Classification reform is now operating as a multi-year program that is integrated with human resource management and linked directly to ongoing operational requirements across the public service.

The program is being delivered through a three-pronged business strategy: The three prongs of the business strategy are:

Structural reform of classification standards, that is, fundamental change to the basic architecture of standards, tailored to support the business needs of departments and conducted on a group by group basis
Maintenance of the existing classification standards, where structural reforms have not yet been carried out, or indeed may not be needed; and
Rebuilding system capacity across departments and agencies in terms of revitalizing the people and the processes we need to be successful.

Structural Reform: What are the steps to achieve structural reform of classification standards?

As we implement the classification reform program, we will work according to a three-year rolling plan, with new groups added as we go. Each reform will involve three major steps: Analysis, Application, and Implementation.

Step One: Analysis
During the Analysis step, candidates for reform will be selected, and we will begin to tailor group-specific classification standards.

Step Two: Application
During the Application step, departments will review their evaluation data and assess organizational impacts while working with Treasury Board Secretariat to finalize group-specific standards.

Step Three: Implementation
The Implementation Step will take place once the classification standard for a particular group has been completed. At that point, we will negotiate pay rates with the appropriate union, and employees will be notified about their new group, level and rate of pay.

Structural Reform: Where are you at with the initial candidates?

We are in Step One: Analysis for the three potential candidates that were initially identified for structural classification reform:

Foreign Service (FS)
Program and Administration Services (PA), and
Economics and Social Science Services (EC)

In addition, other candidates have now come forward with requests for classification reform. We are working with several Departments and Agencies to understand current and emerging business directions and to see whether classification is the right solution for improving organizational performance and, in those cases where classification is the right solution, determining their priority against the three-year rolling plan set out for classification reform.

Structural Reform: What is happening with the Foreign Service (FS) group?

Step One, the Analysis stage, is nearly complete. During the Analysis step, consultations are held to confirm the strategic value of the project, feasibility studies are done to ensure the do-ability of the project, and work to design tailored group-specific classification standards begins.

The strategic value of FS group reform has been confirmed and the Treasury Board Secretariat has begun to design a new FS classification standard. This work is being done in consultation with the user departments and with the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers, (PAFSO). The FS group comprises approximately 1,200 employees and is found in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

Structural Reform: Will the new Foreign Service (FS) classification standard impact rates of pay?

Classification does not have a direct impact on rates of pay. The purpose of a classification standard is to define internal relativities and the relative value of the work done by a particular occupational group. Classification provides a measurement tool, or classification standard, that helps the organization determine which positions should be classified at which level in the organization. Rates of pay are determined through the process of collective bargaining.

Structural Reform: How will the Foreign Service (FS) standard be designed?

Over the coming months, the Treasury Board Secretariat will design and draft a new FS standard. During this process, there will be extensive consultation with officials from the sponsoring Departments and the Bargaining Agent, through a series of orientation and working sessions. These meetings will focus on principles of sound classification and organizational design. The objective of this consultation process is to ensure that all stakeholders have appropriate opportunities to provide input and obtain feedback on the development of the new FS classification standard.

When will Foreign Service (FS) employees be converted into the new levels?

Employees will move into new positions during Step 3: Implementation. The Implementation Step will take place after the classification standard for the FS group has been completed. At that point, we will negotiate pay rates and conversion rules with the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers (PAFSO). Once the negotiation process is completed, employees will be converted to the new FS structure.

Structural Reform: What is happening with the Program and Administration Services (PA) group?

Step One, the Analysis stage, is underway. During the Analysis step, consultations are held to confirm the strategic value of the project, feasibility studies are done to ensure the do-ability of the project, and work to tailor group-specific classification standards begins.

So far, work on the PA group has focused on assessing the strategic value and feasibility of group reform. The PA group comprises more than 46% of the public service across all departments, making this group the single largest and most diverse group for classification reform within the public service. Given the large scale and complex scope of this project, feasibility work will likely continue for several more months.

Structural Reform: What is happening with the Economics and Social Science Services (EC) group?

Step One, the Analysis stage, is underway. During the Analysis step, consultations are held to confirm the strategic value of the project, feasibility studies are done to ensure the do-ability of the project, and work to tailor group-specific classification standards begins.

The strategic value of structural reform for the EC group has been confirmed, based on consultations with the Social Science Employees Association (SSEA) and most of the major user departments who have EC positions classified against the legacy ES and SI standards. A feasibility analysis is now underway.

Structural Reform: How are candidates for classification reform selected?

The decisions are made, based on business needs and priorities, following consultations with departments and bargaining agents. The Treasury Board Secretariat is leading a co-ordinated effort to identify those occupational groups that are in need of classification reform. We are working with departments to analyse their classification-related business problems, develop practical solutions, and ensure ongoing alignment with the new legislative framework to modernize human resources management in the federal public service. In some cases, the best solution is structural reform of a classification standard. In other cases, different types of human resources reform may be more appropriate.

How is System Capacity for Classification being Rebuilt?

