Job Evaluation System Sample Clauses

The Job Evaluation System clause establishes a formal process for assessing and comparing the relative value of different positions within an organization. Typically, this system involves setting criteria such as skills, responsibilities, and working conditions to systematically rank or grade jobs. By providing a structured framework for job comparison, the clause ensures fairness and consistency in compensation decisions, helping to prevent disputes over pay equity and supporting transparent human resource management.
Job Evaluation System. The parties have developed and implemented a joint job evaluation system. This system includes the job documentation process, the job evaluation process, the maintenance process, communication of results and dispute resolution. The parties agree that the Joint Job Evaluation Committee will be responsible for ensuring the ongoing operation of the system.
View SourceView Similar (8)
Job Evaluation System. It is the intent of the Company to maintain the existing National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) scale with adaptation to support the three-grade system.
View SourceView Similar (4)
Job Evaluation System. ‌ 17.1 The Association and the University affirm that a gender neutral comparison system (GNCS) has been developed, that a pay equity plan has been posted (April 2005), and that a maintenance plan for pay equity has been developed in accordance with the Pay Equity Act.‌ 17.2 The GNCS includes a job evaluation questionnaire, job evaluation plan with factor descriptions, factor levels, and a scoring and weighting system. 17.3 Job Evaluation for all bargaining unit positions using the GNCS will be the joint responsibility of the Association and the University. 17.4 The University will maintain questionnaires and job class scoring notes for all positions in the WLUSA bargaining unit. 17.5 The Joint Job Evaluation & Pay Equity Steering Committee (JJEPEC)‌ (i) is comprised of two members selected by the WLUSA Executive and two members selected by the Vice President: Finance and Administration; (ii) reviews the job evaluation process to determine if it has been fairly and equitably administered and that pay equity is maintained; (iii) ensures that one-third of job classes are reviewed annually; (iv) evaluates all requests for reconsideration; (v) provides evaluation decisions when consensus cannot be reached by the JJEC. 17.6 Joint Job Evaluation Committee (JJEC) 17.6.1 The JJEC is comprised of three (3) WLUSA representatives from a pool of five (5) selected by the WLUSA Executive to represent the diversity of Members, their departments and work performed and three university representatives selected by the Vice President: Finance and Administration from departments in which WLUSA Members are employed.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Job Evaluation System. It is agreed to utilize the Hay Group job evaluation system for placing a position within the Pay Range Assignments section of this Agreement found in Appendix B. A. The City will submit the new or revised job description, along with any other required forms to the Hay Group for evaluation. The evaluation results as determined by the Hay Group will be discussed between the USW and the City prior to being implemented. B. It is understood that the consultant’s job evaluation system is proprietary, and as such the City and Union will not see the individual point factor analysis. Only the final recommendation of the position ranking will be released to the City and USW. The City continues the sole right to fill or not fill the newly evaluated position. C. In the event the Hay Group discontinues providing job evaluation services or if the cost becomes unreasonable in the future, the City may select another job evaluation consulting firm. The City will seek input and opinion from the USW prior to any such change in job evaluation consultants including the option of instituting a new job evaluation process.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Job Evaluation System. 22.1 Job evaluation involves the systematic comparison of jobs, based on work value, in order to determine the appropriate sizing of positions. 22.2 There shall be a job evaluation system used within the PKPC. This system shall be known as the Job Evaluation System. 22.3 The Job Evaluation System shall be used to determine the appropriate remuneration level that the position will occupy. 22.4 The Job Evaluation System employs the Organisation Consulting Resources (OCR) methodology to determine work value. 22.5 A fair and equitable appeal mechanism has been developed and will continue to apply.
View Source
Job Evaluation System. The parties have re-established a committee to re-examine the current job evaluation system for the Clerical/Administrative positions. This examination shall also include the question of whether all jobs in the bargaining unit shall be evaluated and if so, whether one job evaluation system shall be used for all jobs. The committee will report during the term of this agreement to the parties. Any disputes which may arise between the parties in this regard shall be referred to the Arbitrator appointed in accordance with the provisions of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Award "attached to and forming part of this agreement". Notwithstanding the provisions of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Award it is understood and agreed that the provisions of the award shall be applicable to all bargaining unit salary scales in the same manner and to the same extent as it applies to the Clerical/Administrative Scale.
View Source
Job Evaluation System. 17.1 The Association and the University affirm that a gender neutral comparison system (GNCS) has been developed, that a pay equity plan has been posted (April 2005), and that a maintenance plan for pay equity has been developed in accordance with the Pay Equity Act. 17.2 The GNCS includes a job evaluation questionnaire, job evaluation plan with factor descriptions, factor levels, and a scoring and weighting system. 17.3 Job Evaluation for all bargaining unit positions using the GNCS will be the joint responsibility of the Association and the University. 17.4 The University will maintain questionnaires and job class scoring notes for all positions in the WLUSA bargaining unit. 17.5 The Joint Job Evaluation & Pay Equity Steering Committee (JJEPEC) 17.5.1 The Joint Job Evaluation & Pay Equity Steering Committee (JJEPEC) is composed of three
View Source
Job Evaluation System 
View Source

