-
About the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada -
Objectives of the Pay Equity Act -
Background -
Employer obligations – Create a Pay Equity Plan -
Job evaluation at NSERC: the Hay Method -
NSERC’s response to Pay Equity legislation -
Calculating compensation -
Results from the comparison of compensation -
Employee feedback -
Agreement -
Appendix A: Sample NSERC job profile -
Appendix B: Job classes at NSERC and their respective position titles -
Appendix C: The steps of NSERC’s response to Pay Equity legislation
Is this a Group of employers? |
No
|
|---|---|
Number of Pay Equity Plans |
1
|
Pay Equity plan name |
NSERC Pay Equity Report 2024
|
Employee count |
509
|
Was a Pay Equity Committee established? |
Yes (x) The Pay Equity Committee meets the requirements under s.19(1) of the Act. (_) We received authorization to establish a Pay Equity Committee with different requirements provided in section 19 of the Pay Equity Act. |
The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through grants, fellowships and scholarships, promotes and supports research and research training in natural sciences and engineering to develop talent, generate discoveries, and support innovations in pursuit of economic and social outcomes for Canadians. In fulfilling its mandate, NSERC employs approximately 400 employees.
The
The development or maintenance of a pay equity plan allows employers to identify and address any pay inequities that might exist in their workplace. This report serves as NSERC’s pay equity plan and summarizes the results of the analysis conducted to investigate whether pay inequities exist within the organization.
Canadians have the right to experience workplace compensation practices that are free from gender-based discrimination.
“Equal pay for work of equal value” is a little bit like comparing apples to oranges. On the surface, the two fruits may be quite different, having their own colour, form and taste. But if one considers their overall value to the human body, they are equally nutritious: they each have similar levels of calories, vitamins and hydration.
Of course, our jobs at NSERC cannot be reduced to fruit! But we can expand on the analogy. Consider comparing two different jobs: for example, comparing the value of a truck mechanic job (a role commonly held by men) to that of an account technician job (a role commonly held by women). If it was determined that each job provided an equal value to the employer’s operations, then the employees in these two different jobs should be receiving equal rates of pay.
Did you know? Pay equity is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.
Pay equity is important because it addresses the undervaluation of women’s work, which contributes to the gender wage gap. Jobs that are commonly held by women tend to be paid less than jobs commonly held by men, even when the work is comparable in value based on skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.
The gender wage gap is a persistent problem: in 2020, a woman in Canada earned 0.89 cents for every dollar a man earned. That is equivalent to a $3.52 hourly wage rate gap (or 11%) between men and women.
Pay equity is not about “equal pay for equal work,” which, returning to our fruit analogy, is like comparing apples to apples. "Equal pay for equal work” compares the pay of similar jobs, where women and men are doing the same work. For example, comparing a female truck mechanic’s pay to a male truck mechanic’s pay, or comparing a female bank teller’s pay to a male bank teller’s pay.
Pay equity is also not about addressing historical or present gender predominance in particular jobs. It is not about determining which roles are more often held by men or more often held by women and seeking to address these differences in representation. Similarly, pay equity is not about discrimination in hiring practices based on gender or other characteristics, nor is it about addressing discrimination in retention and promotion practices.
The Act requires employers to identify job classes (i.e., groups of individual positions that share certain similarities; see Section 6 below) and then determine which ones are “predominately female”, “predominately male”, or “gender neutral.”
There are three criteria used to determine the gender predominance of a job class.
- Current incumbency – At least 60% of the positions in the job class are occupied either by women or by men;
- Historical incumbency – Historically, at least 60% of the positions in the job class were occupied either by women or by men; and
- Gender-based occupational stereotype – The job class is one that is commonly associated with women or men due to gender-based occupational stereotyping.
Job classes that are occupied by less than 60% men or less than 60% women (for example, 58% women and 42% men) are considered “gender neutral.”
The Act requires employers to determine the gender predominance of classes of jobs. As we will see later in this report, there are roles at NSERC that are female- or male-predominant. Pay equity is not about changing or addressing this predominance. Rather, it is about ensuring that jobs of equal value are receiving equal pay, irrespective of a given job’s gender predominance.
Ensuring that pay equity is done in a way that respects gender diversity and gender identity is a best practice and an essential component of a human rights approach to pay equity.