Initiatives to rebuild and revitalize the business of classification across government include:

Capacity Survey: A comprehensive survey of classification capacity in Departments and Agencies has been conducted. The research findings will identify the key challenges and issues that need to be addressed and give us a baseline against which to assess our progress in rebuilding the classification system.

New Courses: A new course curriculum is being designed for classification officers.

Performance Measurement/Active Monitoring: Measures to assess how well the classification system is responding to the government’s business needs are now being developed. This will give us a basis to begin active monitoring of classification performance throughout the system.

What is being done to maintain existing classification standards?

The Treasury Board Secretariat is working closely with Departments and Agencies, as partners, to update, maintain and use existing classification standards that meet ongoing business needs.

Initiatives to update and maintain the existing classification standards include:

Access to Current Evaluation Data: Relativity is key to ensuring the consistency and appropriateness of classification decisions. We are developing a set of database services that will give all departments access to the data they need to make informed classification decisions while at the same time ensuring consistency and relativity across the Public Service.

Mapping legacy standards to UCS work descriptions: We continue to encourage departments to write UCS-style work descriptions. The benefit of maintaining UCS-style work descriptions is that they have been designed to capture all aspects of work and to describe work characteristics in a manner that minimizes gender bias. We are now working with departments to map UCS-style work descriptions to the current classification standards, collect information that may be missing from UCS-style work descriptions and evaluate these work descriptions in a consistent manner to ensure relativity throughout the Public Service.

Classification Grievance Procedure: We have now made the Classification Grievance Procedure available on our Web site to allow easier access to employees, managers and human resources advisors.

How do I find out the status of classification reform for my occupational group?

Employees are encouraged to visit the “What’s New” section regularly. It is updated as new information becomes available. In addition, your manager will keep you informed of any classification reform initiatives that affect your position.

How can I find out more about classification reform?

The “About Classification” section will give you a better understanding of why and how the government intends to proceed with classification reform. It describes the range of other human resources management challenges facing the federal Public Service that need to be taken into account in modernizing these systems and outlines a plan of action for moving forward.

If the government is not proceeding with the Universal Classification Standard (UCS) project, what is it doing?

We are moving from the UCS project to a manageable, multi-year classification reform program. The Treasury Board Secretariat will proceed step-by-step, as various department and union officials have suggested, tailoring classification reform to specific occupational groups, beginning with those whose existing standards are particularly outdated or impede sound management.

What is the difference between the UCS project approach and this new program approach to classification reform?

The approach underlying the UCS was to reform the classification system on a universal basis applicable to all occupational groups, except the Executive Group. We had two reasons for this. First, we hoped that a common approach to job measurement (one standard versus the current 72) would greatly simplify the system, reduce the administrative burden on managers and lower the administrative overhead costs of maintaining the system. Second, a single classification standard would facilitate the creation of a single corresponding pay structure. Collapsing all of the occupational group pay structures into one appeared to be the most promising way to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) for equal pay for work of equal value.

After considering various perspectives, we concluded that one universal system would create a management structure that was too rigid and inflexible to be effective and it would not reflect the vast diversity of our employees’ work. As a result it could impede our ability to recruit and retain employees.

For this reason, we have decided to shift our approach. We will implement tailored classification reforms that can be adapted to the specific business priorities of departments. Although, we will continue to simplify our classification system, our reforms will be focussed and targeted to those occupational groups in greatest need and carried out on an occupational group by occupational group basis.

What is classification?

The classification of work is fundamental to any human resources management system. In large and complex organizations, both public and private, it provides a means of grouping similar types of work together so that it can be ranked by levels of difficulty and differentiated from other, dissimilar work. Classification provides a practical means for collectively bargaining appropriate employee wages and terms and conditions of employment.

Why is classification reform essential?

Our present classification system was created in the late 1960’s to coincide with the introduction of collective bargaining. Over time, work changes. New technologies result in new types of work and sometimes replace or significantly alter how jobs are performed. From time to time, the roles of departments change, too. New roles emerge as others diminish or cease altogether. As the work changes, the classification system used to define, differentiate and rank work must also change to reflect the changed and changing nature of work.

As with many organizations having to manage in the new economy, our system of classifying work has not kept pace with how work has evolved. Some classification standards contain out-dated notions about Public Service work. Others describe work that is no longer performed, and many exclude important dimensions of current work, particularly in the case of some of our female predominant groups.

Reforming the Public Service classification system to better reflect modern workplace values is essential. We still need a modern classification system that is capable of measuring the work performed today, treats men and women equitably, and provides a solid foundation on which to build a flexible compensation system that is more responsive to external labour markets.

Classification reform is one of a series of initiatives that will help us to recruit and retain the skilled employees needed to serve Canadians in the years ahead, and provide a foundation for improving people management in the Public Service.

What are the advantages of the new approach to classification reform?