Related to Job Evaluation System

  • Job Evaluation The work of the provincial job evaluation steering committee (the JE Committee) will continue during the term of this Framework Agreement. The objectives of the JE Committee are as follows: • Review the results of the phase one and phase two pilots and outcomes of the committee work. Address any anomalies identified with the JE tool, process, or benchmarks. • Rate the provincial benchmarks and create a job hierarchy for the provincial benchmarks. • Gather data from all school districts and match existing job descriptions to the provincial benchmarks. • Identify the job hierarchy for local job descriptions for all school districts. • Compare the local job hierarchy to the benchmark-matched hierarchy. • Develop a methodology to convert points to pay bands - The confirmed method must be supported by current compensation best practices. • Identify training requirements to support implementation of the JE plan and develop training resources as required. Once the objectives outlined above are completed, the JE Committee will mutually determine whether a local, regional or provincial approach to the steps outlined above is appropriate. It is recognized that the work of the committee is technical, complicated, lengthy and onerous. To accomplish the objectives, the parties agree that existing JE funds can be accessed by the JE committee to engage consultant(s) to complete this work. It is further recognized that this process does not impact the established management right of employers to determine local job requirements and job descriptions nor does this process alter any existing collective agreement rights or established practices. When the JE plan is ready to be implemented, and if an amendment to an existing collective agreement is required, the JE Committee will work with the local School District and Local Union to make recommendations for implementation. Any recommendations will also be provided to the Provincial Labour Management Committee (PLMC). As mutually agreed by the provincial parties and the JE Committee, the disbursement of available JE funds shall be retroactive to January 2, 2020. The committee will utilize available funds to provide 50% of the wage differential for the position falling the furthest below the wage rate established by the provincial JE process and will continue this process until all JE fund monies at the time have been disbursed. The committee will follow compensation best practices to avoid problems such as inversion. The committee will report out to the provincial parties regularly during the term of the Framework Agreement. Should any concerns arise during the work of the committee they will be referred to the PLMC. Create a maintenance program to support ongoing implementation of the JE plan at a local, regional or provincial level. The maintenance program will include a process for addressing the wage rates of incumbents in positions which are impacted by implementation of the JE plan. The provincial parties confirm that $4,419,859 of ongoing annual funds will be used to implement the Job Evaluation Plan. Effective July 1, 2022, there will be a one-time pause of the annual $4,419,859 JE funding. This amount has been allocated to the local table bargaining money. The annual funding will recommence July 1, 2023.

  • EMPLOYEE EVALUATION A. Formal evaluation of employees shall be in writing and shall be for the purpose of establishing a record of the employee’s work performance. The evaluation may include but is not limited to: establishing performance standards and outcome measures, recognition of an employee’s efforts, as well as planning for improvement. Issues of attendance and punctuality may be addressed if they have previously been discussed with the employee. The employee’s job description shall be a basis for the evaluation. B. The evaluator shall review the written evaluation with the employee and provide the employee with a copy. The employee shall sign the evaluation acknowledging receipt. If the employee has objections to the evaluation, s/he, may within twenty (20) working days following receipt of the evaluation put such objections in writing and have them attached to the evaluation report and placed in his/her personnel file. C. The frequency of evaluations shall be determined by the District and generally occur every other year by April 1st for bargaining unit employees. If the District chooses to do so, it may conduct formal evaluations on an annual basis. An employee may request to receive one (1) annual evaluation. Such request shall be in writing to the employee’s supervisor with a copy to the Human Resources Department. D. The Human Resources Department will consult with the Federation in developing an outline of best practices to be used in conducting employee evaluations. E. When the District determines that an employee’s work performance is unsatisfactory, it shall inform the employee in writing of any deficiency and the improvement expected and provide the employee with the opportunity to correct the unsatisfactory performance within a reasonable time period established by the District. F. The judgment of an employee’s work performance by an evaluating supervisor shall not be the subject of a grievance. A grievance concerning an evaluation shall be limited to an allegation that the evaluation was done in bad faith or clearly untrue. The burden of proof shall rest with the grievant. Such grievance shall be filed at the next administrative level above that of the evaluator and that administrator shall provide a written decision within ten (10) working days of any hearing. If the grievance is not resolved, it may be appealed by submitting a written statement to the Human Resources Department within ten (10) working days following receipt of the administrative written decision. The written statement must clearly set forth why the previous decision is in error regarding the allegation of bad faith or being clearly untrue. The Director of Labor Relations, or designee, may review the record of the grievance and/or conduct a hearing and shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days following such review or hearing. Such decision shall be final. G. Effective July 1, 2013, Sign Language Interpreters will be evaluated using the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) pursuant to OAR 581-015-2035 and/or the District’s evaluation form.

  • PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Williamson County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following: A. Problems, delays, adverse conditions which may materially affect the ability to meet the objectives of an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, or preclude the attainment of Project Engineering Services units by established time periods; and such disclosure shall be accompanied by statement of actions taken or contemplated, and County assistance needed to resolve the situation, if any; and B. Favorable developments or events which enable meeting goals sooner than anticipated in relation to an applicable Work Authorization’s or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • Distribution System The Transmission Owner’s facilities and equipment used to transmit electricity to ultimate usage points such as homes and industries directly from nearby generators or from interchanges with higher voltage transmission networks which transport bulk power over longer distances. The voltage levels at which Distribution Systems operate differ among areas. Distribution Upgrades – The additions, modifications, and upgrades to the Transmission Owner’s Distribution System at or beyond the Point of Interconnection to facilitate interconnection of the Small Generating Facility and render the transmission service necessary to effect the Interconnection Customer’s wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce.