DocHdl1OnPTR1tmpTarget

PROMOTING

EQUITY

GENDER-NEUTRAL JOB EVALUATION

FOR EQUAL PAY:

A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE

Programme on

Promoting the

Declaration on

Fundamental

Principles and

Rights at Work

International Labour Ofﬁce s Geneva

PROMOTING

EQUITY

GENDER-NEUTRAL JOB EVALUATION

FOR EQUAL PAY:

A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE

Publications of the International Labour Ofﬁce enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. Nevertheless,

short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction

or translation, application should be made to the Publications Bureau (Rights and Permissions), International Labour Ofﬁce, CH-1211

Geneva 22, Switzerland. The International Labour Ofﬁce welcomes such applications.

Libraries, institutions and other users registered in the United Kingdom with a reproduction rights organizations, may make copies in

accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. Visit www.ifrro.org to ﬁnd the reproduction rights organization in your

country.

ISBN 978-92-2-121538-7 (print)

ISBN 978-92-2-121539-4 (web pdf)

First published 2008

This report can be downloaded from the web site of the

Programmeme on Promoting the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (www.ilo.org/decl)

Chicha, Marie-Thérèse

Promoting equity: Gender-nuetral job evaluation for equal pay:A step-by-step guide

Geneva, International Labour Ofﬁce, 2008

ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data

The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material

therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Ofﬁce concerning the legal status

of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.

The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication

does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Ofﬁce of the opinions expressed in them.

Reference to names of ﬁrms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the International Labour

Ofﬁce, and any failure to mention a particular ﬁrm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval.

ILO publications can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local ofﬁces in many countries, or direct from ILO Publications,

International Labour Ofﬁce, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. Catalogues or lists of new publications are available free of charge from

the above address, or by email: pubvente@ilo.org

Visit our web site: www.ilo.org/publns

Design and layout in Switzerland ARG

Printed in Switzerland SRO

iii

CONTENTS

PREFACE

CHAPTER 1 Context and objectives of the guide 1

CHAPTER 2 The Pay Equity Committee 7

CHAPTER 3 Selecting which jobs to compare 17

CHAPTER 4 Job evaluation methods 25

CHAPTER 5 Collecting data on the jobs to be evaluated 43

CHAPTER 6 Analysing the questionnaire results 57

CHAPTER 7 Determining the value of jobs 69

CHAPTER 8 Estimating wage gaps for jobs of equal value and

making pay adjustments

BIBLIOGRAPHY 92

LIST OF TABLES 95

GLOSSARY 97

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Manuela Tomei,

who conceived this project and has followed and encouraged it

throughout. Her always pertinent observations led to signiﬁcant im-

provements in this Guide. Thanks are also due to Zafar Shaheed for

his support and very valuable suggestions. Lisa Wong’s contribu-

tion was crucial, as she guided the project in the ﬁnal and difﬁcult

stages leading up to publication.

I would like to thank all those who took part in the various meetings

and discussions that took place at the ILO in Geneva, as well as those

held following my training sessions at the ILO International Training

Centre in Turin. Their queries, criticisms and comments were con-

structive and thought-provoking. Eric André Charest, an intern at the

ILO in 2006, provided very valuable research assistance.

Marie-Thérèse Chicha

PREFACE

Signiﬁcant gender disparities in pay are amongst the most resilient features of labour markets everywhere in the world.

Even though the gender pay gap has narrowed in some places, women, on average, continue to work for a lower pay than

men. This trend continues despite striking advances in women’s educational attainments and work experience.

The gender pay gap has many causes and sex discrimination in remuneration is one of them. The Equal Remuneration

Convention, 1951, (No.100), one of the eight core international labour standards, seeks to address discrimination in remu-

neration by ensuring that women and men receive equal remuneration not just for the same or similar work, but also for

work of equal value. This principle is fundamental to the achievement of gender equality, as a large proportion of women

do different jobs than men. Assessing the value, and corresponding requirements, of different jobs on the basis of common

and objective criteria also contributes to more transparent and efﬁcient systems for pay determination, while improving

recruitment and selection procedures.

Determining if two jobs that differ in content are equal in value requires some method to compare them. Job evaluation

methods are the tools that help to establish the relative value of jobs and thus determine whether their corresponding pay

is just. The last major publication of the ILO on this important topic was Job Evaluation (1986), which was designed basi-

cally to unravel some of the complexities of this important human resources instrument and to make it more accessible

to a broader audience beyond the specialists and consultants who typically deal with job evaluation. At that time, a short

treatment of the gender pay equity implications of job evaluation was provided. It is high time to have a thorough treatment

of this complex issue. For an objective and fair assessment of jobs, however, job evaluation methods must be free from

gender bias; otherwise key dimensions of jobs typically performed by women risk being disregarded or valued lower than

those typically performed by men. This results in the perpetuation of the undervaluation of women’s jobs and the reinforce-

ment of the gender pay gap.

The process whereby job evaluation methods are developed and applied is at least as important as the technical contents

of these methods, as possible and unintended gender biases may arise at any stage in their design and use. The purpose of

this publication is to address gender biases more systematically and prevent the occurrence of these problems by providing

a step-by-step Guide as to how to develop and apply a job evaluation method free of gender bias.

This Guide has been produced as part of the ILO’s Follow-up to the Action Plan on the Elimination of Discrimination (2004-

2007), ensuing the ﬁrst global report on the subject entitled Time for equality at work. It responds to a growing number of

requests for technical assistance in this ﬁeld from governments, workers’ organizations and tripartite bodies dealing with

gender and labour questions. The Guide is aimed at workers’ and employers’ organizations, ofﬁcers of Equal Opportunity

Bodies and human resource managers, gender specialists and pay equity practitioners.

The Guide has been written by Prof. Marie -Thérèse Chicha of the School of Industrial Relations of the University of Mon-

treal, Canada. Marie-Thérèse Chicha is a well-known pay equity specialist and practitioner in Canada and abroad. She

has consulted and extensively written on issues related to employment and pay equity, and management of ethno-cultural

diversity. The publication is based on a comparative review of job evaluation methods, and other materials that have been

developed and used in different countries, as well as on case studies and research in gender studies and in human re-

sources management. The Guide has been tested and validated in training activities organized by the International Training

Centre of the ILO, Turin, for tripartite constituencies.

This Guide has beneﬁted from the insights of several ILO colleagues, and a special thanks goes to Manuela Tomei who conceived

this project and overviewed its preparation. Appreciation also goes to Lisa Wong, in bringing this publication to fruition.

Zafar Shaheed

Director

Programme on Promoting the Declaration on

Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work

Preface

Objectives 1

Causes of wage discrimination 1

Scope of the principle of pay equity 2

Beneﬁts of pay equity 4

Content of the Guide 5

CONTENTS - CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER

Context and objectives of the guide

OBJECTIVES

This Guide, to be used when implementing the prin-

ciple of equal remuneration for work of equal value,

free from discrimination based on sex, as enshrined

in the ILO Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951

(No. 100), is in keeping with the Follow-up to the

ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and

Rights at Work and, in particular, with the 2003 and

2007 Global Reports devoted to equality at work. It is

meant as a tool to be used to promote this principle

in many different workplace environments.

To date, the ILO Convention No. 100, adopted in

1951, has been ratiﬁed by 167 countries. However,

despite this broad consensus regarding the prin-

ciple enshrined in it, the pay gap between women

and men remains a persistent and universal fact of

the labour market. Recent statistical surveys have

revealed that this gap exists in countries with very

diverse economic structures and that, although the

gap is decreasing in most of these countries, this

progress is being achieved very slowly. The gap per-

sists despite the signiﬁcant gains women have made

in terms of education and work experience.

Context and

objectives of

the guide

CAUSES OF WAGE DISCRIMINATION

A great number of studies have examined the causes of this pay gap and have led to the iden-

tiﬁcation of two sets of factors. The ﬁrst concerns the characteristics of individuals and of the

organizations in which they work. The following are among the most important of these factors:

¢ Educational level and ﬁeld of study;

¢ Work experience in the labour market and seniority in the organization or in the job held;

¢ Number of working hours;

¢ Size of organization and sector of activity.

Part of the pay gap could thus be abolished through policies aimed directly at these dimensions

such as, for example, adopting ﬂexible working hours in the workplace so as to allow parents

to balance work and family responsibilities, making it possible for mothers to continue in their

careers without interruption, thus gaining more work experience and seniority.

Even when this ﬁrst set of factors is taken into account, however, econometric studies have

repeatedly found an unexplained residual gap between the average wages of women and men.

According to Gunderson (2006), the residual gap generally stands somewhere between 5 and

15 per cent. In other words, the wage discrimination targeted by Convention No. 100 does not

correspond to the whole wage gap that is observed, but only to a portion of it.

The residual gap reﬂects wage discrimination based on sex resulting from a second set of fac-

tors which we will come back to in detail throughout the various chapters of this Guide. Let us

simply list them here:

¢ Stereotypes and prejudices with regard to women’s work;

¢ Traditional job evaluation methods designed on the basis of the requirements of male-

dominated jobs;

¢ Weaker bargaining power on the part of female workers who are less often unionized and

hold a disproportionate number of precarious jobs.

At the same time, part of this residual gap can be attributed to direct discrimination between a

man and a woman performing the same job, for example, a male computer specialist and a fe-

male computer specialist or a male nurse and a female nurse. This type of discrimination is also

covered by Convention No. 100, but, as it is generally easy to identify, it was not included in this

Guide. In order to avoid any ambiguity and to conform to what is becoming common practice,

we will use the expression pay equity to refer to the principle of equal remuneration for work of

equal value, which is the subject of this Guide.

SCOPE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PAY EQUITY

One of the reasons why so little progress has been achieved with regard to respecting the fun-

damental right to pay equity is highlighted by the Committee of Experts on the Application of

Conventions and Recommendations (2007):

…The Committee notes that difﬁculties in applying the Conven-

tion in law and in practice result in particular from a lack

of understanding of the scope and implications of the concept

of “work of equal value”. This concept is a cornerstone of the

Convention and lies at the heart of the fundamental right of equal

remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, and

the promotion of equality.

Indeed, it must be acknowledged that the principle of pay equity can appear to be very de-

manding and complex at ﬁrst sight. It requires adopting a new way of looking at job character-

istics, modifying the perception of women’s work compared to men’s work, re-examining the

pay systems in force in organizations and, ultimately, raising the pay for female-dominated jobs.

These various steps are often described as long, costly and difﬁcult. This opinion has been

greatly inﬂuenced by the history of pay equity struggles and the early experiences of those who

pioneered this process. This view does not necessarily reﬂect today’s reality in the context of

new approaches to the promotion of this principle.

Pay equity was implemented in the United States in the late 1960s and 1970s, in the public

service in some states and municipalities. Joint labour-management initiatives were carried

out, often under the threat of judicial proceedings. They involved a very wide range of jobs

and a great number of employees. The implementation processes were long and costly, in

part because of the conﬂict-ridden climate in which they took place and in part because of

the new and unknown nature of the subject. It was in fact at this time that the ﬁrst gender-

neutral job evaluation methods were developed and tested. Later, pay equity was imple-

mented in other countries, also mostly in a litigious context. Because of this past history, the

impression that prevailed at the time and that still exists today is that achieving pay equity

requires too many resources and unfolds in a context of strained labour relations.

Since the late 1990s, a growing number of initiatives have been taken up by unions with

the aim of promoting pay equity. National and international federations of trade unions have

adopted various measures to extend the implementation of pay equity in workplaces where

they are involved. The Public Services International (PSI), in particular, has developed a

strategy covering several dimensions, including awareness programmes and training, as

well as implementing job evaluation methods in the public sector in various countries.

Pay equity initiatives have also been developed in the form of partnerships between several

actors. In the early years of this millennium, a partnership was created between the Euro-

pean Commission, government institutions and labour associations and experts from many

countries in the context of the BETSY project. Evaluation tools were created and implement-

ed in a number of organizations. In Portugal, a partnership between labour associations,

employer representatives, the ILO and the European Commission led to the development

and implementation of a pay equity programme in the food service industry.

Towards the late 1980s, initiatives having a wider impact were taken up in a number of

countries in the form of so-called “proactive” laws. The proactive model makes implement-

ing pay equity in public and private organizations compulsory and has been adopted, in

particular, in Sweden, Canada (Ontario and Quebec) and Finland. Generally, it is character-

ized by the following elements:

‚ It applies to all employers meeting certain criteria (size of workforce, for example);

‚ It imposes results-based obligations on these employers, within a speciﬁed

time period;

‚ It speciﬁes the main methodological criteria to be used to achieve these results;

‚ It is carried out in a joint effort by the employer and employee representatives.

In order to facilitate the implementation of this model, new methodologies have been de-

veloped, which are more ﬂexible and easier to interpret and implement. In most cases,

public bodies have produced a wide range of information documents and developed train-

ing sessions, as well as offering other types of support for the actors in this ﬁeld. At the

same time, implementing pay equity has increasingly emerged as a highly effective way to

improve human resource management and increase the efﬁciency of the pay system within

an organization. Thus, it is possible to promote pay equity today in a context that has moved

away from the unwieldiness and high cost of the judicial model. This old model can now

be replaced by a new model which brings together equality and efﬁciency and is simpler to

develop and implement.

Context and objectives of the guide

Table 1.1 Synthesis of beneﬁts of pay equity

BENEFITS INDICATORS

Improvement in human resource management practices

Greater efﬁciency in stafﬁng practices

Less time devoted by employees to the

recruitment process

Greater effectiveness of skills development

Increased productivity and quality of work

Improved retention of new employees

at the end of their probationary period

Decreases in recruiting and training costs

Coherent pay policy and harmonized pay

structure based on the value of jobs

Improved compensation management: time

savings for employees in charge of managing the

pay system

More efﬁcient distribution of the total payroll

among various jobs

Highlighting the undervalued skills of female workers

Improved quality of products and services

Fewer errors or customer complaints

Better perception of workplace equity and improved labour relations

Greater job satisfaction and stronger

commitment to the organization

Lower employee turnover, absenteeism and

related costs

Greater speed in resolving complaints

or conﬂicts

Less time devoted to resolving conﬂicts

Fewer conﬂicts

Ibid.

Impacts on the organization’s reputation and attractiveness

Lower costs related to recruiting

qualiﬁed personnel

Less time devoted to the search for qualiﬁed

candidates, especially in high demand

occupations

Reduction in time that positions remain vacant

Value of stalled production or lost contracts

BENEFITS OF PAY EQUITY

The main beneﬁt of implementing pay equity is the actual sanctioning of female workers’ right

to equality, whereby their skills are recognized and their job tasks are accorded value, not only

symbolically, but in very concrete terms, through pay adjustments. It is therefore a question of

dignity and recognition on the part of their superiors and co-workers, the positive impacts of

which have been emphasized by many female workers. Pay adjustments can also have a sig-

niﬁcant impact on these workers’ capacity to provide a decent standard of living for their families

and increase their ﬁnancial security in retirement.

Beyond the positive impacts on female workers, pay equity initiatives that have been carried out

through partnerships and proactive laws have also resulted in signiﬁcant positive impacts for em-

ployers. These impacts have been in areas as diverse as human resource management, the ef-

ﬁcient use of skills, labour relations and the attractiveness of the organization. The following table

summarizes the various beneﬁts observed in cases where pay equity has been implemented.

The beneﬁts are thus manifold and among the conditions favouring their achievement are, in

particular, joint action by the parties involved, adequate training of those responsible and trans-

parency in the decisions taken in the various steps along the way.

For further details, see Chicha (2006).

CONTENT OF THE GUIDE

This Guide is based on several studies from various countries and on the experience of prac-

titioners as well as that gained by the author through her work as a researcher and trainer

in Canada and other countries. It analyses the overall process, from selecting which jobs

to evaluate, through the various phases of job evaluation, to equalizing pay. The goal of the

Guide is to set out the various methodological components of the process and to explain the

criteria which should be met in order to avoid discriminatory practices.

The Guide is aimed both at employer and union representatives responsible for implement-

ing a pay equity programme and at practitioners and trainers. Its content can be adapted to

different economic and organizational contexts and to large and small organizations. Working

together through each of the steps described will allow all those responsible for implementing

the programme to gain more detailed knowledge of the workplace, take a critical look at some

facets which may have become obsolete or inappropriate due to technological or organiza-

tional changes, and, especially, discover aspects of jobs that they were not familiar with, in

particular pertaining to jobs held by women.

Methodological ﬂexibility is built into the content of the Guide. In some workplaces, such

as small organizations, the steps can be simpliﬁed. In others, on the other hand, the steps

required will be more detailed and more extensive. Those implementing the programme

will therefore have a great deal of leeway in using it, subject to the obligation to avoid gen-

der bias. The Guide will be particularly useful and easier to apply if it is complemented

with proper training.

Pay equity must be achieved through a planned and structured process, often called a pay

equity programme, involving the following steps:

‚ Identifying female-dominated jobs and male-dominated jobs to be compared;

‚ Choosing a job evaluation method;

‚ Developing tools for data collection and gathering data on the jobs;

‚ Analysing the questionnaire results;

‚ Determining the value of jobs;

‚ Estimating wage gaps between jobs of equal value;

‚ Making pay adjustments so as to achieve pay equity.

The ﬁrst six steps represent a diagnosis of the situation, leading to a conclusion about

whether or not a pay gap exists between jobs of equal value. If it is determined that there

is indeed a gap, users are directed to the seventh step, that is, making pay adjustments.

When it is determined that no gap exists, no such adjustments will be required.

Each chapter presents one or two steps in the process of implementing pay equity within

an organization. It explains the goals, various operations to be carried out, criteria for gen-

der neutrality and proper practices to follow. Checklists are presented for quick reference

for users.

Lastly, most chapters end with a brief outline of the beneﬁts that can be gained

from the step covered.

This Guide was based on many sources from several countries. These sources, which share many common points, are presented in the Bibli-

ography along with the corresponding web sites where documents may be downloaded. To avoid redundancy and unwieldiness, it was decided

not to pepper the text with repeated bibliographical references, especially given the fact that these sources were often enriched and adapted.

Context and objectives of the guide

CONTENTS - CHAPTER 2

Objectives 7

Logistics of implementing pay equity in an enterprise 7

The Pay Equity Committee 9

Composition of the Pay Equity Committee 10

Designating Committee members 11

Training 11

Information 12

Operating rules 13

Beneﬁts 13

Checklist 14

CHAPTER

The Pay Equity Committee

OBJECTIVES

Implementing a pay equity programme involves a set

of tasks that must be carried out in a rigorous manner

with the aim of identifying and eliminating any discrim-

ination that may exist in the pay system. This chapter

sets out the major steps that need to be carried out

to accomplish this process, the logistical components

that need to be taken into account and the ways in

which employees can participate.

The Pay Equity

Committee

LOGISTICS OF IMPLEMENTING PAY

EQUITY IN AN ENTERPRISE

The process of setting up and implementing a pay equity programme will run smoothly and

efﬁciently if this process has been well-planned. Based on the experience of those who have

implemented such programmes in various countries, the following components should be

taken into consideration beforehand:

¢ Planning for the ﬁnancial and human

resources that will be needed. Financial

resources mainly refer to the administrative costs involved in the project and the budget

that will be devoted to its various activities: questionnaires, consultants, internal com-

munication, etc. They do not include any amounts that will be allocated to pay adjust-

ments, which may certainly need to be provided for, but the amount of which cannot be

determined ahead of time. Human resources refer to the number of individuals that will

be assigned to the process and the time required by their participation, for example, in

number of hours per week or month;

¢ Determining the procedures for the

training to be provided. Pay equity depends

both on technical knowledge in the areas of job evaluation and remuneration and on

knowledge related to discrimination, stereotypes and prejudice with regard to women’s

work and the causes of inequality based on sex. Pre-programme training will be neces-

sary for those who will be in charge of implementing pay equity. It is thus important to

decide who will give this training and how it will be carried out;

¢ Deciding on whether consultants will be hired and establishing the necessary

recruitment procedures. If the training received by those in charge of implementing pay

equity is sufﬁcient, the role of a consultant becomes less necessary. The trainer can also

act as a consultant in working out some of the more complex points;

¢ Establishing a

communication strategy. Given that a pay equity pro-

gramme pertains to a very delicate matter, that is, relative pay within the enterprise, it

will be important to make sure that employees’ fears are eased as much as possible.

It is often recommended that a communication strategy be established right from the

beginning of the process in order to prevent rumours from developing. Such a strategy

can take various forms, depending on the type of organization and the means at its

disposal (Saba 2000);

¢ Establishing the

work plan schedule. It will be necessary to decide when each

step will be carried out and the date at which the work plan activities will come to an end

and wage adjustments will begin to be paid out;

¢ Deciding which type of

joint employer-employee participation will

be adopted. To date, experience has often shown that setting up a joint employer-employee

process has major advantages in terms of equity and effectiveness, as it:

° Introduces a new way of looking at jobs by comparing diverse opinions expressed by

human resource managers and employees;

° Ensures that the process and results will be seen as legitimate in the eyes of employees;

° Distributes the workload among many different individuals.

The best way to ensure that these objectives will be achieved is to organize participation in the

form of a Committee whose composition and roles, as well as the conditions under which it will

operate, are clearly deﬁned.

THE PAY EQUITY COMMITTEE

In a small organization, joint employer-employee participation can be informal. On the

other hand, in a large organization, it can be highly structured and involve clearly deﬁned

responsibilities and procedures. In a small organization, joint participation can take the

form of a very small Committee composed, for example, of one employer representative

and two employee representatives. The work of such a Committee will be made easier if

they can resort to expertise and information documents made available by a specialized

government body. In Sweden, Great Britain and Canada (in the provinces of Ontario and

Quebec) in particular, public bodies have produced simpliﬁed documents on implementing

pay equity, aimed at small organizations. Models exist which are ﬂexible and well-suited to

small and medium-sized enterprises. Moreover, as managers of small and medium-sized

enterprises have pointed out, the resulting beneﬁts of pay equity are considerable.

In the

case of a small enterprise with approximately ten jobs

to be evaluated, the programme

can be completed in a short space of time – as little as a week – if those in charge of the

process have been given pertinent training beforehand (see further below).

In a medium-sized or large enterprise, a larger and more structured Committee can be set

up, ensuring that the various parties will be represented, that is, the employer, unionized

employees and non-unionized employees. If there are a considerable number of jobs to

be evaluated, steps 1 to 5 could take up to two years to complete, especially when those

in charge of the process devote only a few hours per week to it. In a very large organiza-

tion or in the public service where the number of different jobs is very high, that is, 150

or even more, the process could take up to three years to complete, but these cases are

exceptional.

Roles of the Pay Equity Committee

The roles played by the Committee should be quite broadly deﬁned, given that the vari-

ous steps of a pay equity programme, as described above, are closely interdependent.

Identifying the gender predominance of jobs allows participants, right from the start, to

become familiar with the various jobs in the enterprise and their main characteristics; the

choice or adaptation of a job evaluation method forces participants to understand what

constitutes gender bias related to job evaluation and to develop skilled use of this tool,

which is so important for the process; data collection is closely tied to the job evaluation

method used since the questionnaire is developed based on the factors and sub-factors

identiﬁed. Consequently, it would appear to be logical and desirable that all the steps in

the programme be carried out by the same group of people. A body of knowledge and

skills is gradually acquired along the way and it would be unfortunate not to make the

best use of this asset throughout the entire exercise. The most suitable option is therefore

that a single Pay Equity Committee be responsible for all the steps in the programme, or

at least the ﬁrst ﬁve, and that its composition, insofar as is possible, remain stable.

This

will allow for effective progress and:

‚ ensure consistency in the process;

‚ lead to the development of solid in-house expertise

in the areas of equality and job evaluation;

‚ reduce delays caused when Committee members change between steps.

Comparative analysis of promoting pay equity : models and impacts, Marie-Thérèse Chicha, 2006 ; International Labour Ofﬁce, InFocus

Programmeme on Promoting the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. p. 9.

It should be speciﬁed that these are jobs and not employees. There may be 10 jobs but 20 or so employees.

Indeed, the longer the process is stretched out, the higher the risk of having to replace one or more Committee members.

The Pay Equity Committee

Composition of the Pay Equity Committee

When deciding on the composition of the Pay Equity Committee, the following points should be

taken into account:

‚ include members who have as direct as possible knowledge

of the main jobs to be evaluated;

‚ include members who are willing to recognize and eliminate

any gender bias that might affect the process or the evaluation tools;

‚ allow female workers to play a signiﬁcant role in this process

which concerns them most directly.

To this end, a number of criteria should be respected:

¢ PRESENCE OF EMPLOYEES

There should be a signiﬁcant presence of employees in the Committee in order to ensure that

the characteristics of the jobs to be evaluated are more fully taken into account. Their pres-

ence also legitimizes the process in the eyes of their co-workers and makes the results easier

for the latter to accept. To respond to these concerns, it is recommended that employees

make up at least half of the members of the Committee.

¢ PRESENCE OF WOMEN

Among employee Committee members, women should be well represented in order to:

‚ help better identify the overlooked requirements of female jobs;

‚ exert an inﬂuence over the decisions.

This representation could exceed 50 per cent, depending on the number of female employees

in the enterprise and the number of predominantly female jobs classes to be evaluated.

It is recommended that the female employees chosen to participate in the implementation

come from female-dominated jobs (for a deﬁnition of these jobs, see Chapter 3). Given the is-

sues involved in the exercise,

female-dominated jobs involving the highest number of

employees should have priority.

For example, in a bank where tellers represent the most important

female-dominated job in terms of numbers in relation to only a

small number of female administrative assistants, it is recommend-

ed that a female teller be asked to sit on the steering Committee.

Lastly, if female workers from ethnic minorities are concentrated in some jobs, they should

also be represented because their jobs are likely to be particularly disadvantaged in terms of pay.

For example, if in a garment factory, it is observed that seamstresses

are mostly women from ethnic minorities, it is recommended that

these employees be asked to participate in the Committee.

In the case of large enterprises, there should be no hesitation in choosing employees from

different hierarchical levels. Since women are concentrated in subordinate jobs, it is some-

times feared that they will not be able to clearly understand the evaluation process. However,

experience has shown that with adequate training and when being part of a group that holds no

prejudice, they can be excellent evaluators.

DESIGNATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Participants in the joint process, whether or not conducted by means of a Committee, should

be designated by the parties they represent.

‚ the employer, for management representatives;

‚ the trade union executive, for unionized members.

It is important that union and management representatives clearly distinguish the process of

achieving pay equity from the process of negotiating a collective agreement. Pay equity is a

fundamental right which must not be subject to concessions or compromises that character-

ize collective agreement negotiations. Distinguishing between the issues of pay equity and

those of collective agreements also helps to limit the potential conﬂicts between women’s and

men’s interests in trade unions.

In non-unionized settings, employees should also participate in the implementa-

tion of pay equity. Since, in general, they do not have collective structures, the employer

should set aside time for them to elect their representatives.

TRAINING

It is unanimously recognized that to perform their tasks effectively, Committee members

should receive basic training which includes two components: the dynamics of wage dis-

crimination and the methodological aspects related to implementing pay equity.

The purpose of the ﬁrst component is to help identify the prejudices and stereo-

types which can appear in different steps of the programme and should deal with the fol-

lowing points:

‚ the factors which account for wage discrimination;

‚ the inﬂuence of prejudices and stereotypes on job perception;

‚ the inﬂuence of prejudices and stereotypes on evaluation methods;

‚ the inﬂuence of prejudices and stereotypes on the compensation systems.

The purpose of the second component is to help the representatives carry out the

process in a rigorous manner and understand the proposals made by internal or external

experts. In particular it should cover:

‚ the evaluation method;

‚ the data collection procedures;

‚ the evaluation procedures;

‚ the components of total compensation;

‚ the values and the mission of the enterprise.

The Pay Equity Committee

These training sessions could be provided through any of the following approaches:

‚ discussion groups;

‚ simulation exercises;

‚ case studies.

Experience has sometimes shown that it is also useful to provide training in group dynamics in

order to facilitate interactions between Committee members.

INFORMATION

Complete and transparent information is an essential condition in order for the process to

run smoothly and so that employees will not be sceptical of the results. Two types of informa-

tion must be transmitted.

¢ INFORMATION INTENDED FOR MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES

In order for Committee members to perform their tasks, the employer must provide them

with the information they need, in particular that related to staff, their status, the compo-

nents of their total compensation schemes, any changes that take place in the enterprise

once pay equity has been introduced, etc.

Given the sensitive nature of certain information, those in charge of implementing the pro-

cess must undertake in writing to guarantee its conﬁdentiality. This information should only

be used in the context of pay equity processes.

¢ INFORMATION INTENDED FOR EMPLOYEES

It is essential that employees be periodically informed of the main steps achieved, for example:

‚ The establishment and composition of the Committee;

‚ The work plan schedule;

‚ The jobs to be evaluated;

‚ Data collection on the jobs to be evaluated;

‚ The results of the evaluation;

‚ The pay adjustments.

Whether pertaining to the value assigned to jobs or to pay adjustments, none of this informa-

tion should be personal: the data should be communicated in terms of jobs and not in terms

of employee.

OPERATING RULES

The Committees’ operating rules should be established right at the beginning.

Although

use of consensus rather than voting is time consuming, especially at the

beginning, it has several advantages:

‚ It allows for different viewpoints to be heard;

‚ It leads to an in-depth consideration of the different facets of an issue;

‚ The decisions are more likely to be supported by all of the employees.

For members to be able to fully perform their tasks, different types of guarantees should

be provided for:

BENEFITS

Joint participation of employees, in particular in a structured Committee, contributes to:

¢ Legitimizing the process and the results in the eyes of employees, especially if the

Committee members have the reputation of being impartial and upright;

¢ Ensuring that decisions are based on better knowledge of the jobs and reducing the

risk of errors and discrimination, provided that the Committee members have re-

ceived training covering the two components mentioned (see ‘Training’ above) and

that transparent and complete information has been made available to them;

¢ Avoiding the extensive use of external consultants and its related costs;

¢ Improving labour relations when Committee members have learned to work towards

achieving a common goal and to proceed by consensus.

In the case of a very large enterprise with numerous establishments and a wide range of

very different jobs (one hundred or more), two years can be provided for if those respon-

sible for the process only spend a few hours on it per week.

The Pay Equity Committee

PROTECTION FROM REPRISALS: for Committee members to be able to perform their work

freely, they should be protected from reprisals which could result from any position they may

have taken or opinions they may have expressed in the Committee;

MAINTAINING THEIR SALARY: time spent on Committee work and on training should

be considered to be work time and be paid accordingly;

SCHEDULING OF MEETINGS: the schedules planned for meetings should not prevent

employees with family responsibilities from participating since this would particularly penal-

ize women.

Was a Pay Equity Committee created right at the

beginning of the process?

Has this Committee clearly deﬁned its mandate?

Has the mandate been communicated to all

employees?

Is there at least 50% employee representation on

the Committee?

Do women form the majority of employee

members?

Are female-dominated jobs including the largest

number of employees represented?

Are female workers from ethnic minorities

represented in the Committee?

In non-unionized enterprises, are employees well

represented within the Committee?

In unionized enterprises, are the interests of non-

unionized employees equally taken into account?

Have Committee members received joint

training?

Does this training cover both gender bias

and methodological aspects?

Has the employer made all of the information

needed by Committee members to accomplish

their tasks available?

Have Committee members undertaken to

maintain conﬁdentiality of this information?

Were the operating rules for the Committee

established at the outset?

Is decision-making based on consensus to

the extent possible?

Are members of the Committee protected from

all reprisals linked to their participation?

Is time spent on Committee activities considered

to be work time and paid accordingly?

Does the scheduling of meetings take account

of the requirements related to balancing work

and family responsibilities?

If you answered “No” to any of these questions,

you will need to examine the reasons why.

If a satisfactory explanation cannot be found,

then you will need to modify your decision.

The Pay Equity Committee

Objectives and sequence 17

Drawing up a list of the jobs in the enterprise 18

Gender predominance of jobs and wage discrimination 19

Absence of male comparators 21

Beneﬁts 22

Checklist 23

CONTENTS - CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER

Selecting which jobs to compare

OBJECTIVES

This chapter explains how to select which jobs to

compare within the enterprise in order to identify

wage gaps due to discrimination. The job compar-

ison criterion is linked to the ground of discrimin-

ation being fought. For example, if it is a question of

correcting wage gaps due to discrimination on the

basis of sex, the pay levels of female-dominated jobs

should be compared to those of male-dominated

jobs. If it is a question of discrimination based on

ethnic origin, jobs performed by people of ethnic or

foreign origin should be compared to those performed

by people who do not share these characteristics. In

this Guide, emphasis will be put on sex as the ground

of discrimination.

Selecting which

jobs to compare

THE SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS IS AS FOLLOWS:

Drawing up a list of the jobs in the enterprise

Determining whether these jobs are male- or female-dominated

Ensuring that the criteria used to determine predominance are rigorous

Ensuring that there is no gender bias

If necessary, determining which strategy to use in the absence of male comparators

DRAWING UP A LIST OF JOBS IN THE ENTERPRISE

In a pay equity programme, it is generally recommended that all jobs in an enterprise be

included. Methods have been developed that make it possible simultaneously to evaluate

a great variety of jobs, including, for example, those of mechanics, nurses, secretaries or

engineers. The same method must be used to evaluate all of these jobs in order to be able

to compare them to one another. If one method is used to evaluate blue-collar jobs, which

are generally held by men, while another method is used to evaluate ofﬁce jobs, which are

generally held by women, this will automatically mean that the blue-collar jobs are being

exclusively compared among themselves, while the same holds true for the ofﬁce jobs. Part

of wage discrimination based on sex will thus be impossible to correct or even to measure.

Often, in enterprises,

jobs requiring skills or involving duties or responsibilities that

are partially different can be found under the same job title. Listing jobs with differ-

ent requirements under the same title will lead to many problems later on when it comes

to job evaluation.

For example: In a wholesale company, the title “salesperson” covers

both employees who are in charge of sales of state-of-the-art com-

puter equipment to other companies, and employees who sell small

basic equipment to retailers. While these two positions share the

same job title, they require different types of knowledge, much more

detailed and extensive in the ﬁrst case than in the second. These

positions should be distinguished and given different job titles.

On the other hand, sometimes similar jobs are found under different job titles.

Perhaps in the past these jobs actually did involve different responsibilities or qualiﬁcations

which may have become blurred with changes in technology, while their respective job titles

have remained the same. In this case, for reasons of simplicity, it would be better to group

them together to avoid weighing down the process unnecessarily.

The questions that must be addressed right from the start in order to properly deﬁne the

jobs within an enterprise for pay equity purposes are the following:

Do the jobs being considered involve similar responsibilities or duties? If this is not

the case, even if the jobs share the same job title, it will be necessary to separate them and

give them different titles, such as, in the example cited above, ﬁrm-to-ﬁrm sales representa-

tive and retail sales representative.

Do the jobs being considered require similar qualiﬁcations? For example, in a pay

equity programme implemented in the food service industry, the term “chef” might be used

in both large and small restaurants. However, when job qualiﬁcations are examined closely,

it can be observed that a chef in a large restaurant must be able to manage a team of spe-

cialized assistants and plan major gastronomic events, etc., whereas these skills would not

be required of a chef in a small restaurant. In the case of sectoral job evaluation the Com-

mittee should distinguish between these two jobs by assigning them different job titles and,

subsequently, evaluating them separately.

GENDER PREDOMINANCE OF JOBS AND

WAGE DISCRIMINATION

Identifying the gender predominance of jobs is a vital step, given that it is known that preju-

dices and stereotypes about female jobs are a major cause of women’s work being underval-

ued and underpaid.

It is therefore important, right from the start, to identify which jobs within the

enterprise are female-dominated, since these jobs are likely to be subject to wage dis-

crimination.

It is also important to identify male-dominated jobs against which the

former can be compared in order to assess wage gaps.

It is possible, as is done in some countries such as Sweden for example, to compare female-

dominated jobs with all other jobs in the organization. In this case, it is not necessary to

identify male-dominated jobs, thus simplifying the process. On the other hand, comparators

include so-called “neutral” jobs, that is, jobs that cannot be associated with women or with

men and which are therefore not affected by the issue of discrimination. This approach, how-

ever, carries the risk of resulting in a less accurate measure of discriminatory wage gaps.

Criteria for determining predominance

Several of the criteria for determining predominance can be used together or separately.

These criteria were chosen because several studies have demonstrated their impact on wom-

en’s work being undervalued and underpaid. They are therefore good indicators for identify-

ing jobs which are likely to be subject to wage discrimination.

Percentage of women or men

One criterion which makes it possible to decide whether a job is female- or

male-dominated is the per centage of women or men performing the job.

In fact, statistics show that the higher the proportion of women performing a job, the lower

the corresponding pay and vice versa. In some countries, a job is considered to be female-

or male-dominated if women or men represent at least 60 per cent of those performing the

job. In other countries, the threshold is set at 70 per cent. It is important to realize that the

Selecting which jobs to compare

higher the threshold is set, the lower the number of jobs identiﬁed as gender-dominated will

be. There are no conclusive studies indicating what the optimal threshold should be.

When calculating the per centage, it is important to take into account all employees, regard-

less of their status, because high rates of precariousness are often found among female jobs.

The following example shows that by excluding precarious employees from the count, there

is a risk of changing the predominance of the corresponding job and thus unfairly preventing

these women workers from beneﬁting from pay equity.

For example, 20 employees hold a given job, including:

4 men and 1 woman with permanent status and 4 men and

11 women with temporary status;

If all temporary jobs are excluded when determining the gender

predominance of this job, it will be determined to be male-dom-

inated, at a rate of 80 per cent (4/5). Thus, all of the employees

holding this job will be denied the beneﬁts of pay equity;

If temporary jobs are included when determining the gender pre-

dominance of this job, it will be determined to be female-dominated,

at a rate of 60 per cent (12/20) Therefore, all of the employees

holding this job, including, in particular, the female workers with

temporary status, will potentially beneﬁt from pay equity.

Canadian jurisdictions have passed proactive pay equity laws.

It is important to include all of the organization’s employees, whether they

be full-time or part-time, on indeterminate or ﬁxed-term contracts.

Recent history of the job

It can happen, in the case where the number of employees in a given occupation is low,

say four or ﬁve employees, that the departure of two of these employees will modify the

per centage and consequently the determined predominance of the job.

For example: A company had been employing ten draftspersons

since 2000, including just one woman. In 2005, several of these

draftspersons retired and were replaced by others, so that in

2006, there were now 7 women and 3 men among the group.

It would be absurd to consider that this occupation had become

female-dominated and was therefore likely to be subject to wage

discrimination because the proportion of women performing the

job went from 20 to 70 per cent within the space of one year. This

is why, in some Canadian provinces such as Ontario and Que-

bec,

it is suggested that the recent history of a job be taken into

consideration. Such a practice would lead the job cited in this

example to be considered, in 2006, as a male-dominated job.

How far back in time should such an analysis go? In principle, it would be necessary to

go back to the time when the wages for the job were set. If the occupation was male-

dominated at that time, there is good reason to maintain this characteristic at the time the

pay equity exercise is carried out. This exercise is more straightforward when dealing with

unionized employees because, in this case, the analysis can be based on the situation that

existed on the date the last collective agreement was signed. Otherwise, a retroactive period

of ﬁve to six years should sufﬁce. This approach also ensures stability in the results of the

exercise. Otherwise, any change in an occupation’s gender predominance would throw the

results into doubt.

Stereotypes

Lastly, another relevant indicator to consider is whether the job is stereotypically a female

job – nurse, primary school teacher, receptionist or cashier – or male job – senior man-

ager, programmemer/analyst, truck driver or electrician. The lone receptionist’s position

in a company may be held by a man. Nonetheless, this job is stereotypically a woman’s

job and the pay is likely to be affected by this stereotype. Those responsible for carrying

out the pay equity process could classify it among female-dominated jobs.

How can stereotypes be identiﬁed? There are several possible indicators:

¢ Global statistics on the labour market;

¢ The female or male proﬁle of a job in a given sector (for example, the chefs in

expensive restaurants tend to be men while the cooks in ordinary restaurants

tend to be women; the same pattern holds true for waiters and waitresses);

¢ The female or male designation commonly associated with the job (for example,

the ongoing spontaneous use of “policeman” and “cleaning woman.”

ABSENCE OF MALE COMPARATORS

In some enterprises in highly female-dominated sectors, there may be no male-dominated

jobs, even when all employees are taken into account. Since, traditionally, comparisons are

made within an enterprise, it can therefore appear to be impossible to assess and correct

wage discrimination. At the same time, female-dominated sectors, such as the clothing in-

dustry, often feature low wages, precarious employment and a high concentration of migrant

women workers.

One way out of this impasse may be found by looking to industry-level pay equity initiatives

or initiatives taken by sector-based Committees. Male-dominated jobs may thus be found in

other companies in the same sector, which could be used for comparison.

In practice, those responsible for this step will have to decide on the

gender predominance of each job, by comparing the results of the three

indicators and, if they are not consistent, by choosing the option that

appears most relevant to them.

When none of the indicators are relevant, the job can be considered to

be neutral. In this case, it will not be included in wage comparisons.

Selecting which jobs to compare

BENEFITS

This step, which is often overlooked in pay equity programmes, has several beneﬁts, including,

the following:

¢ It leads to a more coherent listing of job titles and job content, which then facilitates

human resources management;

¢ It familiarizes the members of the Pay Equity Committee with the notion of stereotypes and

their impact, which in turn allows them to gain a better understanding of the way these

stereotypes inﬂuence the various facets of job evaluation;

¢ It allows for the better identiﬁcation of occupational segregation existing in the enterprise

and thus for the development of equal employment opportunity programmes.

Have all the jobs in the enterprise

been included in the programme?

Has it been determined that

jobs involving different duties or

qualiﬁcations do not come under the

same job title?

Has it been determined that similar

jobs are not found under two different

job titles?

Have female- and male-dominated

jobs been determined?

Are the criteria used to

determine gender predominance

multidimensional?

Does the number of employees

holding gender-dominated jobs

include all employees in the

enterprise, whether they be full-time

or part-time, on indeterminate or

ﬁxed-term contracts?

In enterprises where there are no

male comparators, have all possible

options been explored to implement

pay equity?

If you answered “No” to any of these

questions, you will need to examine the

reasons why. If a satisfactory explanation

cannot be found, then you will need

to modify your decision.

Selecting which jobs to compare

CONTENTS - CHAPTER 4

Objectives and sequence 25

Selecting the method 26

Evaluation factors 27

Sub-factors 28

Qualiﬁcations: sub-factors 29

Effort: sub-factors 31

Responsibility: sub-factors 32

Working conditions: sub-factors 34

Levels of sub-factors 36

Beneﬁts 39

Checklist 40

CHAPTER

Job evaluation methods

Job evaluation

methods

OBJECTIVES

The goal of a job evaluation method is to assess,

based on common criteria, the characteristics of the

jobs within an enterprise in order to establish their

relative value. In terms of pay equity, more speciﬁc-

ally, such a method makes it possible to ensure that

female-dominated jobs and male-dominated jobs of

equal value are subject to the same pay.

In general, the document or Guide presenting the job

evaluation method should include two parts:

The ﬁrst part sets out the selected factors and sub-

factors in the method;

The second part explains how these factors and

sub-factors should be interpreted and includes

concrete illustrations for this purpose pertaining to

the enterprise or the sector considered.

THE SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS IS AS FOLLOWS:

Selecting the method

Selecting or adapting the evaluation sub-factors

Ensuring that the sub-factors adequately cover overlooked aspects of women’s work

Ensuring that the sub-factors are rigorous

Determining which dimensions will be used to measure sub-factors

Determining the number of levels per sub-factor and deﬁning them

Ensuring that the levels are rigorous and gender-neutral

Ensuring that the entire method has been recorded clearly and precisely in writing

SELECTING THE METHOD

Type of method

There are two types of evaluation methods: global methods and analytical methods. The ﬁrst,

such as the ranking and classiﬁcation methods, compares jobs and classiﬁes them according

to basic job requirements, without carrying out a detailed analysis of their content. A major dis-

advantage of the global approach is that it does not allow for the identiﬁcation and elimination

of the inﬂuence of prejudices and stereotypes which cause predominantly female jobs to be

undervalued. This is why this method is often not recommended for pay equity purposes.

Analytical methods make it possible for all the requirements of all jobs in an enterprise to be

systematically examined, evaluated and compared, using common, precise and detailed crit-

eria. An analytical method based on points and factors, usually referred to as the point method,

is currently recognized as the most appropriate evaluation method for pay equity purposes. This

method forms the basis of the methodology presented in this Guide.

Developing the method

When selecting a gender-neutral evaluation method which is well suited to the speciﬁc charac-

teristics of the enterprise, there are several possible options:

¢ Modifying an evaluation method which is currently being used in the enterprise;

¢ Developing a new evaluation method based on documents which are available for

this purpose;

¢ Adapting an evaluation method developed for enterprises in the same sector,

when sector-based initiatives have been carried out;

¢ Acquiring a method developed by a consultant. A great variety of such methods are

available. However, some of these methods do not take into account, or give very little

consideration to the issues related to pay equity. Before selecting a method developed

by a consultant, a few questions need to be addressed, in particular whether the method

ﬁts the criteria of gender neutrality.

The list of these documents and how they can be obtained is indicated in the Bibliography of this Guide.

Checklist of elements to verify when selecting a method developed by a consultant:

q Where does the method come from? When was it developed? What types of jobs

or sectors was it developed for? In what work context is it most often used?

q What changes have been introduced in order to adapt it to pay equity purposes?

q Can the method be adapted to suit the gender-predominant job classes in your

enterprise?

q Is the consultant willing to allow members of the Committee in charge of the

programme, where such a Committee exists, to participate fully in the process?

q Does the method assess all four evaluation factors: qualiﬁcations, effort, responsibility

and working conditions? Have other factors which do not ﬁt into these four categories

of factors been unduly added?

q Do the sub-factor deﬁnitions contain sexist components? Do they take into account

the aspects of women’s jobs which are often overlooked?

q Are the evaluation tools, such as the questionnaire, free of discriminatory bias?

q Is the implementation process recommended likely to create discriminatory bias?

q How has the consultant ensured that the method, tools and process are entirely free

of sex-based discrimination? Are there reliable means by which to monitor this?

EVALUATION FACTORS

Most point methods of job evaluation include four basic factors:

‚ Qualiﬁcations;

‚ Effort;

‚ Responsibility;

‚ The conditions under which the work is performed.

According to evaluation and compensation experts,

these four factors are

essential and sufﬁcient

for evaluating all the tasks performed in an organ-

ization, regardless of which economic sector the enterprise belongs to.

Each of the four factors must be used to evaluate each job.

For example: Within a given enterprise, it would not be acceptable

to evaluate electricians based on qualiﬁcations, responsibility,

effort and working conditions, while evaluating secretaries based

only on qualiﬁcations, effort and responsibility, on the pretext that

secretaries have good working conditions. Secretaries also work

under difﬁcult conditions, and it is important to evaluate this

factor for them as well.

Job evaluation methods

SUB-FACTORS

The four basic factors should be broken down into sub-factors, which will make it

possible to take into account the more detailed and varied characteristics of the different

types of jobs in each enterprise.

For example, the qualiﬁcations factor can be broken down

into work-related knowledge, manual dexterity and interpersonal skills, while the effort fac-

tor can be broken down into mental effort and physical effort, and so forth.

Most methods include between

10 and 16 sub-factors in total, depending on the

size of the enterprise and the variety of jobs to be evaluated. While the sub-factors chosen

must come under one of the four basic factors, the choice and the way they are interpreted in

concrete terms can vary depending on the economic sector. Two conditions must be strictly

observed: rigorous methodology and gender neutrality.

Rigorous methodology

Adapting the method to the organization

Selecting which jobs to compare, which was carried out in the previous step, allowed those

responsible for pay equity to acquire information on the various work groups and types of

jobs and tasks existing in the enterprise. This knowledge will be highly useful now when it

comes to adapting the content of the evaluation method to the speciﬁc characteristics of

the organization.

Small organizations will need a relatively simple method that can include a total of seven to

eight sub-factors.

Avoiding ambiguity

Disparate elements should not be grouped together under a single sub-factor so that evalu-

ators will have trouble interpreting it. This would be the case, for example, if handling heavy

objects, taxing working positions and visual attention, three very different dimensions of

physical effort, were grouped together under one sub-factor. The lack of precision in the

deﬁnition of this sub-factor would likely lead to unreliable results:

‚ Assessing this sub-factor would be very complex;

‚ Jobs simultaneously involving all three requirements would likely be

undervalued.

Not counting a sub-factor twice

Sub-factors should not be counted twice. For example, some evaluation methods designed

mainly for manufacturing jobs included a qualiﬁcations sub-factor called ability to handle

heavy equipment and an effort sub-factor called moving heavy objects. If the same factor

is counted twice, jobs whose requirements are rated particularly high in this regard will be

overvalued compared to other jobs.

Gender neutrality

Predominantly female jobs often involve different requirements from those of predominantly

male jobs, whether in terms of qualiﬁcations, effort, responsibility or working conditions.

Until recently, female-dominated jobs were evaluated based on methods designed mainly

for male-dominated jobs, which partly accounts for wage discrimination. It is important to

be vigilant when selecting the method and to

ensure that its content is equally tailored

to both female- and male-dominated jobs.

A small number of methods, such as the ABAKABA method (Katz and Baitsch, 1996), use a different approach to deﬁne and categorize the

various criteria, but the variables taken into account are comparable.

Selecting sub-factors

There is room for a great deal of leeway when selecting sub-factors. Those responsible for

the pay equity programme must endeavour to match the selected sub-factors as closely

as possible with the jobs in the enterprise. As will be seen later, when carrying out this

task, it is important to

include the sub-factors associated with women’s jobs which

are often overlooked in evaluation methods.

Example of sub-factors

It is important that the evaluation sub-factors be clearly deﬁned; the explanations con-

tained in the method’s companion document should be illustrated with

examples taken

from the workplace and corresponding to both female-dominated and male-

dominated jobs. If the examples used to illustrate a sub-factor refer only to predomin-

antly male jobs, the same tendency will be found in data collection tools (including the

questionnaire) and in the evaluators’ decisions. This will have the effect of maintaining the

invisible nature of the overlooked aspects of predominantly female jobs.

In the sections that follow, sub-factors that come under the four main factors will be

examined

from the perspective of gender neutrality. Prejudices and stereotypes that can

distort the evaluation will be pointed out and aspects of some female-dominated jobs

which are often overlooked will be brought to light.

QUALIFICATIONS: SUB-FACTORS

Qualiﬁcations refer to knowledge and skills which are required for a job and

which may have been acquired in various ways, such as through:

‚ Academic or vocational training certiﬁed by a diploma;

‚ Paid work experience in the labour market;

Informal training;

‚ Volunteer work.

It should be pointed out that this chapter will not provide an exhaustive examination of all possible sub-factors corresponding to each

main factor.

What is important is not how the qualiﬁcations were acquired but rather that

their content corresponds to the requirements of the job being evaluated.

Prejudices and stereotypes regarding qualiﬁcations

Many prejudices and stereotypes lead to the undervaluing of qualiﬁcations required by

female-dominated jobs.

Believing that skills required by female-dominated jobs, such as interpersonal skills,

communication skills or ﬁne manual dexterity

are innate and constitute personal qual-

ities rather than job qualiﬁcations. It is essential to include all of the qualiﬁcations that are

required for the jobs being evaluated, regardless of how these qualiﬁcations were acquired.

For example: Nursing requires a great deal of empathy, know-how

and patience when it comes to relations with patients and their

families. Whether this skill is innate or acquired is not a relevant

question for job evaluation. If the skill is needed to accomplish the

tasks involved, it must be considered to be a job qualiﬁcation.

Job evaluation methods

¢ Automatically considering many female-dominated jobs as requiring few qualiﬁ-

cations and disregarding some of the speciﬁc skills required by these jobs.

For example: Secretarial jobs are often considered as requiring few

qualiﬁcations. However, secretaries must have a good command of

working language in order to write texts, write up the minutes of

meetings and correct letters. This job qualiﬁcation is rarely taken

into account in traditional evaluation methods, and this has led to

secretarial jobs being undervalued.

Qualiﬁcation factor: Selecting and providing examples of gender-neutral sub-factors

Eliminating prejudices and stereotypes, in concrete terms, entails both:

Indicating that a sub-factor is female does not mean that it is not found in male-dominated jobs, but simply that it corresponds relatively more

often to female- or male-dominated jobs. This column demonstrates the importance, for each factor, of taking into account not only the sub-factors

associated with male-dominated jobs, but also the sub-factors associated with female-dominated jobs (which are often overlooked in traditional

job evaluation methods). Similar tables will be found illustrating other factors in the following pages.

Table 4.1 Qualiﬁcation factor: Selecting and providing examples of gender-neutral sub-factors

Type of sub-factor

(Gender neutrality in selecting

sub-factors)

Female-dominated job title Examples of female-dominated jobs

(Gender neutrality in illustrating

sub-factors)

Interpersonal skills (female)

Social worker, nurse, human resources

employee

Counselling, interviewing

Salesperson Evaluating customer needs, persuading

Teacher Motivating, using teaching skills

Communication skills (female)

Telemarketing employee, customer

services agent, public relations ofﬁcer,

salesperson

Knowledge of a foreign language

Secretary

Correcting texts, writing up the minutes

of meetings

Physical skills (male)

Secretary

Fine manual dexterity:

using a keyboard

Nurse Giving injections

Seamstress

Hemming garments, sewing

together complex garment pieces

Assembler

Assembling small electronic

components, colour-coded

electrical wires, according to

a speciﬁc sequence

Taking account of sub-factors which are usually associated with

predominantly female jobs, and

Ensuring that sub-factors are illustrated with examples which include

references to predominantly female jobs

EFFORT: SUB-FACTORS

Effort refers to the difﬁculty related to and the fatigue and tension caused by

performing job tasks. It has been noted that most job evaluation methods used

in traditional work contexts have put almost exclusive emphasis on physical ef-

fort. However, when addressing pay equity, it is important to redeﬁne physical

effort and take mental and emotional effort into account as well. Some practi-

tioners prefer to group these two sub-factors under the title psychological effort.

In fact, the choice will depend on the type of jobs to be evaluated.

Prejudices and stereotypes regarding effort

As regards effort, traditional methods have focused on physical effort, in particular that

which is associated with blue-collar jobs in the manufacturing or construction sectors.

This very widespread image of what constitutes physical effort has had the effect of mak-

ing the effort required by many female jobs invisible. Thus, predominantly female jobs,

mainly ofﬁce jobs or jobs in the service sector, are seen as not being very physically de-

manding.

¢ A SECRETARY’S JOB involves the following kinds of physical effort:

° Lifting and moving piles of ﬁles or boxes of documents;

° Bending over ﬁling cabinets to ﬁle or look for documents;

° Being in a sitting position for long hours doing word processing.

¢ AN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATOR’S JOB involves lifting young, often boisterous,

children; A NURSE’S JOB involves lifting weak or frail patients. Both of these jobs

involve physically demanding tasks.

¢ A SEAMSTRESS’S JOB in a mass production plant involves signiﬁcant and varied

physical effort, including, in particular:

° Operating a pedal quickly and repeatedly for long periods of time;

° Bending over the work surface for long periods of time;

° Lifting and moving piles of ﬁnished garments.

Another consequence of this stereotyped image of effort is the tendency to disregard other

signiﬁcant aspects of this factor, such as

mental and emotional effort, the latter being

very much a part of several female-dominated jobs.

Effort sub-factor: Selecting and providing gender-neutral examples

As indicated in table 4.2, eliminating prejudices and stereotypes, in concrete terms, en-

tails both:

‚ Taking account of sub-factors which are usually associated with predominantly

female jobs, and

‚ Ensuring that sub-factors are illustrated with examples which include refer-

ences to predominantly female jobs.