This shift in approach has several advantages for departments, employees, unions and ultimately taxpayers. Classification standards can be tailored to the specific requirements of the occupational groups and priority can be given to those in greatest need. Wages can be better aligned to our various external labour markets. Unions can continue to negotiate wages for their different memberships in keeping with their diverse and changing needs. This incremental approach will allow the Public Service to advance classification reform at a more measured pace and make room for other Public Service priorities such as developing recruitment strategies to counter the anticipated high turnover of our aging workforce.

Why has the government concluded that ‘universality’ is not a workable approach to public service classification reform?

Applying a single standard and a single pay structure to the more than 150,000 positions in the federal public service would create too rigid and inflexible a management framework for the widely varied work of our employees. As a result, it could impede our ability to compete in the marketplace for the talent and skills needed to serve Canadians in the future. Furthermore, a universal approach:

would not adequately recognize the diversity of work done by our employees;
could call into question the role of multiple unions; and
might not guarantee compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Act.

How does this new approach to classification reform secure the role of the unions?

Public Service unions play a vital role in ensuring effective human resources management. We see their primary purpose as working with the Employer to serve the diverse needs and interests of the various occupational groups they represent. The Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service unions are currently looking for ways to improve their working relationships. We now understand that a single compensation structure cannot respond well to the various interests of multiple occupational groups, and its inflexibility could jeopardize the ability of the various unions to continue to effectively represent their memberships.

What is the scope and the timetable for the new approach to classification reform and what are the next steps?

The Treasury Board Secretariat has concluded that some classification standards, such as those used to evaluate the types of work that make up the Program and Administrative Services (PA) Group, need to be completely overhauled. Others may just need a tune-up to bring them up-to-date while some others still work reasonably well and could be left alone for the time being. Setting business-based priorities, pacing change to fit our capacity to manage reform and resourcing ourselves appropriately will bring faster real returns on our investment than trying to adjust the entire system all at once. And, it will ensure that the Public Service is able to keep its priorities straight – service to Canadians must not be compromised.

Implementing classification reform in an organization as large and varied as the Public Service of Canada will require a coordinated effort. Reform will not happen overnight. Our next steps will be to consult with unions and departments to confirm the priority groups and develop a plan to help departments get ready. We will monitor our efforts and update employees on our progress and plans annually.

Has the government changed its mind about its commitment to pay equity?

No, the Government of Canada is committed to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value in accordance with the Canadian Human Rights Act.

How will the Treasury Board Secretariat deliver on the government’s commitment to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value?

We have resolved a number of pay equity complaints over the past ten years that have resulted in significant wage adjustments for the employees involved. We have also worked to improve gender balance across occupational groups.

We support the Pay Equity Task Force, appointed by the Ministers of Justice and Labour, in its efforts to propose an improved approach to achieving and maintaining equal pay for work of equal value. We are looking forward to the results of their work.

What is the occupational group structure?

In the Public Service of Canada classification system, we refer to the organization of work and employees as the occupational group structure. Grouping like work, and the employees who do that work, provides unions and the Employer with a practical means of collectively bargaining appropriate employee wages and terms and conditions of employment. Occupational groups were restructured in 1996 and new group definitions were approved and published in the Canada Gazette in 1999. You can find the occupational group structure and definitions on the Classification Reform Intranet site on Publiservice at http://publiservice.tbs-sct.gc.ca/classification and at the TBS Internet at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/classification.

What groups have been proposed as the initial candidates for classification reform?

The Economics and Social Science Services (EC) Group, the Foreign Service (FS) Group, and the Program and Administrative Services (PA) Group are among the initial candidates for classification reform. Together, these three groups represent about 55% of the public service. We will discuss the timing and priority of groups with the departments and unions involved before making a final decision.

Why were the proposed priority groups selected for classification reform?

The Program and Administrative Services (PA) Group and the Foreign Services (FS) Group are both being proposed because their standards are outdated and no longer recognize how the work of these groups has changed and become more complex in the modern world.

The Economics and Social Science Services (EC) Group is being proposed because a new classification standard is needed to support the harmonized pay structure of the two former groups (Economics, Sociology and Statistics (ES) and the Social Science Support (SI)) that make up this new occupational group.

Are there other groups being proposed for classification reform?

Yes. The government is interested in exploring, early on, with departments and unions, how classification reform might improve the management of other types of work such as the trades, knowledge intensive work, and regulatory inspection.

When will a decision be made as to which groups will undergo classification reform?

A final decision on the occupational groups in greatest need of classification reform will be made only after consultation with departments and unions. Following these consultations, groups other than those already mentioned may be added or others on the preliminary list may be dropped or deferred to a later date. Occupational groups not included on the initial priority list may be brought forward from year to year as we progress with the program.

What will happen to all the work employees and managers did in writing new work descriptions for UCS evaluation?

Regardless of which groups are selected for classification reform, work descriptions already written in the UCS-style can continue to be used in conjunction with their current classification standards. Where the UCS-style work descriptions do not capture all of the information required by the existing standard, departmental managers can modify them to do so.

The benefit of maintaining UCS-style work descriptions is that they have been designed to capture all aspects of work and to describe work characteristics in a manner that minimizes gender bias.