This is why the word “woman” in the Pay Equity Act is interpreted as including all individuals who identify as women or decide to be counted as a woman, notwithstanding their sex assigned at birth. The same interpretation applies to the word “man.”
In line with the human rights approach described above, the Act does not require every employee to identify as being a “woman” or a “man.” The legislation does not currently address the undervaluation of work beyond the woman/man gender binary. In other words, addressing the wage gaps that could impact other gender equity-seeking groups—other than women—is not currently within the Act’s scope.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission requires employers to establish a pay equity committee and create a pay equity plan within three years of becoming subject to the Pay Equity Act. To create a pay equity plan, they must:
- Identify job classes in the workplace;
- Determine their gender predominance: which job classes are commonly held by women and which ones are commonly held by men;
- Evaluate or value the work done in all predominantly male and female job classes;
- Calculate total compensation in dollars per hour for every predominantly male and female job class; and,
- Determine whether there are differences in compensation between jobs of equal value.
Employers must post a draft of the pay equity plan and a notice to employees of their right to provide comments on the draft plan. After having given employees at least 60 days to provide comments, employers must post the final version of the pay equity plan and the notice of increases if applicable.
Once the final version of the pay equity plan has been posted, employers must correct any pay equity gaps. This is done by increasing the compensation of employees in jobs that are not receiving equal pay for work of equal value. These increases in compensation are payable in full the day after the final version of the plan is posted; however, employers may be allowed to phase-n these increases.
NSERC and SSHRC both established pay equity committees in 2022. The two committees worked jointly, along with a small team from Human Resources and with the support of
The lack of a consistent methodology for determining the classification, or level, of positions can lead to or contribute to pay inequities. NSERC, however, uses the Hay Method of job evaluation to determine the classification of all positions in the agency. The Hay method provides a consistent and objective framework to fairly analyze organizational structures and evaluate jobs. The Hay Method is compliant with pay equity legislation and is the most widely used job evaluation methodology worldwide. NSERC has been using the Hay Method to determine job classification since 2004.
The Hay method identifies the relative value (or weight) of positions within an organizational unit by measuring job content. The Hay Method at NSERC uses four universal factors and 11 subfactors to measure the relative size of jobs, to break down their various components and decide on an appropriate level of evaluation for each of the eleven elements.
- Know-How
This factor is used to measure the total of every kind of knowledge and skill, however acquired, needed for acceptable job performance. Three subfactors are considered:
- practical procedures and knowledge, specialized techniques and learned skills;
- planning, coordinating, directing or controlling the activities and resources associated with an organizational unit or function; and
- active, practising, person-to-person skills in the area of human relationships.
- Problem Solving
This factor measures the thinking required in the job by considering two subfactors:
- the environment in which the thinking takes place; and
- the challenge presented by the thinking to be done.
- Accountability
This factor measures the relative degree to which the job, when performed competently, can affect the end results of the organization or a unit within the organization. The opportunity to contribute to an organization is reflected through two subfactors:
- the degree of the decision-making or influence of the job; and
- the nature of that effect.
- Working Conditions
This factor measures the context in which the job is performed by considering four subfactors:
- Physical effort – Levels of physical activity that vary in intensity, duration and frequency that contribute to physical stress and fatigue.
- Physical environment – Progressive degrees of exposure of varying intensities to unavoidable physical and environmental factors that increase the risk of accident, ill health or discomfort.
- Sensory attention – Levels of sensory attention (e.g., auditing, inspecting, mechanical equipment, tabulating data, proofreading, technical troubleshooting, manual manipulation) during the work process that vary in intensity, frequency and duration.
- Mental stress – Progressive degrees of exposure of varying intensities to factors inherent in the work process that increase the risk of such things as tension or anxiety.
For every job profile in the organization (see Appendix A for an example of a job profile), points are assigned for each of the four factors, including the eleven subfactors, and a GR-Level classification is assigned based on the point total.
Because jobs have so many different variables, it is possible that a job without a high score in ‘Know-How’ but with severe ‘Working Conditions’ could result in the same number of points—and GR level—as a job that has the opposite components. For example, an insurance clerk and a bus driver have few job responsibilities that are similar but might be evaluated at the same point total.
The following briefly describes how job evaluation is carried out at NSERC.
A Human Resources (HR) Classification Committee, composed of team leads and advisors from the HR Operations team, reviews and evaluates job profiles using the Hay Method (except for HR and executive positions which are evaluated by an external consultant). This is done either when the job profiles are newly developed or when they are revised. All members of the HR Classification Committee must receive certified training in the Hay Method.
Once the HR Classification Committee reaches a consensus, a recommendation is prepared for the Job Evaluation Advisory Committee (JEAC) for review and validation (except for executive positions that are reviewed and approved at the presidential level).
JEAC is composed of representatives appointed by SSHRC and NSERC, at the director level or above, who have delegated accountability for classification as part of their role. The primary mandate of JEAC is to review the classification results (excluding executive positions), to ensure the evaluations prepared by HR (or by a recognized third party in the case of HR positions) support the overall integrity and relativity of job evaluation at NSERC. Before being onboarded to the committee, all JEAC members receive training in the Hay Method.
The pay equity legislation refers to four factors used in job evaluation: Skill, Effort, Responsibility and Working Conditions. The Hay Method translates these four factors into Knowledge, Problem Solving, Accountability and Working Conditions, which is consistent with the legislation.
While the Hay Method as employed at NSERC is fully compliant with pay equity legislation, as part of the process to demonstrate this compliance, NSERC undertook a full analysis of its existing job classification data for quality assurance purposes.
NSERC’s HR division hired
For each position, an analysis was carried out to ensure that the assigned point ratings made logical sense across the organizational charts. The goal was to ensure consistency in the assessment of point allocations for the various roles.
A quality assurance exercise was carried out for positions with direct supervisory responsibility, focusing on the problem-solving and accountability factors of the Hay Method. The aim was to verify and ensure that the point ratings for these factors for subordinate positions were not higher than those of their supervisors.
An analysis was also carried out for all generic positions
All compiled data underwent a final review to identify and rectify any inconsistencies or errors. Minor corrections were made to ensure the overall integrity and reliability of the job evaluation data. Examples of such corrections included ensuring that the job evaluation point ratings for all positions within given generic positions were identical, and ensuring positions were assigned to the appropriate job classes.
This quality assurance exercise resulted in no impacts on, or changes to, classification levels (GR levels) of positions within NSERC, reinforcing that the assessment of classification within the organization has been appropriately performed since the adoption of the Hay Method by the agency.
The entire process prioritized the establishment of sound and consistent job evaluation factors, promoting fairness and accuracy across the agency.
The pay equity legislation requires employers to identify job classes in the workplace. Job classes are defined as groups of individual positions that have the following three characteristics:
- they have similar duties and responsibilities;
- they require similar qualifications; and,
- they are part of the same compensation plan and are within the same range of salary rates.
After ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the job evaluation data, Korn Ferry and HR created distinct job classes for NSERC based on the three characteristics that define a job class, then identified which individual positions were to be assigned to the specific job classes.
Table 1 below lists the 69 job classes identified for NSERC. Appendix B provides a full list of each job class and the individual positions that fall within each class.