Job evaluation methods

Table 4.2 Effort factor: Selecting and providing examples of gender-neutral sub-factors

Type of sub-factor

(Gender neutrality in selecting

sub-factors)

Female-dominated job title Examples of female-dominated jobs

(Gender neutrality in illustrating

sub-factors)

Emotional effort (female)

Social worker Contact with battered children

Special education teacher Supporting disabled children

Nurse Contact with terminally ill patients

Customer services agent

Negotiating with customers who are

dissatisﬁed or aggressive

Mental effort (neutral)

Secretary, cashier

Data entry, correcting texts or checking

ﬁgures

Secretary Taking notes in meetings

Nurse, teacher Multi-skilling

Translator, interpreter

Intense concentration over long periods

of time

Physical effort (male)

Secretary

Quick, repetitive movements on a

keyboard

Secretary

Lifting and moving piles of ﬁles and

boxes of documents

Secretary

Bending over ﬁling cabinets to ﬁle or

look for documents

Early childhood educator, nurse Lifting young children or patients

Waitress

Continually moving around, carrying

fairly heavy objects

Seamstress

Operating a pedal quickly and repeatedly

over long periods of time

Seamstress

Lifting and moving piles of ﬁnished

garments

Seamstress

Bending over the work surface for long

periods of time

Nurse Lifting and pushing patients in wheelchairs

RESPONSIBILITY: SUB-FACTORS

This factor includes tasks that have an impact on the enterprise’s goals, for ex-

ample, its proﬁtability, ﬁnancial soundness, market coverage and the health and

safety of its clients.

Prejudices and stereotypes regarding responsibility

It is important to consider the various types of responsibility associated with the enterprise’s

goals independently from the hierarchical level of the job or the number of employees it in-

volves supervising. Responsibility tends to be generally associated with

the hierarchical level

of jobs: a job which is high up on the hierarchical ladder is automatically considered as involv-

ing signiﬁcant responsibility. A simple and frequent indicator of the hierarchical level of a job is

the number of subordinates involved.

Predominantly female jobs are perceived as involving little responsibility. It is true that, due to

the glass ceiling, these jobs tend to be low on the hierarchical ladder, involving the supervision

of only a limited number of employees, and, in ﬁnancial terms, involving limited discretionary

power. However, these jobs do involve many other responsibilities which do not ﬁt into

such an unequivocal image related to this factor.

A closer look at the responsibility

they involve reveals that female-dominated jobs have a signiﬁcant and often

overlooked impact on the goals of the enterprise:

‚ Protecting the conﬁdentiality of important information is a job requirement

for employees in the payroll or customer services departments.

‚ Managers in the human resources department, this often being the only pre-

dominantly female managerial job, have signiﬁcant responsibility with regard

to the productivity of employees, as well as their health and safety, and

these in turn have an effect on the enterprise’s proﬁtability.

‚ Primary school teachers are responsible, in part, for the intellectual develop-

ment and safety of their pupils.

The stereotype which holds that women’s jobs involve little responsibility prevents people

from being aware of these requirements and results in their being disregarded in trad-

itional evaluation methods.

Responsibility sub-factor: Selecting and providing gender-neutral examples

Eliminating prejudices and stereotypes, in concrete terms, entails both:

‚ Taking account of sub-factors which are usually associated with predominantly

female jobs, and

‚ Ensuring that sub-factors are illustrated with examples which include refer-

ences to predominantly female jobs.

The following table illustrates the diversity of responsibilities that some female-dominated

jobs entail but which are often disregarded in evaluation methods:

Table 4.3 Responsibility factor: Selecting and providing examples of gender-neutral sub-factors

Type of sub-factor

(Gender neutrality in selecting

sub-factors)

Female-dominated job title Examples of female-dominated jobs

(Gender neutrality in illustrating

sub-factors)

Responsibility for people (female)

Early childhood educator, teacher,

nurse

Offering advice and information to

students

Early childhood educator, teacher Ensuring the safety of children

Responsibility for human

resources (female)

Human resources employee Guiding new employees

Secretary Planning meetings

Human resources employee Establishing human resource policies

Responsibility for conﬁdentiality

(neutral)

Salesperson, customer services agent Customer proﬁle

Payroll department employee Information regarding the payroll

Order ﬁller Vendor proﬁle

Financial responsibility (male)

Accounts payable department em-

ployee

Paying bills and writing cheques

Accounting clerk Bookkeeping

Responsibility for material

resources (male)

Secretary

Using, maintaining and ﬁxing ofﬁce

equipment: photocopier, computer,

scanner, printer

Secretary

Planning needs related to and ordering

various supplies

Job evaluation methods

WORKING CONDITIONS: SUB-FACTORS

This factor refers to the working conditions and psychological environment in

which the work is performed.

Prejudices and stereotypes regarding working conditions

Unlike predominantly male jobs, female-dominated jobs are perceived as being performed

in an environment which is free from dust, noise, potentially harmful chemical products and

uncomfortable temperatures. The psychological environment in the workplace is generally

considered to be pleasant. The working conditions factor is, in fact, generally disregarded in

the evaluation of administrative jobs, while it is taken into consideration in the evaluation of

production jobs.

An examination of the working conditions found in female-dominated jobs reveals many physical

conditions which are commonly overlooked.

‚ Janitorial staff are exposed to harmful chemical products;

‚ Supermarket cashiers are exposed to continuous noise and the potentially

harmful rays of scanners;

‚ Nurses are exposed to contagious diseases.

As for psychological conditions, the following aspects are rarely considered:

‚ Frequent interruptions to secretaries’ work;

‚ Urgent and unexpected requests from their supervisors;

‚ Constantly changing work schedules of cashiers or salespeople in certain

types of businesses.

Working conditions sub-factor: Selecting and providing gender-neutral examples

Eliminating prejudices and stereotypes, in concrete terms, entails both:

‚ Taking account of sub-factors which are usually associated with predominantly female

jobs, and

‚ Ensuring that sub-factors are illustrated with examples which include references to

predominantly female jobs.

Table 4.4 Working conditions factor: Selecting and providing examples of gender-neutral sub-factors

Type of sub-factor

(Gender neutrality in selecting

sub-factors)

Female-dominated job title Examples of female-dominated jobs

(Gender neutrality in illustrating

sub-factors)

Physical environment (male)

Secretary/ telephone operator

Constant exposure to cathode rays

that may lead to muscular pain and

eye strain

Receptionist

Moderate and constant exposure

to noise

Exposure to cathode rays from computer

monitors

Early childhood educator

Exposure to very high noise levels

made by children, toys and various

equipment

Early childhood educator, nurse Exposure to contagious diseases

Cashier

Exposure to the risks related to new

technologies such as scanners

Cashier

Constant exposure to noise: cash register,

customers, telephones

Janitorial staff in commercial buildings

Exposure to cleaning products that

pose health risks

Janitorial staff in commercial buildings Exposure to dirt, dust and garbage

Psychological conditions (female)

Secretary

Frequent interruptions in person and

by telephone

Secretary

Having to respond to immediate and

unexpected requests

Receptionist/ telephone operator

Lack of privacy in the work area

Isolation from co-workers

Early childhood educator

Interactions with sometimes hostile

or demanding parents

Cashier

Interactions with a varied, sometimes

difﬁcult or dissatisﬁed, public

Cashier Variable work schedule

Janitorial staff in commercial buildings Working outside regular working hours

Janitorial staff in commercial buildings

Increased risk of sexual harassment due

to night work and isolation

Job evaluation methods

LEVELS OF SUB-FACTORS

In order to be able to differentiate between various jobs, each sub-factor in the meth-

od chosen must be divided up into levels or degrees. For example, some jobs may

involve a high level of ﬁnancial responsibility while others may involve almost none at

all. Similarly, some jobs may involve a high degree of manual dexterity while others

require very little. These differences in signiﬁcance or intensity require the develop-

ment of scales by which they can be measured.

The dimension measured will vary depending on the type of sub-factor, for example:

‚ Visual effort will be measured in terms of duration;

‚ Concentration will be measured in terms of intensity;

‚ Unpleasant physical conditions will be measured in terms of

frequency of exposure.

As can be seen in the following table, in some cases, a single sub-factor will need to be measured

in terms of two (or more) different dimensions. In small organizations with few jobs, one dimension

will sufﬁce.

Table 4.5 Examples of dimensions of sub-factors

SUB-FACTORS DIMENSIONS

Job knowledge Depth/extent of knowledge

Ability to analyse Diversity of methods/complexity of information

Financial responsibility Value of resources

Conﬁdentiality Extent of access to information/degree of importance

of information

Concentration Intensity/duration

Physical effort Frequency/duration/working position/intensity

Unpleasant physical environment Frequency of exposure/intensity

Difﬁcult psychological conditions Frequency/intensity

In order to avoid confusion, when two dimensions of a sub-factor are combined, they can be measured in

terms of levels, as in the following table:

Table 4.6 Risk sub-factor levels

FREQUENCY SERIOUSNESS

Risk of minor injury Risk of serious injury Risk of very serious injury

Rarely

Level 1 Level 1 Level 1

Sometimes

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Regularly

Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

This table illustrates an example where each level represents two combined dimensions. In particular, it

should be noted that:

LEVEL can correspond to various combinations, as is the case for Levels 3 and 4 in this example. This is

necessary in order to avoid overly long scales which, in the end, do not clearly differentiate between jobs.

Deﬁning levels

Depending on the quantitative or qualitative nature of the dimension being measured,

some dimensions will be more difﬁcult to measure than others. For example, if it is a

question of evaluating ﬁnancial responsibility, the level will be determined by the amounts

being managed, measured in terms of ﬁgures, that is, the monetary value. On the other

hand, if it is a question of evaluating responsibility for people, which is essentially qualita-

tive in nature, deﬁning the levels will be more complex and will require more discussion

with the Committee members. The task of those responsible will be made easier if they

can base their decisions on concrete examples taken from their workplace.

Once Committee members of the process have come to an agreement on the deﬁnition of

the various levels of a given sub-factor, they should record this decision clearly in writing

in the companion document so that evaluators will be able to follow their instructions.

The following is an example of the deﬁnition of a sub-factor and its levels:

SUB-FACTOR: Physical Skills

This sub-factor measures the physical skills required for the job.

It covers manual and ﬁnger dexterity, hand-eye coordination, coordination of limbs, and

sensory coordination.

It takes into account the purpose to which the skills are put and demands arising from

the need to achieve speciﬁed standards of speed and precision.

LEVEL 1 There are no particular requirements with regard to physical skills.

LEVEL 2 The work requires dexterity, coordination or sensory skills, where there

is some demand for precision in the use of these skills.

LEVEL 3 The work requires dexterity, coordination or sensory skills, where there is:

(a) some demand for both precision and speed or (b) considerable demand for

precision, in the use of these skills.

LEVEL 4 The work requires dexterity, coordination or sensory skills, where there is:

(a) considerable demand for both precision and speed: or: (b) high demand

for precision, in the use of these skills.

LEVEL 5 The work requires dexterity, coordination or sensory skills, where there

is very high demand for precision in the use of these skills.

Deﬁnitions such as these should be illustrated and accompanied by instructions. For ex-

ample, the sub-factor described above could be illustrated in a companion document with

examples that correspond to jobs within the organization, such as the use of a keyboard

(female-dominated job) and the operation of a vehicle (male-dominated job).

In deﬁning the levels of sub-factors, two conditions must be strictly observed: rigorous

methodology must be used and gender neutrality must be ensured.

Example drawn from a reference document of the National Joint Council: General Factor Guidance Notes.

Job evaluation methods

Rigorous methodology

NUMBER OF LEVELS

The number of levels generally used to deﬁne sub-factors varies from two to seven or eight, de-

pending on the evaluation method used. A small number of levels simpliﬁes the evaluators’ task

but does not allow for jobs to be clearly differentiated from one another. An overly high number

of levels leads to such detailed differentiation that the differences can end up being insigniﬁcant.

In most cases, four to six levels is the best number to choose. If the sub-factor is considered to

be of secondary importance, the scale can be shorter, comprising two or three levels.

The number of levels should allow for the jobs to be clearly differentiated one from the other

while not weighing down the evaluation process unnecessarily. In small enterprises, the

number of levels per factor will most often vary from 2 to 3 since there is no need to differ-

entiate between a wide range of jobs.

NO AMBIGUITY

The deﬁnition of the levels should not be based on the hierarchical progression of jobs. The

levels must measure real differences in the intensity or signiﬁcance of a given sub-factor.

NO OVERLAP

Two different levels should not partially cover the same dimension of a sub-factor. For ex-

ample, if Level 2 corresponds to the responsibility of supervising 10 to 20 employees, while

Level 3 corresponds to that of supervising 15 to 30 employees, it will be difﬁcult to decide

where on the scale to place a job involving the supervision of 18 employees.

CONTINUITY

Scales must be continuous. For example, a scale in which Level 1 covers ﬁnancial responsibility

for amounts ranging from $1000 to $5000, Level 2 covers ﬁnancial responsibility for amounts

ranging from $10,000 to $50,000, and Level 3 covers ﬁnancial responsibility for amounts rang-

ing from $100,000 to $1,000,000, jobs involving responsibility for an amount between these

values will be difﬁcult to measure.

Gender neutrality

Avoid assigning lower levels to female-dominated jobs than are

assigned to male-dominated jobs

One important bias that can easily ﬁnd its way into the deﬁning of levels, and thus have a

discriminatory effect, is the tendency to assign lower levels to aspects that are associated with

female-dominated jobs compared to those that are associated with male-dominated jobs.

For example: In one method used by an organization, when it

came to evaluating physical skills, the use of a keyboard or sewing

machine was assigned a Level 2 while the operation of a vehicle or

forklift truck was assigned a Level 4, without this difference in levels

being justiﬁed.

For example: As regards responsibility for errors, errors that could

affect the prestige of a municipality (management jobs) were as-

signed a level which is two levels above those that could pose a

threat to the physical integrity of people (nursing jobs), without

any explanation for this decision being provided.

The assurance of gender neutrality can be veriﬁed when scales are being worked out or,

sometimes, even later in the process.

As has been seen in this chapter, when striving to treat predominantly

female and male jobs equally, the need to ensure gender neutrality

comes up again and again, and must be dealt with in a speciﬁc way in

each step of the evaluation process.

Avoid using shorter scales for sub-factors associated with female-

dominated jobs than for those associated with male-dominated jobs.

This would be the case, for example, if scales including two or three levels were used to

measure interpersonal skills or emotional effort while scales including ﬁve or six levels were

used to measure responsibility for material resources or physical effort. This would lead to a

much better differentiation being made between male jobs, with their speciﬁc features being

brought to light through comparison. On the other hand, the same would not be possible for

the female-dominated jobs measured by these scales.

BENEFITS

Adapting a job evaluation method to ﬁt the speciﬁc context of an organization leads to

better knowledge of the characteristics of the jobs within it and can contribute to improv-

ing various human resource management practices, such as recruiting, selecting and

promoting personnel.

Moreover, selecting a single evaluation method to measure all of the organization’s jobs,

whether they be administrative, professional or production jobs, can also contribute to

simplifying human resource management, including the compensation system.

Job evaluation methods

Does the method include only the following

four factors: qualiﬁcations, effort, responsibility

and working conditions?

Is the method well-suited to the characteristics

of the enterprise?

Do the method’s sub-factors allow for the

evaluation of all the jobs in the enterprise?

Are the sub-factors clear and easy to interpret

or, on the contrary, do they group together

disparate elements?

Do the sub-factors overlap, even partially?

Do the sub-factors take into account the

characteristics of female-dominated jobs in the

enterprise which are often overlooked?

Do sub-factor deﬁnitions refer to female-

dominated jobs as well as male-dominated jobs?

Have all required qualiﬁcations been included,

regardless of how they were acquired?

Have the different types of effort – mental,

emotional and physical – been taken into

account?

Have responsibilities been deﬁned independently

of the hierarchical progression of jobs?

Do the deﬁnitions of working conditions

adequately reﬂect the speciﬁc nature of this

factor in female-dominated jobs?

Does the number of levels per sub-factor allow

differences between jobs to be properly brought

to light?

Has it been determined that the scales used

to measure sub-factors:

are free from ambiguity?

do not overlap?

are continuous?

Has it been determined that the distribution of

jobs across the various levels will not have a

discriminatory effect on female-dominated jobs?

Has it been determined that the number of levels

per sub-factor will not have a discriminatory effect

on female-dominated jobs?

Have all of the characteristics of the method been

recorded in writing in a clear and systematic way?

f you answered “No” to any of these questions,

you will need to examine the reasons why.

If a satisfactory explanation cannot be found,

then you will need to modify your decision.

Job evaluation methods

CONTENTS - CHAPTER 5

Objectives and sequence 43

Job data collection tools 44

Gender neutrality 49

Rigorous design of questionnaires 50

Choice of vocabulary 51

Pre-test 52

Interviews 52

Observation 52

Task description 53

Administering the questionnaire 53

Beneﬁts 54

Checklist 55

CHAPTER

Collecting data on the jobs to be evaluated

Collecting data

on the jobs to

be evaluated

OBJECTIVES

Once the job evaluation method has been determined,

the next step involves collecting information on the

content of each job based on the factors selected.

The importance of accurate, complete, up to date and

gender-neutral job information cannot be emphasized

enough. Job information is used as the basis of job evalu-

ation decision (Canadian Human Rights Commission).

The quotation above highlights two conditions that must

be observed when collecting data: gender neutrality

must be ensured, that is, female-dominated jobs and

male-dominated jobs must be dealt with on an equal

basis, and the tool used must be rigorous, that is, the

information collected must be accurate, complete and

up to date. These two conditions are closely related.

THE SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS IS AS FOLLOWS:

Determining which type of data collection tool will be used

Developing the tool: structured or semi-structured questionnaire, interview schedule

or observation checklist

Ensuring that the tool is free from discriminatory bias

Ensuring that the tool is rigorous

Choosing which jobs to pre-test

Conducting the pre-test

Analysing the results and reviewing the tool, if necessary

Administering the data collection tool to employees and supervisors

JOB DATA COLLECTION TOOLS

Many different data collection tools can be used, although some are clearly better for pay

equity purposes.

STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE

Structured questionnaires are made up of questions, each of which is followed by a list of

answers or possibilities to be chosen by the respondent. The questionnaires must include

three parts:

Explanatory part

The ﬁrst, an explanatory part, includes information on the objective and content of the question-

naire as well as instructions for respondents. For example:

Table 5.1 Explanatory part of the questionnaire

Objective of questionnaire: To obtain information on your position

n The questions asked relate to four factors:

° The qualiﬁcations required

° The responsibility involved

° The effort required

°The conditions under which the work is performed.

n Your answers must be objective and precise

n Your answers must relate to the requirements of your position and not to

your own characteristics

n You must not overestimate or underestimate the requirements of your position

n You must base your answers on your regular tasks

n You must also include any recent changes made to the requirements

of your position

These instructions help to ensure the quality and uniformity of answers.

