Guidelines on the Evaluation Process

These guidelines provide guidance, advice, and explanation on the application of the Classification System and Delegation of Authority Policy in relation to the evaluation process.

Classification committee – a group of at least three persons authorized by their respective departments to evaluate work. The committee should have knowledge about the work being evaluated and the organization in which the work occurs. Classification committees should be composed of both men and women.

Evaluation – the process of assessing work against a classification standard; it determines the relative value of work, based on the work requirements.

Level – a numerical indicator of the relevant ranking of a position within its occupational group according to its value as established by its evaluation using the appropriate classification standard.

Occupational group – a series of jobs or occupations related in broad terms by the nature of the functions performed.

(Reference: Classification System and Delegation of Authority Policy)

The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service sets out the values and ethics of the Public Service to guide and support public servants in all their professional activities. Democratic, professional, ethical and people values are identified.

In addition, the Classification Monitoring Framework defines a number of more specific values related to classification that are aligned with these Public Service-wide values. Deputy Heads, managers and human resources advisors are accountable for exercising their classification authority in a way that respects all of these values.

The evaluation process must respect the principles of consistency and gender neutrality.

Only people who have been trained in work evaluation should be selected as evaluators.

Evaluators will need to assess the facts and ensure they have all the requisite information. They must be confident that, based on these facts, they have made a decision they can defend.

Current occupational group and level and rates of pay should not influence evaluators or the evaluation of the work. The compensation a job currently receives is known to influence people’s perception of how important that job is. Studies have indicated that evaluator knowledge of current pay had a statistically significant effect on evaluations, with lower compensated work receiving lower evaluations. Evaluators need to guard against this potential bias.

Evaluators must not make assumptions about the work or current hierarchical relationships. Making assumptions about the work will introduce bias about its value into the evaluation process. They must demonstrate neutrality and objectivity. Evaluators are responsible for applying the classification standards objectively on the basis of the work description and other relevant information provided that is required by the classification standard. Personal performance (unless an employee-oriented evaluation plan is being used), recruiting difficulties, salaries, or the present classification level of the position should not be considered in the evaluation process.

The Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada (PSHRMAC) has a continuing overall responsibility for the integrity of the classification system, including the evaluation process.

The Classification System and Delegation of Authority Policy authorizes Deputy Heads to classify positions in their respective departments in accordance with the policy, the appropriate classification standard, and guidelines developed and issued by the PSHRMAC. Departments should choose management practices and appropriate measures to meet their needs within the parameters of the framework prescribed in the policy and the information provided in these guidelines.

Deputy Heads are responsible for ensuring that:

• managers and human resources advisors in their departments understand the classification system, including the classification standards used by the department, and receive adequate training in job evaluation;
• work descriptions in their organization are accurate;
• consultation with the PSHRMAC and other departments takes place in situations where it is warranted;
• all classification decisions have been arrived at in a transparent, equitable and consistent manner, and that these decisions are appropriate and defensible; and
• there is effective control of the department’s classification system through monitoring and internal audit to ensure the integrity of classification outcomes, and reports are submitted to central agencies as required

Managers are responsible for ensuring that:

• they understand the classification system, including the use of classification standards and the allocation of positions to occupational groups;
• as sponsors of the positions, they provide accurate and complete information to the human resources advisor or classification committee members as appropriate; and
• when participating in evaluation committees, they apply the classification standards consistently and appropriately in accordance with these guidelines.

Human resources advisors and managers with delegated classification authority are responsible for ensuring that:

• occupational group allocations and ratings are appropriate within the organizational structure of the department, in accordance with the classification policy, and aligned with departmental and Public Service-wide classification relativities;
• managers receive appropriate advice and expertise on the evaluation process, including intra- and interdepartmental relativities; and
• all classification decisions are arrived at in a transparent, equitable and consistent manner, and that these decisions are appropriate and defensible.

