1.1 The purpose of these guidelines is to outline the job evaluation process. Job evaluation is the process by which the worth of a job is evaluated by comparing the content of a position description with the Professional (formerly known as APT) Position Descriptors Guidelines.
1.2 Reclassification occurs when a position description is revised to reflect significant changes and the evaluation of the position description determines that the position should be classified at a level other than that at which it is currently classified.
2. These guidelines apply to all University professional position evaluations.
Please refer to the University’s Glossary of Terms for policies and procedures.
4.1 A request for re-evaluation of a position does not normally occur unless the staff member has completed a Performance Planning and Review (PPR) discussion with their supervisor within the last twelve months.
4.2 Re-evaluation of a position does not normally occur more than once in any twelve month period.
4.3 A Cost Centre Manager or a staff member may request the re-evaluation of a position. Such a request is made in writing to People and Culture and includes:
(a) the current position description
(b) the revised position description, and
(c) comments by the staff member holding the position and / or the Cost Centre Manager, explaining the changes to the position description and how they are significant enough to warrant reclassification
If a staff member initiates a request for re-evaluation of a position and the relevant Cost Centre Manager does not support reclassification, the Cost Centre manager will attach a written statement to that effect, explaining his/her reasons.
4.4 The evaluation of a revised position description is normally made within 20 business days of receipt of a request by People and Culture.
4.5 The evaluation process will include at least two individual reviews conducted by People and Culture, reviewing and evaluating the revised position description against the University’s Professional Position Descriptors Guidelines.
When evaluating a position description, every effort is made to ensure the evaluators have a comprehensive knowledge of the position. This may involve holding discussions with the staff member and / or the Cost Centre Manager.
4.6 If the two individual People and Culture evaluations do not concur, a third review will be conducted by People and Culture, evaluating the revised position description. The three evaluators will then meet to try to reach consensus on the evaluation of the position, but if consensus cannot be reached, the majority view prevails.
4.7 The Director, People and Culture approves all position review outcomes.
4.8 Where the position is evaluated to warrant reclassification, People and Culture notifies the Cost Centre Manager and confirms the reclassification with the staff member in writing, and salary is adjusted accordingly.
Reclassification normally takes effect from the date the application was received by People and Culture, unless reasonable grounds for another date are demonstrated in the request for re-evaluation.
4.9 Where the position is evaluated and does not warrant reclassification, a People and Culture staff member will discuss the decision with the Cost Centre Manager and/or staff member.
4.10 Should a staff member or the Cost Centre Manager not agree with the outcome of the evaluation, the matter may be referred for review to a member of USC Executive that is not responsible for the work area. Written submissions can be made and the review will be conducted as expeditiously as practicable.
4.11 A record of a Position Classification Review will be retained by People and Culture.