Task description

In the second part, respondents are asked to identify their position and describe their

job tasks according to deﬁned categories. This exercise allows analysts and evaluators to

better understand the answers relating to the requirements of the position. At the same

time, it allows task descriptions to be updated and standardized for subsequent use dur-

ing recruitment.

Holm and Harriman (2002)

Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN)

Table 5.2 Simple example for small enterprises

Table 5.3 Detailed examples for large enterprises

Job title___________________________________________________________________

Service or Department ______________________________________________________

Name ____________________________________________Date____________________

Job summary

Describe your job, its objective and your most important responsibilities.

_________________________________________________________________________

1. Identiﬁcation of position

Your name_________________________________________________________________

Designation (title) of position you hold: ________________________________________

In which service or department do you work?____________________________________

How long have you held this position?__________________________________________

Are you currently working full time?____________________________________________

If you are working part time, indicate the number of hours_________________________

What machines, instruments or equipment do you use?___________________________

2. Task description

Sum up your main duties or responsibilities in one or two sentences maximum.

_________________________________________________________________________

List the different tasks you perform as part of your duties.

_________________________________________________________________________

Once your list of tasks is completed, please indicate the order of importance (1, 2, 3, …)

of each listed task in the space on the right reserved for this purpose.

Collecting data on the jobs to be evaluated

Evaluative part

The last and most important part of the questionnaire includes questions relating to the require-

ments of the job. Some questionnaires are based on closed-ended questions to which examples

or comments cannot be added by respondents. Other questionnaires reserve a space after

some of the questions in which respondents can write an explanation. These are called semi-

structured questionnaires.

Instituto de la Mujer (adapted from ISOS questionnaire).

Table 5.4 Example of closed-ended questions tailored for large enterprises

Supervisory responsibility

This question relates to the direct responsibility of supervising other employees. Even if

you do not have the title of supervisor, you may have the responsibility of guiding or as-

sisting a new employee. Your supervisor may also have delegated some of his/her duties

to you. Please provide information on all these aspects or other similar aspects.

Type of responsibility (You can check more than one box)

No Shared Full

A Giving instructions to or assisting a new employee 1 2 3

B Allocating work 1 2 3

C Establishing work schedules 1 2 3

D Checking work 1 2 3

E Providing support and encouragement 1 2 3

F Recruitment 1 2 3

G Promotions 1 2 3

H Performance evaluation 1 2 3

I Dismissals 1 2 3

J On-the-job training 1 2 3

K Staff planning 1 2 3

L Legal issues relating to human resources 1 2 3

M Leading negotiations, projects or assignments 1 2 3

N Disciplinary actions 1 2 3

O Wage determination 1 2 3

P Occupational safety 1 2 3

Number of people under your supervision (Check one only)

A. None

B. 1 – 4

C. 5 – 10

D. 11 – 30

E. More than 30

How many different job categories or organizational levels do you supervise?

(Check one choice only)

A. None

B. One

C. More than one

Table 5.5 Example of questionnaire developed for small or medium-sized enterprises, based on

semi-structured questions

Adapted from Pay Equity Commission of Ontario (1993).

Both examples above are extracts from typical questionnaires and can be adapted to a spe-

ciﬁc enterprise by omitting some questions and/or adding others. The qualitative part of these

questions may take a lot of time to process if the number of respondents is high; on the other

hand, it will be easier to process in the case of small or medium-sized enterprises with a

limited number of employees.

STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE

Ë Advantages of structured questionnaires

Structured questionnaires restrict the margin of interpretation of analysts and thus help to

avoid the inﬂuence of gender bias during the evaluation.

Another advantage accounting for their increasing use is that the structured part of the ques-

tionnaire lends itself well to the computerization of results. In some methods, the software for

presenting and analysing results is supplied by the designers.

Responsibility in the areas of human resources, policies and practices

As part of your job requirements, you must perform the following:

(check all applicable answers):

a. Provide advice, informal training or instructions to co-workers or volunteers

b. Organize the work schedule of others.

Explain _________________________________________________________________

c. Coordinate the allocation of tasks.

Explain _________________________________________________________________

d. Participate in recruitment, dismissal and performance evaluation of staff.

e. Conduct pay reviews and set wages

f. Directly supervise a work unit

g. Supervise more than one work unit.

Describe _______________________________________________________________

h. Assume responsibility for other supervisory staff members who report to you.

How many? ____________________________________________________________

i. Develop human resource management policies

j. Develop special programmes.

Explain _________________________________________________________________

Collecting data on the jobs to be evaluated

Structured questionnaires can also be easily adapted. For example, in cases where the

evaluation method was designed for a particular economic sector, a generic questionnaire

will have been produced which can be used by adapting a number of questions according

to the sub-sector considered.

Ë Disadvantage of structured questionnaires

These questionnaires are more complex to design because if a job dimension is omitted,

respondents will not have the opportunity to describe it.

OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRES

Open-ended questionnaires must also include three parts: instructions for respondents, de-

scription of tasks and questions on job requirements. The ﬁrst two parts are similar to those in

structured questionnaires; however, the third part involves the writing skills of respondents since

they must describe their job requirements, as shown in the following example:

Responsibility for work planning, development, results and management

What responsibilities for planning, development and results are required in your job?

Is managerial responsibility required in your job? To what extent is the responsibility

exercised autonomously? What are the impacts of errors made in exercising these

responsibilities?

____________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Ë Advantages of open-ended questionnaires

One advantage is that respondents are given the opportunity to describe all aspects of their

jobs in detail and, therefore, more detailed information can be obtained.

Another advantage is that they are easier to design since there is less risk that information

will be incomplete; indeed, even if a dimension is omitted by the questionnaire designers,

respondents will still be able to indicate it and provide the necessary details.

Ë Disadvantages of open-ended questionnaires

A major disadvantage of open-ended questionnaires is that they can reinforce gender bias

and lead to unequal results between female-dominated jobs and male-dominated jobs. In

fact, they strongly rely on the respondents’ writing skills, which vary according to the jobs they

perform. In some enterprises, women who are concentrated in jobs which involve carrying

out tasks that do not require the use of their writing skills are likely to be disadvantaged.

In addition, women seem to be inclined to use moderate terms to describe the responsibili-

ties or skills required by their jobs. For example, although the responsibilities are identical,

they tend to more often use the term coordinate than supervise or lead, terms which are

more often used by men.

Both these factors are likely to have a downwards inﬂuence on the way evaluators view the

value of female-dominated jobs. To minimize these problems, respondents should be well

supervised when completing the questionnaire. However, this procedure may be costly in

large enterprises.

Another disadvantage of open-ended questionnaires is that the processing of qualitative

results is often more complicated and time-consuming, in particular in large enterprises.

GENDER NEUTRALITY IN THE DESIGN OF QUESTIONNAIRES

For pay equity purposes, a fundamental requirement of questionnaires is that questions

be adapted to both female and male jobs. For example, in the case of responsibility for

equipment, if the question asked is illustrated with examples referring to forklift trucks

or printing presses, female respondents in female-dominated jobs will probably indicate

that their responsibilities in this area are minimal. Yet, in clerical jobs, women workers are

responsible for numerous pieces of equipment and this is also true for nurses in hospitals.

In order for these workers to give an accurate answer to this question, the latter also needs

to be illustrated with examples with which they are familiar.

The box below shows elements which could be used to illustrate questions and avoid

gender bias.

This table is found in numerous documents related to job evaluation cited in the Bibliography.

Table 5.6 Commonly overlooked elements of female jobs

Qualiﬁcations

- Interpersonal skills needed to work with children or adults whose problems

require a degree of sensitivity and effective communication in various respects

- Ability to operate and maintain various types of machines: photocopiers,

computers, manufacturing equipment, packing equipment, diagnostic and

monitoring equipment

- Manual dexterity required to give injections, type documents, assemble parts,

use sewing machines, give therapeutic massages

- Drafting letters for others, writing up minutes, revising documents written

by others

- Developing and maintaining ﬁling systems

- Formatting reports or graphic presentations

Effort

- Concentrating for long periods of time in front of computer screens

- Working simultaneously for several people or departments with different deadlines

- Providing psychological or emotional support to patients or children

- Dealing with aggressive, troubled or irrational people

- Accomplishing tasks which require the collaboration of others while not having the

necessary authority or power over them

- Performing several tasks simultaneously

- Lifting boisterous children or frail individuals, such as patients or seniors

- Working in uncomfortable positions, using a limited number of muscles repeatedly

remaining in the same position for long periods of time

Collecting data on the jobs to be evaluated

Responsibility

- Protecting the conﬁdential nature of sensitive information related to, for example,

planned layoffs, individual salaries, bonuses, sick leave, turnover

- Organizing logistics for meetings or conferences. Providing care to patients, children

or seniors

- Training and providing guidance to newly hired staff

- Coordinating work and taking care of schedules, production processes and equipment,

and supplies

Working conditions

- Stress caused by noise in an open work space or an overcrowded ofﬁce

- Exposure to illnesses

- Stress due to receiving clients’ complaints

- Monotonous nature of tasks

- Irregular or unpredictable work hours

- Stress caused by multiple and often unpredictable work demands

- Exposure to irritants or products which pose health hazards, such as cleaning products

RIGOROUS DESIGN OF QUESTIONNAIRES

A number of conditions should be met in order to obtain answers which are accurate, com-

plete and up to date, characteristics which show that the questionnaire is rigorous.

¢ The ﬁrst condition is that

the questions must relate to the job requirements rather

than the characteristics of the job holder. Some people may hold higher degrees but

perform a job that only requires an undergraduate degree. Similarly, it should be kept in

mind that the questionnaire is being used to evaluate the jobs rather than the performance

of those holding them. Thus, questions should be clearly formulated so as to avoid this

type of ambiguity. For example, instead of asking about the number of years of higher edu-

cation pursued by the employee or the number of years of experience the employee has,

ask about the degrees required by the job and the previous experience needed.

¢ Secondly, as regards job evaluation, the aim is, to the extent possible, to obtain object-

ive facts.

Thus, questions relating to the perceptions of respondents should be

avoided since they can vary considerably for the same task. A question such as:

Do you consider that your work is monotonous?

should be replaced with:

Do you have to concentrate on repetitive tasks?

How long are these tasks? (Suggest a scale)

As long as the questionnaire closely follows the chosen evaluation method which itself meets the

requirements for gender neutrality presented in the previous chapters, it should also be devoid

of gender bias.

Although increasingly less common today, another mistake that should be avoided is the use of

gendered job titles, such as cleaning woman, stewardess.

Thus, instead of indicating his or her perception of the monotonous nature of the task

which can vary from individual to individual, the respondent will provide objective facts.

¢ Also, questions should not include

multiple components because the answers will then

be difﬁcult to interpret. For example, if this question is asked:

Are you responsible for the following: explaining the result of projects,

training other employees and coordinating a work team?

An afﬁrmative answer will not indicate which of these responsibilities the person in

question has. It is better to ask separate questions about each of these elements in

order to be able to differentiate between the jobs which involve only one of these re-

quirements and those which involve two or three of them.

¢ Lastly, questions should be formulated so that accurate information can be obtained.

Thus,

unclear questions should be avoided. For example, a question such as:

Are your tasks physically demanding?

should be replaced with:

In performing your duties, do you have to move pieces of equipment, boxes or ﬁles?

Indicate the weight (scale)

Indicate the frequency (scale)

Evaluators will thus be able to better assess the extent of the effort required and make more

precise comparisons between jobs.

Table 5.7 Examples of active verbs

CHOICE OF VOCABULARY

The vocabulary used in formulating questions must be simple, tailored to the enterprise

and easy for respondents to understand. Complex formulations and technical terms

should be avoided as much as possible, unless they are part of the usual vocabulary.

Another aspect which may inﬂuence the evaluation is the use of terms which devalue a

job, for example:

° Routine ° Basic ° Simple ° General ° Only

Thus, use of terms which devalue the job requirements should be avoided.

Lastly,

active verbs should be used in describing tasks (second part of the questionnaire)

Send Inspect Plan Represent

Adjust Question Link up Revise

Clarify Implement Recommend Select

Demonstrate Motivate Gather Care for

Distinguish Normalize Settle Test

Maintain Organize Record Transmit

Establish Participate Reread Transport

Collecting data on the jobs to be evaluated

On the other hand, more passive types of formulations should be avoided because they are likely

to lead to the undervaluing of the importance of a job’s contribution. Examples of these are:

° making sure to send ° seeing to the maintenance

° thinking about adjusting ° remembering to establish, etc.

PRE-TEST

Before administering the questionnaire, it must be tested on a few respondents in the main

female-dominated and male-dominated jobs. These jobs should be highly representative of

the entire enterprise and represent to some extent benchmark jobs. Those responsible for

this step can also complete the questionnaire. This step helps to test for gender neutrality:

that is, if for example, it is observed that the questions chosen tend to yield higher scores

for male-dominated jobs than for female-dominated jobs, the questionnaire will then have

to be reviewed.

The pre-test may also reveal that some job requirements have been forgotten.

Lastly, this process helps to ensure that the questionnaire is rigorous, in particular that ques-

tions are clearly understood by the respondents and that answers are not vague. Once the

pre-test results have been analysed, the questionnaire can be ﬁnalized.

INTERVIEWS

It is not recommended to use interviews exclusively, for various reasons. They require a great

deal of time, and this inevitably leads to an undesirable reduction in the number of people

interviewed. Moreover, if the interviewer is not very well trained, he or she is likely to inﬂu-

ence the answers and may introduce gender bias. Lastly, because of the personalized nature

of interviews, the extent of detail in the information collected may not be uniform.

However,

interviews can be used as an additional means to collect information, in

particular to clarify certain information in the questionnaires or to complete information lack-

ing. The interviewer must review the information collected through the questionnaire and

draw up a list of aspects that need to be clariﬁed. Moreover, he or she will have to thoroughly

plan the progress of the interview and prepare the questions in advance.

OBSERVATION

Observation of workstations can also be used to complete the information obtained through

the questionnaire, in particular in cases where a job requirement is difﬁcult to explain in writ-

ing or verbally. The analyst must have a precise idea of what he or she is seeking to identify

through observation.

TASK DESCRIPTION

The task descriptions that were being used in an enterprise prior to the job evalu-

ation process are generally not suitable as a source of information on the content of

jobs for pay equity purposes. This is due to several reasons:

‚ They generally do not contain data corresponding to the factors assessed in

evaluation methods, in particular effort and working conditions;

‚ They are often old, dating from the time when employees were being recruited

for the job described;

‚ They are not standardized for all jobs.

However, once the data have been collected and analysed, new job descriptions which

are useful and up to date can be drawn up, based on the second part of the question-

naire, as described above.

ADMINISTERING THE QUESTIONNAIRE

When administering the questionnaire, the same requirements should be met as during

its development: gender neutrality must be ensured and the questionnaire must be rigor-

ous, i.e., the data collected should be accurate, precise, complete and up to date.

Holders of the jobs to be evaluated are the most reliable source of informa-

tion since they are the ones who perform the various tasks daily and are therefore

most likely to provide accurate, complete and up to date information.

Supervisors cannot be considered to be the principle source of information

but are an important additional source and should be asked to complete the ques-

tionnaires along with their employees and comment on them, if necessary. If the

employees’ answers diverge from those of the supervisor, the Committee members

will have to decide which answers to go by.

To the extent possible, the information on the jobs to be evaluated should be collected

from all employees who perform these jobs rather than from only a sample of employees.

The more representative the respondents, the more reliable the results. In the case of a

structured questionnaire, administering it to all employees does not increase the costs,

whereas in the case of open-ended questionnaires and especially of interviews, for rea-

sons of feasibility, it may be necessary to question only a sample of employees.

Information sessions on the questionnaire should be provided for employees.

Employees should receive precise information on the following:

‚ the objectives of the questionnaire;

‚ the procedure to follow in answering it;

‚ the subjects it covers.

Although this process can be conducted in writing, it is better to hold group information

sessions orally so that employees can ask questions or make comments. Similarly, in or-

der to speed up the procedure and obtain a high response rate, the questionnaires can

be completed during these group sessions.

Collecting data on the jobs to be evaluated

BENEFITS

Having all employees participate enhances their trust in the evaluation process and in the reli-

ability of its results, which is an undeniable advantage in the medium and long terms. This, in

turn, will help avoid, or at least reduce, requests for results to be reviewed and will contribute to

maintaining a more harmonious work climate.

Is the data collection method

standardized for all jobs?

Has a pre-test been conducted?

Do the examples used to illustrate

the questions refer to both female-

dominated and male-dominated jobs?

Have the elements which are often

overlooked in female jobs been taken

into account?

Is the vocabulary used in the

questions easy for all employees to

understand?

Do the questions relate to the jobs

rather than to their holders?

Are the questions clear and precise?

Was an effort made to avoid including

several elements in a single question?

Have the employees received the

information needed on how to

complete the questionnaire?

Is the conﬁdentiality of answers

guaranteed?

If you answered “No” to any of these

questions, you will need to examine the

reasons why. If a satisfactory explanation

cannot be found, then you will need

to modify your decision.

Collecting data on the jobs to be evaluated

CONTENTS - CHAPTER 6

Objectives and sequence 57

Establishing an identiﬁcation record for each job 58

Drawing up task descriptions 59

Job proﬁles 60

Reviewing evaluations 63

Beneﬁts 66

Checklist 67

Analysing the questionnaire results

CHAPTER

Analysing the

questionnaire

results

THE SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS IS AS FOLLOWS:

Establishing an identiﬁcation record for each job

Drawing up task descriptions

Establishing job proﬁles

Ensuring gender neutrality

Ensuring consistency

OBJECTIVES

The goal of analysing the results of the questionnaire is

to establish for each job:

- an identiﬁcation record

- a description of tasks

- a proﬁle indicating the level assigned to this job for

each evaluation sub-factor.

This third element is most important because once the

job proﬁle has been established, the level assigned for

each of the sub-factors will be converted into points

using the weighting grid (Chapter 7). The total number

of points for each job will thus represent its value. This

decisive step contains a high risk of subjectivity, which

accounts for the process suggested in this section.

ESTABLISHING AN IDENTIFICATION RECORD FOR EACH JOB

The ﬁrst task to be accomplished is data input and analysis which, in the case of a closed-

ended questionnaire, can be computerized relatively quickly. On the other hand, the semi-

structured questionnaire, involving a limited number of open-ended questions that are often

clearly framed, requires a little more time.

After all the answers provided by employees holding the same job have been grouped to-

gether, the Committee members must compare and summarize them in order to establish

one identiﬁcation record per job; this record contains purely factual data that are used to

better situate the job to be evaluated.

