IBEW and NAV CANADA Joint Classification System Project Briefing to Members of IBEW and Management June 2009

2 Why Change the Existing System Old and not reflective of today’s business environment. Made effective in 1993 Built in the government environment not NAV CANADA Point factor system more detailed and better designed for a less homogenous group. Focuses people on writing long job descriptions Need simplicity and clarity around the classification system

3 Classification LOU Engage an outside firm with recognized experience and expertise in the field of classification and who will evaluate the jobs The parties receive the report and consult in order to determine how to implement the new classification system and any associated salary adjustments. Any employee who occupies a position where the classification level is decreasing will be “green circled” so long as the employee occupies this position If no agreement is reached on how to implement, then either party may refer any unresolved issue for determination by binding arbitration Agree that the system shall not be implemented until the next collective agreement is signed by the parties and, accordingly, the effective date of the new classification program, once negotiated and/or arbitrated shall be September 1, 2009.

4 The Working Group NAV CANADA Representatives: Barbara Gagné Brent Clary Alain Bureau Frank Marchese Benoit Bannon The IBEW Representatives: Scott Burke Mark Zelding Michael Dohonick Mike Mastronardi Wayne Pike Michel Gaulin

5 What is Job Evaluation A means of determining the relative value of jobs within an organization Key concepts Relativity Focuses on job content not individual performance Balance between science and reasoned judgement It is a system which is used to objectively categorize and rank the worth/importance of different positions in an organization through established criteria and framework It says nothing about assigning pay, pay scales for unionized employees are negotiated.

6 Project Objectives System is clear and easy to understand and to use Reflects the kind of work performed by Electronics Technologists at NAV CANADA Illustrates the potential career path for Electronics Technologists in the various areas in which they work Simplifies the classification process

7 Project Phases Project Plan Key Steps Deliverables Interviews with project key Senior Management & IBEW Leaders Site Visits Collect job profiles Assess 2000 System & need for change Confirm approach and conceptual design for the new system Finalize classification guide design and other tools and user manual Identify benchmark jobs Evaluate all jobs in the bargaining unit Finalize design Develop communication strategy Design final challenge process Communciate Results Hold the challenge process Deliver final communciation Project Planning Data Gathering Conceptual Design Detailed Design Rollout

8 Evaluation Process Job data collected from incumbents and managers using Towers Perrin’s designed tool (Job Profile Questionnaire- JPQ) Evaluation of job descriptions (JPQs) done by the Towers consultants using The classification standard designed by the joint working group JPQs submitted by the incumbents and managers Additional information gathered in response to working group questions (e.g., follow-up questions; requests for additional explanations) Benchmark job evaluations first Evaluation work was iterative and job data focused

9 Proposed Classification System Whole job slotting 3 levels of classification (i.e., grade levels or bands) Rating Factors Technical & Operational Knowledge and Skills Communication & Inter-personnel Skills Decision Authority Problem Solving Impact on NAV CANADA Performance Working Conditions- work pace Working Conditions- environment Working Conditions- physical effort

10 What is Whole Job Considers the key elements of a job on a global basis, i.e. looks at the “whole job” Compares the job to the level descriptors in the classification guide on each of the classification criterion Considers how each criterion has been evaluated and assigns it to the level which best describes the job overall Confirms the classification by reference to the benchmark jobs Approach does not try to measure small differences between jobs, defines the distinct classification levels required by the organization describes levels so as to highlight the key and most significant differences, illustrates the progression and fosters a common understanding of the key characteristics of each level.

11 Benchmark Jobs CNS, ATM and CRS Coordinator Electronics Systems Technologist Engineering Project Leader Installation Technologist Life Cycle Management Specialist System Support Technologist Technical Flight Inspector Technical Instructor Technical Operations Coordinator Technical Requirements Specialist

12 Treatment of Team Supervisors Team Supervisor position will be evaluated at one level higher than the level of the employees being supervised

13 Classification Grid Separate document due to size

14 Job evaluation outcomes

15 Communications- What is to come Incumbent to receive individualized letters from their supervisors Provides detail on the application of the new system to their position Notice of the Challenge Process Project material will be posted on the IBEW Local 2228 website or through the Classification Projects Office Includes Classification System Report Challenge process instructions & form

16 Challenge Process Provides opportunity to comment or raise any concerns on how the new system has been applied to their position (input from both incumbent(s) and managers) Review will be administered by a sub-committee of the project working group. Towers Perrin involved if impasse Process Reflect their own substantive job Not challenge the design of the classification system (e.g., choice of rating factors; the factor definitions; the factor weightings; point banding etc). Be captured on the authorized form Conform to the time lines established for the challenge process Completion by September 8, 2009

17 Only you can answer this If you have a comfort in the process followed; the relativity outcomes (i.e., which jobs are in the same band as yours) maybe you don’t go further If you think job information has been misunderstood or missed; disagree with the evaluation assessments and can provide job related detail to substantiate your perspective, consider the challenge process Members of the working group are available to answer your questions Should I submit an application to the Challenge process?

18 Grounds for Submitting an Application Reflect their own substantive job Reflect a concern and/or challenge to the application of the rating factor(s) as presented in their individualized letter Not challenge the design of the classification system (e.g., choice of rating factors; the factor definitions; the factor weightings; point banding etc). Be captured on the authorized form conform to the time lines established for challenge process

19 Key Project Dates ActivityTarget Date Member & Manager BriefingsJune 23 – July 10, 2009 Incumbent input to Manager for challenge process August 21, 2009 Manager Input for challenge process Stage September 8, 2009 Review and communication of challenge process results September 25, 2009