Classification committee members are responsible for ensuring that:

• they understand the classification system including the classification standards and the process of allocating positions to occupational groups;  
• they apply the classification standards consistently and appropriately in accordance with these guidelines;
• they have an awareness of and resistance to personal biases, and do not make assumptions about the work being evaluated; and
• intra- and interdepartmental relativities are taken into consideration when evaluating the work.

The evaluation of work is the process of assessing the worth of jobs within an organization. The evaluation process is the same regardless of whether there is a classification committee or a single evaluator. Ultimately, the work evaluation process establishes a hierarchy of jobs within the organization that reflects the relative worth the organization places on each. The following steps make up the evaluation process:

1.         A trained human resources advisor or delegated manager reviews the work description to ensure that it contains all the relevant information and is accompanied by a complete and current organization chart and other supporting documentation required by the classification standard.

2.         Once all the necessary information has been collected and supporting documentation provided, the evaluator(s) review the work description and allocate it to an occupational group and sub-group (if applicable). Percentage of time should not be part of the work description and is not a reliable indicator of the primary purpose of the job.

3.         After the work has been allocated to an occupational group and sub-group if applicable, the subsequent steps to be followed are those detailed in the appropriate classification standard.

The occupational group allocation and ratings must be appropriate within the organizational structure of the department and aligned with the organization’s mandate. Before a final decision is made, consideration must be given to internal and external relativity of similar positions.

Making assumptions is not acceptable. Evaluators should ensure they have all the information required to apply the appropriate classification standard objectively. They should not substitute their own knowledge for that of the manager, the employee in the position or the information provided in the work description. If the requisite information is missing, evaluators should not evaluate the work until the information is provided. Any additional information that is obtained during the evaluation process must be documented.

Classification Standard Mapping Tools have been developed for many occupational groups, to promote consistency in application of the classification standards to UCS-style work descriptions. They also assist in identifying and collecting information that may be missing from these work descriptions. The maps guide evaluators to the UCS elements in the UCS‑style work description where they are most likely to find most of the information needed to evaluate the position for each of the factors in the classification standard.

Best Practices – Evaluation

• A quality review of the work description by a human resources advisor prior to evaluation will streamline the evaluation process by making sure that all relevant information is available to the evaluator(s).
• Classification Standard Mapping Tools are used to assist in identifying where to find work information in UCS-style work descriptions for the evaluation process.

Relativity and technical expertise in the application of classification standards are the keys to ensuring the consistency and appropriateness of classification decisions.

Maintaining relativities requires a consistent, unbiased approach to evaluating work. To safeguard the Public Service values, evaluators must focus their attention on facts, leaving no room for assumptions about the value of the work.

Relativity is both internal and external. It is important to be able to compare jobs within different organizational components of one department and with similar jobs, in similar organizational contexts, in other departments to ensure that similar jobs have similar ratings. However, job evaluation does not take place in a vacuum. When comparing work descriptions and evaluation results in different organizations, the organizational context within which the work is performed must be taken into consideration. When “borrowing” work descriptions that have been written and evaluated in another organization or another department, it is necessary to evaluate the work description within the new organizational context in which it is being applied.

Consultation with the PSHRMAC is required for any classification decision which may result in a significant impact on interdepartmental relativity.

Use of interdepartmental classification committees is encouraged in situations where the classification decision relates to positions found in many or most departments, or a department does not have sufficient committee members to bring an objective viewpoint to the deliberations.

Best Practices – Maintaining Relativities

• Departmental human resources management information systems are maintained with current and accurate classification evaluation data, and regular updates are made to the Position and Classification Information System (PCIS).
• Human resources advisors and delegated managers have access to, are trained in, and make regular use of the PCIS Query Tool to compare departmental evaluation data with classification information across the Public Service.
• Departments regularly share information and documentation such as work descriptions, organization charts and rationales with colleagues in other departments.
• When “borrowing” work descriptions that have been written and evaluated in another organization or another department, the work description is evaluated within the new organizational context in which it is being applied.

Best Practices – NOC Codes

• National Occupational Classification (NOC) codes are used as an additional means of identifying similar work in different organizations for relativity purposes.
• A NOC code is assigned as soon as the work description is evaluated.