Table 6.1 Identiﬁcation record

To avoid gender bias, job titles should not be associated with one or the other gen-

der. Most practitioners recommend that the job salary not be indicated on the record;

some even suggest replacing the job title with a code so as not to inﬂuence the evaluators.

The hierarchical rank is another aspect which it is recommended to leave out since it might

also inﬂuence evaluators.

Job title______________________________ Department or service _________________

Place of work ____________________________________

Name of supervisor________________________ Title of supervisor __________________

DRAWING UP TASK DESCRIPTIONS

The description of each job’s tasks is also established based on the answers obtained

from the job holders. After all the answers obtained for a particular job have been

examined, the elements which appear to be most conclusive should be retained in

order to develop a standard description. These descriptions should be drawn up

methodically and include the main duties and responsibilities involved, the qualiﬁ-

cations required and the working conditions under which the job is performed.

Table 6.2 Description of tasks

To avoid gender bias, the following conditions should be met:

the comparative degree of detail and precision of female-dominated jobs and

male-dominated jobs should be the same. Traditionally, it is observed in workplaces

that the task descriptions of female-dominated jobs are brief and include 3 or 4 elements

whereas those of male-dominated jobs are detailed and include 6 to 8 elements. Some

authors maintain that they should all include a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 10 tasks;

the use of active verbs should be favoured over the use of passive verbs; the

latter are often used to describe the tasks involved in female-dominated jobs; and

¢ in order to better meet these two conditions and to ensure that the descriptions are

consistent,

a standardized format should be followed for both types of jobs.

Job summary

_________________________________________________________________________

Tasks and main responsibilities

List, in order of importance, the main responsibilities of the position and indicate

the content, means used and goal for each of them

Supervision/management exercised

Type of supervision or management involved in the job

Consequences of errors

Indicate whether the work is subject to veriﬁcation and by whom.

Indicate the impact of errors

Contacts

Reasons for and level of contacts

Requisite knowledge/experience

Requirements related to education, specialized training, and skills

Type of work experience required

Equipment used

Main tools and equipment used and per centage of work time during which they are used

Working conditions

Workplace, type of work space, environment, potential hazards.

Analysing the questionnaire results

JOB PROFILES

Job proﬁles are drawn up based on the answers to the third part of the question-

naire and cover all of the sub-factors selected in the method. The Committee’s

work mainly involves determining and validating the level of each of the sub-fac-

tors for each job. This process must adhere to the condition of gender neutrality

and be rigorous.

Table 6.3 Job proﬁle

SUB-FACTORS PRESENTATION OF JOB

REQUIREMENTS

LEVEL OF

SUB-FACTOR

JUSTIFICATION

Knowledge

Experience/training

Complexity

Physical effort

Mental effort

Communication

Consequences of errors

Human and material

resources

Physical environment

Risks

Gender bias in analysis of results

Sources of gender bias

Perceptions related to the various jobs to be evaluated can easily inﬂuence the decisions of

evaluators, who must pay particular attention to the following effects:

The halo effect can be seen when a job obtains a high level for a sub-factor

which is considered to be prestigious, such as the diploma required, and from which it is

inferred that the job must also receive a high score for other factors. On the contrary, the

reverse halo effect can also be seen and can cause a drop in the levels assigned to jobs

whose requirements, in terms of a diploma, for example, are low.

The inﬂuence of the hierarchical rank can also be a source

of gender bias insofar as women’s jobs are mainly found in intermediate or lower ranks.

Evaluators may correlate higher hierarchical rank with high levels for several factors, which

is not necessarily accurate. The reverse can also happen for junior-level jobs.

¢ The inﬂuence of salary can be seen to have a similar effect, that is,

a highly-paid professional job may be assumed to involve demanding requirements

pertaining to various sub-factors, which might not actually be the case

The availability effect relates to the most visible aspects of an occupation:

for example, the most visible and well-known part of secretaries’ jobs, that is, word

processing, can conceal other task requirements, such as ﬁling or writing and revising

texts. The less familiar factors may retain less attention on the part of evaluators and

thus be assigned lower levels.

Emotional bias relates to jobs which are represented within the Committee and

towards which there might be a degree of leniency which could alter the evaluators’

objectivity.

Good practices to avoid gender bias

Levels should be assigned for one sub-factor at a time for all jobs, that is, the evalu-

ation should proceed on a sub-factor-by-sub-factor rather than a job-by-job basis.

Thus, all jobs will be assigned a level for the concentration sub-factor, then all jobs will be

assigned a level for the conﬁdentiality of information sub-factor, and then the same process

will be carried out for the psychological environment sub-factor, and so on. This way of pro-

ceeding has several advantages, as indicated below.

¢ If each job is evaluated separately, the comparative approach which is the very basis of

the process, will be compromised.

¢ Evaluation on a factor-by-factor basis guarantees that a standardized process will be

applied to all jobs.

¢ The Committee members will not be inﬂuenced by their opinion on the job as a whole,

and the halo effect can thus be avoided.

Evaluating in a random and variable order. For each of the sub-factors, the order in

which the jobs are evaluated should not be based on occupational group or job class so as

to avoid the inﬂuence of gender-based prejudices. The order should instead be established

randomly, as illustrated in the following example.

For the knowledge sub-factor, jobs are evaluated in the following order: Job A, Job C, E, F, B, D

For the mental effort sub-factor, the order followed is: F, D, A, E, C, B

For the complexity sub-factor, it is: E, B, F, D, C, A.

This practice will make it more difﬁcult for evaluators to remember the levels assigned to

each job in the previous step.

Analysing the questionnaire results

Problems encountered during evaluation

The following are examples of some problems that may arise during the evaluation process,

along with suggested solutions.

PROBLEM 1 The description of a job’s requirements may seem vague or ambiguous and

the Committee members may have difﬁculty evaluating it. This sometimes

occurs in the case of jobs with which the Committee members are not very

familiar.

SOLUTION It is recommended that clariﬁcations be requested from the job holders and

supervisors; in such cases, interviews can also be useful.

PROBLEM 2 The information collected on a job is incomplete.

SOLUTION A number of job holders and supervisors should be met in order to complete

it. As in the previous case, it is important here to avoid a solution that is based

on the impressions of Committee members or on non-tested hypotheses.

PROBLEM 3 Despite in-depth discussions, the Committee members cannot agree on a

level.

SOLUTION In this case, the job which is posing difﬁculties should be put aside and

returned to later, once similar jobs have been evaluated.

PROBLEM 4 Some Committee members are inclined to always assign an average level

regardless of which job or factor is being considered. This attitude is due

to the fact that they are not sure of their judgement or have not clearly

understood the goal of the exercise.

SOLUTION A reminder of the procedure to follow and the goal of the exercise would

be useful.

REVIEWING EVALUATIONS

Once all the jobs have been evaluated, it is important to review them in order to ensure that

they are gender-neutral and that the results are consistent.

Ensuring gender neutrality

This involves ensuring that levels are distributed equally among female- and male-

dominated jobs. If, for example, it is found that female-dominated jobs tend to have

been assigned average or low levels for most of the sub-factors while the opposite is true

for male-dominated jobs, this means that the procedure may have been discriminatory.

More speciﬁcally, the following test can be applied (the results of which are illustrated, in

simpliﬁed form, in Table 6.4).

The level assigned for each sub-factor for each job being evaluated can be noted. For ex-

ample, for the job knowledge sub-factor, the foreman’s job was assigned a level 3, the pro-

grammemer-analyst’s job was assigned a level 4, and so on.

In order to determine whether or not gender bias exists, the average of the levels assigned

for each sub-factor can be calculated for male-dominated jobs and female-dominated jobs

respectively. For example, for the job knowledge sub-factor, the male-dominated jobs were

respectively assigned the following levels:

3+4+2+1 yielding an average score of 10/4 = 2.5.

For this same sub-factor, the female-dominated jobs were assigned the following levels:

4+4+3+5 = 16/4 = 4.0.

The average score for female-dominated jobs is 1.5 points higher than the average score for

male-dominated jobs. Thus, it can be concluded that, in this organization and for the jobs

evaluated in this organization, the job knowledge sub-factor is female.

Once all the averages have been calculated, it can be observed that for the physical effort

and working conditions sub-factors, the average score for male-dominated jobs is higher

than that for female-dominated jobs. This leads to the conclusion that, in the example

examined here, these sub-factors are male.

The opposite is true for the job knowledge,

communication and responsibility for people sub-factors, which would be considered to be

female sub-factors in this example. In order to identify the gender predominance of a sub-

factor, there has to be a difference of at least 1 between the average scores. In the following

table, it can be observed that for the mental effort sub-factor, the difference is less than 1,

which leads us to consider that this sub-factor is gender-neutral.

In other examples, this could be different.

Analysing the questionnaire results

Table 6.4 Ensuring gender neutrality in assigning levels

Gender-predominant jobs

Levels of sub-factors per job

Job

knowledge

Communi-

cation

Mental

effort

Physical

effort

Responsibility

for people

Working

conditions

Foreman 3 3 3 3 3 4

Programmemer-analyst 4 3 5 2 1 2

Welder 2 1 2 4 1 5

Warehouse employee 1 1 2 4 1 3

Average of levels of

male-dominated jobs

2.5 2.0 3.0 3.3 1.5 3.5

Accountant 434112

Computer graphics technician 433212

Customer service supervisor 333233

Human resource manager

(woman)

555153

Average of levels of

female-dominated jobs

4 3.5 3.8 1.5 2.5 2.5

Gender predominance

of sub-factor

Female Female Neutral Male Female Male

Thus, it can be observed that, out of six sub-factors, two are male, three are female and

one is gender-neutral, which leads to the conclusion that the distribution of levels is quite

balanced and that there has not been gender bias in assigning them. If, on the other hand,

out of six sub-factors, four had been male, one had been female and one had been gender-

neutral, or ﬁve had been male and one had been female, it would have been necessary to

verify the causes of such a result and correct them if necessary. To sum up, this test makes it

possible to determine whether there is a marked imbalance in the distribution of levels and,

if so, to look for and correct the causes of such an imbalance.

Consistency

This essentially involves examining the distribution of levels assigned for each of the sub-factors

and determining whether

they tend to be concentrated around one level in particular.

The cases which need to be re-examined are represented below in the form of a graph. It is

assumed that the levels assigned for the sub-factor considered range from 1 to 5.

For the sake of simplicity, this exercise was carried out for a sample of jobs and for some factors only. In reality, it should be carried out for

all sub-factors and for all the jobs being evaluated.

Adapted from Canadian Human Rights Commission.

CASE 1: The distribution of levels is diamond-shaped, that is, most of the jobs, represented

by vertical lines, have been assigned a Level 3 for this sub-factor, while a very small number

of jobs have been assigned a high or low level.

lllllllllll

lll

CASE 2: The distribution of levels is shaped like a triangle, that is, most of the jobs have been

assigned a Level 1 for this sub-factor while a few of them have been assigned higher levels.

lll

lllllllllll

CASE 3: The distribution of levels is shaped like a reversed triangle, that is, most of the jobs

have been assigned a Level 5 for this sub-factor while a few of them have been assigned

lower levels.

llllllllllllll

llll

If the great majority of jobs are found at only one level for a given sub-factor, this means

that there is almost no differentiation among them regarding this aspect. In this case, the

Committee will have to decide whether the principle underlying each of these distributions

is acceptable. Thus, it will have to check its interpretation of the sub-factor in question,

review the justiﬁcations recorded and, if necessary, meet the technical advisers, job holders

or supervisors concerned.

Once the sore thumbing has been completed, it will be possible to move on to the next step

in which the job proﬁle will be used to assign points based on the weighting grid.

BENEFITS

Job analysis, as described above, yields a number of beneﬁts for employers, in particular

in terms of stafﬁng, i.e. recruiting, selecting and promoting employees. In fact, it allows

employers to gain more knowledge about the real demands of jobs and thus to better

match applicants’ qualities with the requirements of the positions to be ﬁlled through

internal or external recruiting. It can thus reduce the rate of employee turnover which

seems to result from inappropriate choices made at hiring, and the high costs associated

with it.

Analysing the questionnaire results

Have the Committee members written down the

justiﬁcation for all their decisions related to the

evaluation?

Have the Committee members agreed on the

way to proceed if a problem arises?

Has all the information which might arouse or

maintain prejudice towards certain jobs to be

evaluated been eliminated?

Do the task descriptions follow the same

standard format for both female- and

male-dominated jobs?

Do the task descriptions contain the same

degree of detail for both female- and

male-dominated jobs?

Do task descriptions use the same number of

active verbs for female-dominated jobs as for

male-dominated jobs?

Is the job evaluation carried out on a

sub-factor-by-sub-factor basis?

Are jobs evaluated in a random and variable

order for each sub-factor?

Has effort been made to avoid assigning average

or low levels to female-dominated jobs for most

of the sub-factors and vice-versa for male-

dominated jobs?

Has the gender predominance of sub-factors

been determined?

Is the distribution of levels assigned for any given

sub-factor concentrated around one level?

If yes, can this result be justiﬁed?

If you answered “No” to any of these questions,

you will need to examine the reasons why.

If a satisfactory explanation cannot be found,

then you will need to modify your decision.

Analysing the questionnaire results

Objectives and sequence 69

Weighting evaluation factors 70

Distribution of points by level 75

Assigning points to jobs and identifying

jobs of the same value 76

Beneﬁts 79

Checklist 80

CONTENTS - CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER

Determining the value of jobs

OBJECTIVES

Two important operations must be conducted one

after the other in this step: constructing a weighting

grid and assigning points to the jobs. This is the ﬁnal

phase of the evaluation after which compensation for

jobs of equal value can be compared.

Determining the

value of jobs

THE SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS IS AS FOLLOWS:

Developing the weighting grid

Ensuring consistency and absence of discriminatory bias

Distributing points based on levels of sub-factors

Calculating the total points for each gender-predominant job

Establishing point intervals

Grouping jobs by interval

Ensuring absence of discriminatory bias

WEIGHTING EVALUATION FACTORS

The weighting of evaluation factors involves determining their relative importance and assigning

a numerical value to each of them. It has an extremely important impact on the value of jobs.

Even when extreme caution has been exercised during the preceding steps, inconsistencies

and bias can nevertheless be introduced at this point, thus cancelling all previous efforts.

It is recommended that

the weighting grid be developed only after the job proﬁles have

been established (Chapter 6). Indeed, if those in charge of weighting knew in advance that a

given skill or responsibility would be assigned a high weight, they could be tempted to assign a

high level to it for a job that they wanted to favour.

Developing the weighting grid

A weighting grid indicates the relative importance of each factor and sub-factor for

the organization. It is essential to use the same weighting grid for all the jobs cov-

ered by the pay equity programme. Indeed, in order to compare jobs, it is necessary

to use the same measuring instrument. Moreover, the weighting grid is one of the

most important elements in the measuring instrument in an evaluation method.

Table 7.1 Example of a weighting grid

Factors Weighting Number of points

Qualiﬁcations

32% 320

Job knowledge 12% 120

Communication 10% 100

Physical skills 10% 100

Effort

19% 190

Emotional effort 5% 50

Mental effort 8% 80

Physical effort 6% 60

Responsibility

39% 390

For people 12% 120

For products 12% 120

Financial 15% 150

Working conditions

10% 100

Physical environment 5% 50

Psychological climate 5% 50

TOTAL 100% 1000 POINTS

The number of points can vary, but unless there is a great diversity of jobs, it is recommended

that a total of 1,000 points be used. It should be noted that the weighting grid presented

above is for illustrative purposes only and does not constitute a recommended model. In

general, most experts agree on the following per centage ranges as approximate guidelines

with regard to the relative importance of factors:

20% to 35% for qualiﬁcations

25% to 40% for responsibility

15% to 25% for effort

5% to 15% for working conditions.

In order to construct the weighting grid, it is necessary ﬁrst to rank the factors and then as-

sign them a relative weight in terms of per centage, as illustrated in the steps below.

This grid is presented for illustration purposes only.

STEP 1 Ranking the four major factors by order of importance

Ranking factors

Qualiﬁcations

Responsibility

Effort

Working conditions

STEP 2 Determining the per centage assigned to each factor

Weighting factors

Qualiﬁcations 32%

Responsibility 39%

Effort 19%

Working conditions 10%

STEP 3 Ranking sub-factors by order of importance

Ranking

qualiﬁcations

sub-factors

Qualiﬁcations

Job knowledge

Communication

Physical skills

STEP 4 Determining the per centage assigned to each sub-factor

Weighting

qualiﬁcations

sub-factors

Qualiﬁcations 32%

Job knowledge 12%

Communication 10%

Physical skills 10%

This way of proceeding makes it easier to establish the full weighting grid.

Determining the value of jobs

Consistency of the weighting grid

Given that weighting has a direct effect on wages, it is essential that it be closely

linked with the goals of the organization and the type of work characterizing it.

For example: In a company which develops software programs,

a high weight will be assigned to the analytical skills criterion; in

a day-care centre, the responsibility for people criterion will be of

utmost importance; in a public works enterprise, responsibility for

equipment will be one of the key factors.

Thus, to meet this requirement, it will be necessary to determine accurately, based on

documentation, the type of work carried out by the enterprise, its priority goals

and its values. Everybody has their own idea of the enterprise’s mission. Therefore, to

avoid long debates and to be as objective as possible, the information needed should be

sought from documents and interviews with technical advisers.

Consistency can be ensured by examining the weight assigned to each factor being assessed in

light of the goals and values of the enterprise.

An element which has great importance for

the enterprise should not be given a low weight and vice versa.

For example: If an enterprise operating in the service sector indicates

in its mandate that quality of service is an absolute priority but never-

theless assigns only a 4% weight to the sub-factor related to customer

service, then this weighting will probably need to be changed.

Consistent weighting is essential to detect discriminatory bias.

For example: If in Enterprise X a high weight is assigned to respon-

sibility for material resources (male-dominated jobs) at the expense

of responsibility for people (female-dominated jobs), this may seem

to be discriminatory at ﬁrst glance. But if it has been clearly estab-

lished that, in this enterprise, responsibility for material resources is

particularly important for achieving the objectives of the enterprise,

whereas responsibility for people is only secondary, then there is no

discrimination.

Understanding the essential nature of this link between objectives of the enterprise and

weighting brings to light the importance of

avoiding pre-established weightings.

Eliminating gender bias in weighting

The same stereotypes which were identiﬁed when the factors were being selected and deﬁned

can also inﬂuence the establishment of the weighting grid. For example, those in charge of

weighting might be inclined to assign a high weight to some factors, simply because they are

representative of high-level jobs in the hierarchy; in such a case, the discrimination causing

unequal pay may be reproduced.

