided at the hearing. However, overriding consideration is given to ensuring the maintenance of equity in the overall job evaluation system. In the event of a tie decision, the Chair casts the deciding vote. The decision of the JEAC is final and binding. The Chair will advise all parties to the appeal of the decision, including rationale, within 10 working days of the hearing. There are no further appeal avenues available.
(Continued from page 2)
Job Evaluation Appeal
PPE, or personal protective equipment, is of greater relevance in University labs or areas where specialized equipment must be worn as part of an employee’s work. As part of The PPE Initiative, every U of A lab will have to conduct a hazard assessment. Based on that assessment, specific PPE rules will be established that will be followed as long as the work continues. You can find out more about the Initiative at http://www.ehs.ualberta.ca/LabPPE/PPEFAQ.aspx#about the intiative.
As a staff member, you need to follow the rules established for your work place. Failing to follow these rules could result in discipline from your supervisor or department. If you have issues with the PPE you are required to wear (e.g. fit, use, etc.), you should have discussions first with your supervisor to see if there are alternatives that might work better for you.
Where the work requires that you wear PPE, these items are to be supplied by the Employer. More on the obligation of the Employer to provide PPE, whether it is eyewear, a lab coat or safety footwear, as well your obligation to work safely and ensure others work safely can be found in Article 6 of the Common Provisions of the Collective Agreement.
If you have further questions about this issue or others, please contact your Labour Relations Officer (LRO) at [email protected] or by calling 780-439-3181.
The PPE Initiative—What You Need To Know
CAMPUS MAIL
NASA
Our University Works Because We Do!
1200 College Plaza
8215 - 112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E1
NASA
@ WORK is published monthly
cupe1158ds
Phone: 780-439-3181
1-877-439-3111
Email: [email protected]
http://www.nasa.ualberta.ca/
Editor: Deborah Stewart
https://www.facebook.com/supportstaffunion
https://twitter.com/UnionNASA
NASA Executive
Rod Loyola, President
(2014 – 2016)
Robert Simpson, Vice-President
(2013 – 2015)
Elizabeth Johannson, Treasurer
(2014 – 2016)
Elizabeth Adolf, Secretary
(2014 – 2016)
Lilian Campbell, Bylaws Chair
(2013 – 2015)
Donna Coombs-Montrose,
Membership Chair (2013 – 2015)
Dennis Johnson, Grievance Chair
(2014 – 2016)
Sally-Ann Mowat, Reps Council Chair
(2014– 2015)
NASA LROs
Kathy Collins (Acting Director of Operations) 780-989-6179 [email protected]
Joy Correia—780-989-6186 [email protected]
Andy Lenz—780-989-6175 [email protected]
Gerrie Rajotte—780-989-6182 [email protected]