The PSHRMAC encourages the use of classification committees. The use of classification committees contributes to the integrity of the classification system by:

• reducing personal biases about the work. The requirement for all parties to reach consensus ensures that all information is shared and clarification is sought when required;
• bringing greater knowledge about the work, the organizational context and relativities to the evaluation process. Such insight may not be available if a single evaluator is used; and
• supporting the values of fairness and transparency in the evaluation process. Employees and managers will more likely accept the results when they are aware that a classification committee has reached the decision.

A classification committee is required:

• in situations where the evaluation outcome may have a significant impact on intra- and interdepartmental relativity, have collective bargaining implications, or result in a significant increase of salary expenditures;
• when a position is submitted for reclassification;
• when the evaluation outcome may be precedent setting;
• for national jobs or generics;
• in situations involving contentious positions when the need for credibility and transparency is paramount;
• when a new organizational structure is being implemented with the potential to set new or impact existing relativities; or
• when a new occupational group is being introduced in a department.

The delegated human resources advisor or the delegated manager in consultation with the human resources advisor should determine when it is appropriate to use a classification committee.

Use of an interdepartmental classification committee is encouraged when:

• the classification decision relates to positions found in many or most departments and may be precedent setting for the Public Service;
• interdepartmental relativity concerns are at issue; or
• a department does not have sufficient committee members to bring an objective viewpoint to the deliberations or to evaluate a particular type of work due to lack of expertise and experience.

Those responsible for selecting evaluation committee members should be able to demonstrate to third parties that their choice is logical and practical, makes for a credible decision, and is designed to achieve a fair and equitable evaluation of the work. The composition of the committee should be acceptable to both the sponsoring manager and the human resources advisor.

Following are considerations in selection of a classification committee:

• committee members have training in job evaluation; as a whole, the committee should be knowledgeable about the classification standards in question, the work being evaluated and the organization in which the work is performed;
• at least one committee member is a trained line manager;
• evaluation committees are composed of both men and women;
• the committee is representative of the diversity of employees in the department; and
• committee members are not in a conflict of interest situation; no committee member should be in a position to benefit, either personally or operationally, from the results of the evaluation.

Best Practices – Trained Committee Members

• Departments have a sufficient number of trained evaluators, knowledgeable in job evaluation and familiar with the classification standards, as a pool to serve on evaluation committees and grievance committees when needed.

The following steps will ensure that a classification committee operates effectively and efficiently:

1.         Each committee member first rates the work description independently.

2.         The manager responsible for the position being classified may attend the committee to provide information and answer questions of the committee members. Any additional information provided by the manager must be documented.

3.         The human resources advisor provides additional information as applicable, such as results of an onsite review if available, information on intra- and interdepartmental relativity, and technical expertise on application of the classification standard.

4.         Decisions are arrived at by consensus rather than through voting or majority rule. The evaluation process is a search for the most appropriate rating, so the committee must make every effort to explore and resolve differences and to reach agreement on the rating.

5.         If the committee is unable to reach a consensus on the rating, the dissenting member(s) must write a minority report. The individual with delegated classification authority will make the final evaluation decision.

Because of the sensitivity of the information, everyone participating in the evaluation process should agree not to disclose information obtained from or about the evaluation process or the evaluation results without authorization from the departmental officials responsible.

The following documentation related to the evaluation process should be maintained on the position file (hard copy or electronic):

• the work description with the effective date authorized by the appropriate manager’s signature;
• the organization chart;
• information that validates the selection of the effective date;
• a report of the on-site review, if applicable, confirming that the work description adequately describes the work assigned and performed by the employee (co-incidence);
• classification committee report, if applicable, signed by all committee members;
• classification decision authorized by the delegated human resources advisor or delegated manager; and
• a rationale that supports the classification decision, and any other relevant documentation.

The classification committee report, the authorized classification decision, the rationale, or other relevant information may be contained in the same document.

Classification evaluation data is entered into the departmental human resources management system for transfer to PCIS in a timely manner.