Table 7.2 Example of discriminatory weighting

Sub-factors

Gender predominance

of sub-factor

Weight of sub-factor (%)

Job knowledge F 10

Communication F 7

Physical skills M 12

Emotional effort F 5

Mental effort N 8

Physical effort M 10

Responsibility for people F 8

Responsibility for products M 15

Financial responsibility M 15

Working conditions M 10

Total 100

For example: Managing a large number of employees (generally male

jobs) should not be assigned a high weight simply because the criter-

ion is associated with high-level jobs. On the other hand, the risk of

aggression or verbal abuse should not be assigned a low weight simply

because it is associated with low-level service jobs (generally female.)

Thus, the hierarchical structure of the enterprise should not inﬂuence the weighting of

factors.

Some caution is also necessary regarding the pay structure. Committee members should

avoid referring to the current wages of the various positions.

Another case of gender bias may appear if there is a tendency to

assign extreme weights

unequally to certain sub-factors, based on whether they are associated with female- or

male-dominated jobs.

Ensuring absence of discriminatory bias in the weighting grid

Once a level has been assigned to the various jobs for each sub-factor (see Chapter 4), it

is generally observed that female-dominated jobs are assigned a high level for some sub-

factors while male-dominated jobs are assigned a high level for other sub-factors. Thus,

the former can be referred to as

female sub-factors and the latter as male sub-factors.

To ensure that the weighting grid does not have any discriminatory impact, a simple test

can be conducted which involves

comparing the weight assigned to the sub-factors

based on their gender.

The following two tables show how such a test can be conducted.

Example adapted from Equal Opportunities Commission Good Practice Guide – Job Evaluation Schemes Free of Sex Bias.

The table above shows that four sub-factors are female (F) and ﬁve sub-factors are male (M).

The following calculation reveals that there is an imbalance in the weighting:

The total weights for the 5 male sub-factors are: 12% + 10% + 15% + 15% + 10% = 62%

which yields an average of 12.4% for each male sub-factor.

Determining the value of jobs

Table 7.3 Example of non-discriminatory weighting

Sub-factors

Gender predominance

of sub-factor

Weight (%)

Job knowledge

F12

Communication

F10

Physical skills

M10

Emotional effort

Mental effort

Physical effort

Responsibility for people

F12

Responsibility for products

M12

Financial responsibility

M15

Working conditions

M10

Total 100

The total weights for the 4 female sub-factors are: 10% + 7% + 5% + 8% = 30% which yields

an average of 7.5% for each female sub-factor.

The gap between the weights assigned to female and male sub-factors is thus highly signiﬁcant.

However, this does not imply that it is discriminatory but it does imply that the weighting grid

should be re-examined and justiﬁed in light of the enterprise’s mission and the type of work

performed therein.

In this ﬁctitious example, those responsible for this step therefore carefully reviewed their ﬁrst

analysis and found that certain female sub-factors had been assigned too low a weight compared

to certain male sub-factors. For example, given the enterprise’s mission, job knowledge was the

most important qualiﬁcation (and should therefore have been given the most weight, that is,

12 per cent), while the other two qualiﬁcations sub-factors were both of equal value and should

have been assigned the same weight, that is 10 per cent. A re-examination of the types of jobs

and their contribution to the enterprise’s mission also led the Committee members to assign a

higher weight to responsibility for people and a lower weight to physical effort. Once this delicate

exercise had been carried out, a new weighting grid was adopted, as illustrated in Table 7.3.

The data in Table 7.3 show that the new weighting is more balanced.

The total weights for the 5 male sub-factors are: 10% + 6% + 12% + 15% + 10% = 53%

which yield an average of 10.6% for each male sub-factor.

The total weights for the 4 female sub-factors are: 12% + 10% + 5% + 12% = 39% which

yield an average of 9.75% for each female sub-factor.

While the gap between the two averages did not disappear altogether, it was reduced. The

Committee adjusted the weighting grid based on the criteria of consistency and non-dis-

crimination in order, ultimately, to choose a weighting grid that seemed best suited to the

enterprise. This example illustrates the fact that often the weighting is gradually established

through a trial and error process.

DISTRIBUTION OF POINTS BY LEVEL

Once the grid has been established, the total number of points for each sub-factor must be

distributed among its different levels. Let us assume that the job knowledge sub-factor has

been given a maximum of 140 points and that the levels assigned for this sub-factor range

from 1 to 5.

How many points should be added each time in moving from one level to the next?

Two decisions must be made in this regard:

WHAT TYPE OF PROGRESSION SHOULD BE CHOSEN: ARITHMETIC OR GEOMETRIC?

Arithmetic progressions maintain the same gap between each of the various levels and

are clearly in line with the goal of pay equity. Geometric progressions, on the other hand,

tend to increase the gaps between the levels as the level rises on the scale, thus unjustiﬁ-

ably intensifying the inequality between entry-level jobs (often predominantly female) and

high-level jobs (generally predominantly male). This approach is not recommended for

pay equity purposes.

HOW MANY POINTS SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO THE LOWEST LEVEL?

If a job does not involve a given sub-factor among its requirements, it should not receive

any points for this sub-factor. Such cases are limited given that the sub-factors are chosen

and deﬁned in such as way as to represent the whole range of jobs within an enterprise.

Generally speaking, the ﬁrst level is thus assigned a certain number of points. For ex-

ample, in the case of the job knowledge sub-factor, for which there are ﬁve levels, the 120

points would be distributed according to an arithmetic progression, as follows:

Table 7.4 Example of arithmetic progression – Job knowledge sub-factor

Level L1 L2 L3 L4 L5

Number of points

24 points 48 points 72 points 96 points 120 points

In the case where the ﬁrst level is deﬁned as corresponding to the absence or low pres-

ence of a sub-factor, the number of points assigned to it could be much lower. Take, for

example, the emotional effort sub-factor: if some jobs do not involve this sub-factor among

their requirements, the grid could be constructed as follows:

Level L1 L2 L3 L4 L5

Number of points

5 points 16.25 points 27.5 points 38.75 points 50 points

In this example, Level L1, which corresponds to little or no emotional effort, was assigned

10% of the total for this sub-factor and the rest of the total was divided by 4, yielding an

arithmetic progression of 11.25. Although some experts prefer to always assign an equal

number of points per level, others prefer, as in this example, to start with a lower number

of points. Some experts even assign 0 points to the ﬁrst level when it corresponds to the

absence of a sub-factor but, as mentioned earlier, this situation rarely presents itself. It

must be kept in mind that each of these options will have a different effect on the relative

value of jobs.

Determining the value of jobs

Table 7.5 Point grid for all sub-factors and levels

The same process is conducted for all of the sub-factors included in the method, so that the

number of points for each level and each sub-factor can be worked out. The ﬁgure in bold indi-

cates the maximum number of points assigned to each sub-factor and corresponds to the high-

est level assigned to each sub-factor. Also, all of the ﬁgures in bold (i.e. the maximum number

of points for all sub-factors) should add up to 1,000 points.

ASSIGNING POINTS TO JOBS AND

IDENTIFYING JOBS OF THE SAME VALUE

Once weighting has been established and the number of points per sub-factor and level has been

worked out, it will be possible to assign a value to each job. This operation involves two steps:

FIRST, POINTS ARE ASSIGNED TO EACH SUB-FACTOR BASED ON THE JOB PROFILE

(SEE CHAPTER 6)

SECOND, THE JOBS ARE GROUPED INTO CLASSES IN WHICH ALL JOBS ARE

CONSIDERED TO HAVE THE SAME VALUE.

In this grid, given the job characteristics to be evaluated, the Pay Equity Committee has assigned 4 levels to some sub-factors and 5 to

other sub-factors.

Qualiﬁcations Effort Responsibility

Working

conditions

Job

Phys.

skills

Comm. Emot. Mental Phys.

For

people

For

prod.

Finan. Phys. Psych.

24 20 20 12.5 16 15 24 24 16 12,5 12,5

48 40 40 25 32 30 48 48 32 25 25

72 60 60 37.5 48 45 72 72 48 37.5 37.5

96 80 80

96 96 64

50 50

120 100 100 80 120 120 150

Calculating the total points assigned to each job

The total points assigned to a job will depend on its proﬁle and more speciﬁcally on the level

which was assigned to it for each of the sub-factors. Let us assume that based on the analysis

of the questionnaire results (see Chapter 6), the Committee assigned the following levels to

the various sub-factors that characterize a secretary’s job:

Based on the point grid presented above (Table 7.5), levels can be matched with points.

Thus, a secretary’s job in the organization examined would obtain a total of 342 points.

By proceeding in the same way for each of the jobs, their respective values can be deter-

mined.

Once this step has been completed, the jobs can be ranked based on the total number of

points assigned to them, and female-dominated jobs and male-dominated jobs of equal

value can be determined.

Table 7.6 Summary of proﬁle of a secretary’s job

Factors and sub-factors Levels assigned by the Committee

Qualiﬁcations

Job knowledge Level 2

Physical skills Level 2

Communication Level 2

Effort

Emotional effort Level 1

Mental effort Level 2

Physical effort Level 2

Responsibility

For people Level 1

For products Level 2

Financial Level 1

Working conditions

Physical environment Level 2

Psychological climate Level 2

Table 7.7 Determining the total points assigned to a secretary’s job

Qualiﬁcations Effort Responsibility

Working

conditions

Job

Phys.

skills

Comm. Emot. Mental Phys.

For

people

For

prod.

Finan. Phys. Psych.

24 20 20

12.5

16 15

12.5 12.5

48 40 40

32 30

25 25

72 60 60 37.5 48 45 72 72 48 37.5 37.5

96 80 80

96 96 64

50 50

120 100 100 80 120 120 150

Underlined ﬁgures in italics indicate the points assigned to a secretary’s job.

Determining the value of jobs

Grouping jobs into point intervals

To determine equivalencies between jobs, it is necessary to group them according to point in-

tervals. There are two reasons for this:

Ë It is highly likely that, most of the time, there will be differences of a few points

between a female-dominated job and the closest male-dominated job. Since job

evaluation is not an exact science, a difference of a few points, within certain

limits, does not mean that the jobs are not equivalent;

Ë Establishing intervals within which jobs with a relatively similar total number of

points can be grouped together, helps to create wage classes and thus simpliﬁes

the compensation system.

Range of intervals

Determining the range covered by the intervals is an issue that the Committee must analyse,

taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of different possible scenarios. A deci-

sion can be made to assign 30, 50 or 70 points per interval, depending on the total number of

points in the method and the number of wage classes that is desirable in the ﬁnal result:

Ë A narrow point range is likely to lead to wage differences between jobs that will be

difﬁcult to justify.

Ë A wide point range simpliﬁes the compensation system and makes it more ﬂex-

ible. However, ultimately, it is likely to take away all meaning from the notion of

equal value.

In some cases, certain

“natural boundaries” may appear by grouping togeth-

er a number of jobs, and these may guide the Committee in terms of choosing the range of

each class of intervals.

Let us assume that, in a method with a maximum of 1,000 points, the decision is made to

have 15 classes which correspond approximately to intervals of 65 points each. The follow-

ing would thus be obtained:

Table 7.8 Example of interval progression

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Group 8

200 – 299 300 – 399 400 – 499 500 –599 600–699 700 –799 800 – 899 900 –1,000

The example above shows that, if one female-dominated job has been assigned 200 points, an-

other female-dominated job has been assigned 255 points and a male-dominated job has been

assigned 240 points, these three jobs will be considered to be equivalent. If there is a wage gap

between one or the other of the female-dominated jobs and the male comparator, favouring the

latter, this gap should be corrected.

Absence of discriminatory bias in determining intervals

A number of rules should be observed in order to prevent the grouping by intervals from hav-

ing a discriminatory impact.

Ë Gaps between intervals should be established in terms of absolute numbers

(arithmetic progression) rather than in terms of per centages (geometric

progression). Basing intervals on a ﬁxed per centage-based progression

increases the gaps between jobs at the lowest and highest ends of the value

scale and thus may disadvantage women’s jobs which are often found in the

lower intervals.

Ë It should be ensured that women’s jobs are not systematically found near the

upper limit of the interval, which could reﬂect a desire to artiﬁcially reduce the

pay adjustments made as a result of the pay equity process.

Ë It should be ensured that female jobs representing a high proportion of the

employee population in the enterprise are not found near the upper limit of the

interval. Indeed, to reduce the impact of pay equity on total payroll, managers

might be tempted to place such jobs just below the upper limit of the interval.

This practice is potentially discriminatory and should be avoided.

Ë Lastly, for the sake of consistency and non discrimination, the intervals should

not overlap. For example:

Group 3 400–499 points

Group 4 480–599 points .

Where will the job which obtains 485 points be placed?

BENEFITS

Numerous beneﬁts can be derived from this step, in particular:

¢ Analysing and reﬂecting on the enterprise’s mission and key values can be highly

beneﬁcial for updating these dimensions and communicating them with more

precision to all employees.

¢ This reﬂection will also make it easier to establish the link between the different jobs

and the purpose of the enterprise.

¢ Determining intervals on a consistent and non-discriminatory basis can rationalize

human resources management.

¢ The job hierarchy is established on the basis of a consistent and non-discriminatory

principle, thus ensuring a greater sense of equity within the enterprise.

¢ Future technological or organizational changes can be analysed and integrated based

on the same parameters, thus facilitating the task of managers.

Determining the value of jobs

Has a principle for weighting been deﬁned?

Is this principle based on objective and up

to date information?

Has this principle been clearly recorded in

writing?

Does the weighting grid represent the

enterprise’s values?

Is the weighting grid tailored to the jobs to

be evaluated?

Do the factors considered to be most important

for the enterprise carry more weight?

Has it been determined that the weighting

will not implicitly or explicitly perpetuate the

existing hierarchy in the enterprise?

Has it been determined that the weighting

will not implicitly or explicitly perpetuate the

existing wage structure in the enterprise?

Have the sub-factors considered to be

equivalent been assigned the same weight?

Has effort been made to avoid systematically

assigning a high weight to sub-factors associated

with one gender rather than the other?

Has an effort been made to avoid systematically

assigning a low weight to sub-factors associated

with one gender rather than the other?

Has it been ensured that, for sub-factors, the

progression of points from one level to the next

does not result in a marked disadvantage for

low-level jobs?

Are intervals based on a regular progression

in points rather than on a per centage-based

progression?

Has an effort been made to prevent female-

dominated jobs from being disproportionately

found just below the upper limit of intervals?

Has an effort been made to prevent female-

dominated jobs representing a high proportion

of the employee population from being found

just below the upper limit of intervals?

Has it been ensured that the intervals do

not overlap?

f you answered “No” to any of these questions,

you will need to examine the reasons why.

If a satisfactory explanation cannot be found,

then you will need to modify your decision.

Determining the value of jobs

CONTENTS - CHAPTER 8

Objectives and sequence 83

Total compensation 84

Pay comparisons and adjustments 87

Non-discriminatory wage gaps 88

Payment of wage adjustments 89

Internal equity 89

Beneﬁts 89

Checklist 90

CHAPTER

Estimating wage gaps for jobs of equal value and making pay adjustments

Estimating wage

gaps for jobs of

equal value and

making pay

adjustments

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this step is to equalize pay for jobs of equal

value. This step is thus the outcome of the entire pro-

cess undertaken thus far. When an employer ﬁnds

discriminatory gaps to the detriment of certain female-

dominated jobs, it will be necessary to correct them for

all employees, whether they work part time or full time,

are on indeterminate or ﬁxed-term contracts or are cas-

ual workers. Although this step is most essential, it is

often not dealt with in detail in manuals and practical

policy guidelines related to promoting pay equity.

THE SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS IS AS FOLLOWS:

Determining the basic salary of jobs to be compared

Determining ﬂexible pay

Ensuring absence of discriminatory bias in ﬂexible pay between jobs of equal value

Determining cash value beneﬁts

Ensuring absence of discriminatory bias in cash value beneﬁts between jobs of equal value

Estimating pay gaps

Harmonizing pay structures for jobs of equal value

Payment of wage adjustments

For further details, see Chicha (2006).

TOTAL COMPENSATION

Pay equity aims at compensation in its global sense, that is, salary, ﬂexible pay and fringe

beneﬁts. Indeed, it aims to equalize all compensation for the work performed and studies have

shown that these are the three components which may be affected by discrimination.

Basic salary

Salary is deﬁned as the basic amount received by an employee before any other amounts

are added. This amount can be ﬁxed, as is the case of single pay rates for some jobs; it can

also be based on a pay scale, where the transition from one level to the next is determined by

seniority or other criteria.

When there is a pay scale, it is better to use the

regular maximum rate for com-

parisons between jobs of the same value. In fact, this rate represents the job’s contribution to

the enterprise. In some cases, beyond the regular maximum rate, some levels are added as

bonuses to pay employees for their high performance. To ensure that this practice is not

discriminatory, three aspects must be veriﬁed:

‚

Is the regular maximum rate the same for female- and male-dominated jobs?

‚

Are the criteria used in awarding these bonuses the same for female- and

male-dominated jobs?

‚ When female workers are concentrated in part-time jobs, an additional dimension

must be examined:

are these bonuses as accessible to part-time employees as

they are to full-time employees?

For pay comparison purposes, the measurement unit should be standardized: hourly pay,

weekly pay or monthly pay.

Flexible pay

Flexible pay, which is increasingly common, results from the fact that individual, team or

corporate performance is taken into account. It can take diverse forms such as:

¢ Skills-based compensation which involves determining compensation based on

employees’ skill diversiﬁcation.

¢ Team-based compensation which applies to cases in which a group of employees (in

a department, branch or store) receives a premium for their higher performance to be

shared among themselves.

¢ Proﬁt-sharing, which means that a part of the proﬁts of the entire enterprise or of one of

its units is shared among the employees.

It is essential that each element of ﬂexible pay be examined in order to ensure that it is not

allocated in a discriminatory fashion. The following questions must be asked:

‚ Is ﬂexible pay as

available to employees in female-dominated jobs as it is to

employees in male-dominated jobs of the same value?

‚

Are the amounts paid equal for female- and male-dominated jobs of the

same value?

If the answer to one of these questions is “No,” the gaps must be corrected and their likely

causes, such as the following, must be eliminated:

Objectives cannot be achieved as easily for female-dominated jobs as for

male-dominated jobs;

¢ The type of ﬂexible pay examined is

only accessible to regular full-time employees;

it is not accessible to part-time employees, employees on ﬁxed-term contracts or casual;

The allocation criteria correspond mainly to qualities associated with men’s

jobs (leadership, decision-making skills, self-assertion) and do not take into account the

qualities associated with women’s jobs (cooperation, consultation, interpersonal skills);

This examination will make the compensation system more consistent and transparent.

For comparison purposes, ﬂexible pay should also be calculated on a standardized basis

in order to avoid the variations that are sometimes found in this type of payment scheme.

Average compensation can be calculated over a three to ﬁve-year period, depending on the

evolving economic situation.

If gaps exist in terms of ﬂexible pay between jobs of equal value, the employer should

eliminate them either by equalizing the ﬂexible portion of the compensation or by paying a

compensatory lump sum to employees in female-dominated jobs.

Estimating wage gaps for jobs of equal value and making pay adjustments

Cash value beneﬁts

These involve perquisites or in-kind beneﬁts linked to the job and fully or partially ﬁnanced by

the employer, such as:

¢ paid time off: vacation leave, public holidays, parental leave, leave for family reasons, sick

leave, breaks and mealtimes;

¢ pension plans and company beneﬁt plans (health, disability);

¢ fringe beneﬁts (perquisites): company car, parking, payment of professional dues, reim-

bursement of study expenses, reduced rate loans, cellular telephone, uniforms (except if

required by type of tasks).

These elements should be examined in order to ensure that:

‚

They are equally accessible to employees in female- and male-dominated jobs

of the same value;

‚

The amounts received are on average equivalent for jobs of the same value.

In the latter case, the calculation will differ, depending on the kind of beneﬁt:

¨ Expenses for a company car, professional dues, uniforms or a cellular telephone

can be easily measured, based on the immediate cost incurred by the employer.

¨ Holidays, vacation leave and other time-based beneﬁts will be calculated in

terms of number of days.

¨ Pension plans or company beneﬁt plans pose the problem of knowing whether

to take into account the beneﬁts received by the employees or the contributions

paid by the employer. Despite its limitations, the latter solution is preferable for

reasons of feasibility and because it considerably simpliﬁes the evaluation.

If a gap exists in terms of social beneﬁts, the employer should correct it by using the most

appropriate means, that is, by paying an equivalent amount in cash or through equal alloca-

tion of beneﬁts to employees in female- and male-dominated jobs.

Maternity leave is not included in these beneﬁts because it meets the non-discrimination requirement.

PAY COMPARISONS AND ADJUSTMENTS

Methods of pay adjustment

Once the total compensation has been determined for female- and male-dominated jobs,

the gaps between jobs of the same value can be calculated. This can be done:

¢ by comparing individually the pay for a female-dominated job to the pay of a male-

dominated job of equal value; this method is easiest to apply when the number of

jobs being compared is small and it is therefore best suited to small organizations;

¢ by comparing globally the pay for female-dominated jobs to the wage/value

regression line for male-dominated jobs.

A very important point must be emphasized here, that is, pay equity is obtained by in-

creasing the pay for female-dominated jobs to the level of pay for male-dominated

jobs of the same value and not the other way around, i.e. decreasing the wages of the

latter.

Pay structures

Once the pay gaps have been calculated, the issue of pay structures arises, in particular

in cases where pay scales exist. It has been observed that the scales of female-dominated

jobs often include a greater number of levels than those of male-dominated jobs of the

same value; it follows that much more time is needed for holders of female-dominated

jobs to achieve the same maximum rate of pay. Thus, for a great number of women who

are below the maximum level, pay equity is only obtained in theory. This situation of in-

equality is exacerbated in the case where a single rate is set for men’s jobs while numer-

ous levels are set for women’s jobs.

Therefore, when establishing pay equity, the pay structures for women’s jobs

and men’s jobs of the same value should be standardized. This must be considered

to be an integral part of pay equity.

Estimating wage gaps for jobs of equal value and making pay adjustments

NON-DISCRIMINATORY WAGE GAPS

The observed wage gaps may be fully or partly caused by factors which are not discrimin-

atory but which reﬂect management or market constraints.

Shortages of skilled labour

There may at times be a labour shortage for some jobs. Enterprises must therefore substan-

tially increase their wages in order to attract workers who are employed by competitors or

even to recruit workers from abroad. If this involves male-dominated jobs, this “additional

premium” due to a labour shortage should not be considered to be discriminatory. A possible

solution would be not to include the job subject to a labour shortage in pay comparisons.

However, it should be noted that labour shortages rarely last a long time. If the pre-

mium was allocated ﬁve years ago and the labour shortage has ended by the time the equal

pay exercise is undertaken, then there is no reason to exclude this job from the comparisons.

Pay freeze

This refers to cases affected by what is sometimes called red circling. As a result of a work re-

organization or technological change, the maximum rate of pay for some jobs is lowered. Employ-

ees whose rate of pay has reached the maximum are not subject to a decrease in pay, but their

pay is temporarily frozen. For pay equity purposes, comparisons are made using the new rate.

It is important that this pay freeze be limited to a small number of jobs and be

decided well before the pay equity process is undertaken. Otherwise, this practice

might be considered to have been dictated implicitly by the desire to limit pay adjustments

and could be considered discriminatory.

Isolated post or cost-of-living allowance

In some cases, employees who are sent abroad or to remote regions are granted an isolated

post allowance or an allowance to cover the difference in cost of living or both.

These al-

lowances are not included in pay comparisons, provided that they were not allocated

in a discriminatory fashion.

PAYMENT OF WAGE ADJUSTMENTS

Discriminatory pay gaps observed between jobs of equal value should be

completely eliminated. It is not enough to increase the pay for female-dominated

jobs by a certain arbitrary per centage in order to bring them closer to the pay for

male-dominated jobs. As long as a gap continues to exist, it cannot be said that

wage discrimination has been eliminated. On the other hand, if the amounts to

be paid out are considerable, the wages can be raised gradually to achieve equity

within three or four years. The aim of this measure is simply to allow the employer

to lessen the impact of increasing the payroll.

INTERNAL EQUITY

The pay equity process leads to an in-depth review of compensation practices and pay struc-

tures, and to the resulting adjustments to the pay for female-dominated jobs. The process

may also reveal that some male-dominated jobs are underpaid or, on the contrary, overpaid in

relation to their value. In order to harmonize the entire compensation system, some employ-

ers adjust the pay for male-dominated jobs and jobs of mixed-gender predominance. Once

the pay for all these jobs has been adjusted according to their value, it is considered that

internal equity has been achieved in the enterprise.

This process can be spread over time by modulating differently the annual pay increases

based on whether the job is overpaid or underpaid; the rate of annual pay increases will be

lower than the average rate for the former and higher for the latter, until all the jobs are found

in the pay category that corresponds to their value.

BENEFITS

¢ A major beneﬁt that the enterprise can derive from this process is that it will obtain

a compensation system that is consistent and tailored to its needs. This beneﬁt has

been unanimously underlined by employers who have implemented pay equity in

their enterprises.

¢ Another positive impact for the employer is the enhanced attractiveness of the enter-

prise, which will give it a comparative advantage in terms of recruiting.

¢ Lastly, the employer who carries out this process in a rigorous manner, avoiding gen-

der bias, will in general not have to worry about being sued for wage discrimination,

which could be very costly.

Estimating wage gaps for jobs of equal value and making pay adjustments

Is the regular maximum rate of pay scales

the same for female- and male-dominated

jobs?

Are the criteria used in awarding performance

bonuses the same for female- and male-

dominated jobs?

Are bonuses as accessible to employees in part-

time jobs as they are to those in full-time jobs?

Is ﬂexible pay as accessible to employees

in female-dominated jobs as it is to those in

male-dominated jobs of the same value?

Are the amounts paid out through ﬂexible pay

equal for female- and male-dominated jobs of

the same value?

Can the objectives based on which ﬂexible pay

is determined be as easily achieved for female-

dominated jobs as for male-dominated jobs?

Is the type of ﬂexible pay examined accessible

to both full-time and part-time employees and

to both permanent and temporary employees?

Has it been ensured that the allocation criteria

do not correspond mainly to the qualities

associated with men’s jobs?

Are cash value beneﬁts as accessible to

employees in female-dominated jobs as they

are to those in male-dominated jobs of the

same value?

Are the amounts received equivalent on average

for jobs of the same value?

Has effort been made to avoid decreasing

the wages of male-dominated jobs in order to

achieve pay equity?

Have the pay structures been standardized for

female- and male-dominated jobs of the same

value?

Have discriminatory pay gaps observed between

jobs of the same value been completely

eliminated?

f you answered “No” to any of these questions,

you will need to examine the reasons why.

If a satisfactory explanation cannot be found,

then you will need to modify your decision.

Estimating wage gaps for jobs of equal value and making pay adjustments

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following publications were sources of information used in one or more sections of the Guide. Many of these

sources are available on the web sites indicated.

Andersson, Eva R. and Anita Harriman. 1999. Right Pay the Right Way. A method for assessing qualiﬁcations

when setting individual pay levels. Swedish Institute for Working Life. Stockholm [www.jamombud.se].

Canadian Human Rights Commission. Guide to Pay Equity and Job Evaluation: A Summary of Experience

and Lessons Learned. Ottawa, n.d. [www.chrc-ccdp.ca].

Chicha, Marie-Thérèse. 2006. A Comparative Analysis of Promoting Pay Equity: models and impacts.

International Labour Ofﬁce. Geneva.

Chicha, Marie-Thérèse. 2000. L’équité salariale. Mise en oeuvre et enjeux. Ed. Yvon Blais. Montréal.

Commission de l’équité salariale du Québec (CESQ). 2003. Guide pour réaliser l’équité salariale dans les

entreprises de 10 à 49 personnes salariées. Québec [www.ces.gouv.qc.ca].

Confédération des syndicats nationaux. Various reference documents on job evaluation and pay equity.

[www.csn.qc.ca].

European Commission. 1996. Code of practice on the implementation of Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value

for Men and Women. Luxembourg.

Equal Opportunities Commission. 2003. Code of practice on equal pay. EOC. London [www.eoc.org.uk].

Equal Opportunities Commission. 2004. Equal Pay, Fair Pay. A Small Business Guide to Effective Pay

Practices. EOC. London.

Equal Opportunities Commission. Equal Pay Review Kit – Guidance Notes. EOC. London [www.eoc.org.uk].

Downloaded on March 27, 2006.

Equal Opportunities Commission. Good Practice Guide – Job Evaluation Schemes Free of Sex Bias. EOC.

London [www.eoc.org.uk]. Downloaded on August 31, 2005.

Green, Daina Z. 2006. Reducing the gender wage gap: A practical guide for public sector unions. Public

Services International.

Gunderson, Morley. 2006. Viewpoint: Male-female wage differentials: how can that be? Canadian Journal of Economics.

Vol.39. No. 1, 1-2.

Harriman, Anita and Carin Holm. 2001. Steps to Pay Equity. An easy and quick method for the evaluation of

work demands. JämO. Stockholm [www.equalpay.nu].

Hastings, Sue. 2002. Developing a less discriminatory job evaluation scheme using the NJC as a case

study. In: Models and Initiatives on Equal Pay. International Conference on Equal Pay. Federal Ministry

for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. Berlin.18-20. [www.bmfsfj.de].

Holm, Carin and Anita Harriman. 2002. Steps to Equal Pay in Sweden. In: Models and Initiatives on

Equal Pay. International Conference on Equal Pay. Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens,

Women and Youth. Berlin. 38-39 [www.bmfsfj.de].

Holm, Carin and Ulrika Sjöback. A gender wage survey. The Vastra Götaland County Administrative

Board. European Project on Equal Pay. [www.equalpay.nu].

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. 1998. The Equal Pay Handbook. Commonwealth of

Australia [www.humanrights.gov.au].

International Labour Ofﬁce. 1984. Job evaluation. Geneva.

International Labour Organisation. 1986. Equal remuneration. General Survey by the Committee of

Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. Geneva.

Instituto de la Mujer. ISOS wage differences between women and men and job evaluation. Various

reference documents, n.d. [www.ioc.upc.es/IVIS/].

Instituto de la Mujer. 2003. ISOS wage differences between women and men and job evaluation Various

reference documents, [www.ioc.upc.es/IVIS/].

Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Negotiating for Equality – Gender and Pay Toolkit, [www.ictu.ie].

JamO. 2003a. European project on equal pay. Stockholm [www.equalpay.nu].

JamO. 2005. Survey, Analysis and Action Plan for Equal Pay. Stockholm.

Katz, Christian and Christof Baitsch. 1996. L’égalité des salaires en pratique. Bureau fédéral de l’égalité

entre femmes et hommes. Georg éditeur. Geneva.

National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL). 2002. Submission to the Pay Equity Task Force.

Ottawa [www.justice.gc.ca].

National Joint Council. (NJC) Local Government Job Evaluation Scheme.

Reference documents on job evaluation and classiﬁcations. n.d. [www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk] and

[http://www.unison.org.uk/localgov/gettingequal/].

Pay Equity Bureau. Job Analysis. Department of Labour. Prince Edward Island. n.d.

Pay Equity Bureau. Job Evaluation. Department of Labour. Prince Edward Island. n.d.

Pay Equity Commission of Ontario. 1993. Step by Step to Pay Equity. A Guide to Small Business.

Volume 2. Toronto [www.gov.on.ca/lab/pec].

Bibliography

Public Services International. Pay Equity Now. Pay Equity Resource Package. [www.world-psi.org].

Rantanen, Lea and Aitta, Ulla. 2002. Job evaluation – Good practices from the Finnish Working Life. In

Models and Initiatives on Equal Pay. International Conference on Equal Pay. Federal Ministry for Family

Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. Berlin. 32-33 [www.bmfsfj.de].

Saba, Tania . 2000. Stratégies de communication dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre d’un programme

d’équité salariale in Chicha M-T. L’équité salariale. Mise en œuvre et enjeux. Ed. Yvon Blais. Montréal.

pp. 301-322.

Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique/Canadian Union of Public Employees. Various reference

documents on job evaluation and pay equity. [www.cupe.ca] and [www.scfp.qc.ca ].

Tondorf, Karin. 2002. “Simon earns more than Simone”. In: Models and Initiatives on Equal Pay.

International Conference on Equal Pay. Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and

Youth. Berlin. 14-16 [www.bmfsfj.de].

Van Hoogstraten, L and A. van Embden. 2002. Checklist Equal Pay. In: Models and Initiatives on Equal

Pay. International Conference on Equal Pay. Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women

and Youth. Berlin. 35-36 [www.bmfsfj.de].

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1 Context and objectives of the guide

Table 1.1 Synthesis of beneﬁts of pay equity 4

CHAPTER 4 Job evaluation methods

Table 4.1 Qualiﬁcation factor: Selecting and providing examples of gender-neutral sub-factors

Table 4.2 Effort factor: Selecting and providing examples of gender-neutral sub-factors 32

Table 4.3 Responsibility factor: Selecting and providing examples of gender-neutral sub-factors 33

Table 4.4 Working conditions factor: Selecting and providing examples of

gender-neutral sub-factors

Table 4.5 Examples of dimensions of sub-factors 36

Table 4.6 Risk sub-factors levels 36

CHAPTER 5 Collecting data on the jobs to be evaluated

Table 5.1 Explanatory part of the questionnaire 44

Table 5.2 Simple example for small enterprises 45

Table 5.3 Detailed examples for large enterprises 45

Table 5.4 Example of closed-ended questions tailored for large enterprises 46

Table 5.5 Example of questionnaire developed for small or medium-sized enterprises,

based on semi-structured questions

Table 5.6 Commonly overlooked elements of female jobs 49

Table 5.7 Examples of active verbs 51

CHAPTER 6 Analysing the questionnaire results

Table 6.1 Identiﬁcation record 58

Table 6.2 Description of tasks 59

Table 6.3 Job proﬁle 60

Table 6.4 Ensuring gender neutrality in assigning levels 64

List of tables

CHAPTER 7: Determining the value of jobs

Table 7.1 Example of weighting grid 70

Table 7.2 Example of discriminatory weighting 73

Table 7.3 Example of non-discriminatory weighting 74

Table 7.4 Example of arithmetic progression – Job knowledge sub-factor 75

Table 7.5 Point grid for all sub-factors and levels 76

Table 7.6 Summary of proﬁle of a secretary’s job 77

Table 7.7 Determining the total points assigned to a secretary’s job 77

Table 7.8 Example of interval progression 78

GLOSSARY

Gender bias Gender bias refers to the ways some jobs are made to be advantageous or dis-

advantageous based on sex. This type of bias can show up at any step along the

way in a pay equity programme.

Gender predominant jobs Jobs which are associated with one sex or the other, based on quantitative or

qualitative criteria.

Pay equity Implementing the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, free

from discrimination based on sex.

Factors Criteria which make it possible to take into account the requirements of various

jobs within an enterprise. In pay equity programmes, the following four factors

are considered to be necessary and sufﬁcient in order to properly evaluate jobs:

qualiﬁcations, effort, responsibility and working conditions.

Weighting grid Assigning weight to evaluation factors consists in determining their relative im-

portance and attributing a numerical value to each. The weighting grid, which

indicates the weight assigned to each factor and sub-factor, is one of the most

important elements in the measuring instrument in an evaluation method.

Job evaluation method A method used to measure, based on four different factors, the characteristics of

the jobs within an enterprise, with the aim of establishing their relative value.

Levels The intensity, frequency, duration or other dimensions of a sub-factor are meas-

ured using a scale composed of levels. These levels make it possible to distin-

guish between different jobs.

Pay equity programme A planned and structured process whose goal is to achieve pay equity.

Sub-factors Each factor in a job evaluation method is usually broken down into sub-factors

in order to make it possible to evaluate all facets of the various jobs within an

enterprise.

Glossary

Photo Credits

Cover centre: Italy ILO/Maillard J.

Cover clockwise from top left: Ethiopia ILO/Crozet M., Japan ILO/Maillard J.,

Thailand ILO/Falise, Germany ILO/Maillard J., Indonesia ILO/Crozet M.,

Russian Federation ILO/Crozet M.

Page vi Japan @ILO/Maillard J.

Page 6 Italy @ILO/Maillard J.

Page 8 Argentina @ILO/Maillard J.

Page 16 Argentina @ILO/Maillard J.

Page 19 Germany @ILO/Maillard J.

Page 24 Russian Federation @ILO/Crozet M.

Page 26 Indonesia @ILO/Cassidy K.

Page 34 China @ILO/Crozet M.

Page 42 Ethiopia @ILO/Crozet M.

Page 44 Venezuela @ILO/Maillard J

Page 56 Thailand @ILO/Falise T.

Page 58 Côte d’Ivoire @ILO/Crozet M.

Page 68 France @ILO/Crozet M.

Page 76 Zimbabwe @ILO/Maillard J

Page 82 Ethiopia @ILO/Crozet M.

Page 84 Côte d’Ivoire @ILO/Crozet M.

Page 87 Viet Nam @Deloche P.

Page 88 India @ILO/Crozet M.

www.ilo.org

9 789221 215387

ISBN 978-92-2-121538-7

PROGRAMME ON PROMOTING THE DECLARATION

ON FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND RIGHTS AT WORK

International Labour Ofﬁce

4, route des Morillons

CH-1211 Geneva 22

Switzerland

Telephone: 0041 22 799 7160

Fax: 0041 22 799 6561

Email: DECLARA[email protected]

Price 35 Swiss francs