Table 1 - List of the 69 job classes at NSERC, in alphabetical order
NSERC Job classes |
|---|
Admin 2 - Corp GR4 |
Admin 2 - Prog GR4 |
Admin 3 - Corp GR5 |
Admin 3 - Prog GR5 |
Admin 4 - Corp GR6 |
Advisor 1 - Corp Comms GR6 |
Advisor 1 - Corp HR GR6 |
Advisor 2 - Corp GR7 |
Advisor 3 - Corp GR8 |
Advisor 4 - Corp GR 9 |
Advisor 4 - Senior GR 9 |
Analyst 2 - Corp GR6 |
Analyst 3 - Corp GR7 |
Analyst 4 - Corp GR8 |
Analyst 4 - Prog GR8 |
Audit - GR10 |
Audit - GR9 |
Clerk 1 - GR2 |
Clerk 2 - GR3 |
Clerk 3 - GR4 |
Coordinator 1 - Corp GR3 |
Coordinator 2 - Corp GR4 |
Coordinator 3 - Corp GR5 |
Coordinator 3 - Prog GR5 |
Coordinator 4 - Corp GR6 |
Executive 1 - Corp EX01 |
Executive 1 - Program EX01 |
Executive 2 - Corp EX02 |
Executive 3 - Corp EX03 |
Executive 3 - Program EX03 |
Executive 4 - Corp EX04 |
Executive 4 - Program EX04 |
Executive 5 - Corp EX05 |
IT Administrator 1 - GR3 |
IT Administrator 2 - GR4 |
IT Administrator 3 - GR5 |
IT Administrator 6 - GR8 |
IT Professional 1 - GR6 |
IT Professional 2 - GR7 |
IT Professional 4 - GR9 |
IT Professional 5 - GR10 |
IT Supervisor 1 - GR5 |
IT Supervisor 2 - GR6 |
IT Supervisor 3 - GR7 |
IT Supervisor 4 - GR8 |
IT Supervisor 5 - GR9 |
Management 1 - Corp GR7 |
Management 2 - Corp GR8 |
Management 3 - Corp GR9 |
Management 3 - Prog GR9 |
Management 4 - Corp GR10 |
Management 4 - Prog GR10 |
Officer 1 - Corp GR4 |
Officer 2 - Corp GR5 |
Officer 2 - Prog GR5 |
Officer 3 - Corp GR6 |
Officer 3 - Prog GR6 |
Officer 4 - Corp GR7 |
Officer 4 - Prog GR7 |
Officer 5 - Corp GR8 |
Officer 5 - Prog GR8 |
Officer 6 - Corp GR9 |
Policy Advisor 1 - GR8 |
Policy Advisor 2 - GR9 |
Policy Advisor 3 Principal - GR10 |
Policy Analyst 1 - GR7 |
Policy Analyst 3 - GR9 |
Team Lead 4 - Corp GR8 |
Team Lead 5 - Corp GR9 |
NSERC’s HR systems were used to extract gender predominance data for each identified job class by pulling relevant information from the organizational databases to inform the subsequent allocation process. As per the Act, the overall gender predominance for job classes was established based on the following criteria:
- current gender predominance of positions;
- historical gender predominance;
Footnote 6 - the stereotypical gender predominance.
Footnote 7
The extracted gender predominance data were reviewed and analyzed. Based on this analysis, Korn Ferry and HR finalized and allocated the gender predominance for each identified job class as outlined in the tables below.
Table 2 lists the 40 female-predominant job classes and the number of individual positions in each job class, which sums to 271. For these job classes at least 60% of the positions in the job class are or were historically occupied by women.
Table 2: Female predominant job classes
Job class |
Number of individual positions |
|---|---|
Admin 2 - Corp GR4 |
24 |
Admin 2 - Prog GR4 |
18 |
Admin 3 - Corp GR5 |
4 |
Admin 3 - Prog GR5 |
5 |
Admin 4 - Corp GR6 |
6 |
Advisor 1 - Corp Comms GR6 |
2 |
Advisor 1 - Corp HR GR6 |
1 |
Advisor 2 - Corp GR7 |
9 |
Advisor 3 - Corp GR8 |
8 |
Advisor 4 - Senior GR 9 |
1 |
Analyst 4 - Prog GR8 |
8 |
Clerk 3 - GR4 |
3 |
Coordinator 1 - Corp GR3 |
1 |
Coordinator 2 - Corp GR4 |
3 |
Coordinator 3 - Prog GR5 |
4 |
Coordinator 4 - Corp GR6 |
7 |
Executive 3 - Program EX03 |
4 |
Executive 5 - Corp EX05 |
1 |
IT Administrator 1 - GR3 |
2 |
IT Administrator 2 - GR4 |
1 |
IT Administrator 3 - GR5 |
1 |
IT Supervisor 1 - GR5 |
1 |
Management 1 - Corp GR7 |
2 |
Management 2 - Corp GR8 |
3 |
Management 3 - Corp GR9 |
19 |
Management 3 - Prog GR9 |
17 |
Management 4 - Corp GR10 |
10 |
Management 4 - Prog GR10 |
14 |
Officer 2 - Corp GR5 |
9 |
Officer 2 - Prog GR5 |
8 |
Officer 3 - Corp GR6 |
9 |
Officer 3 - Prog GR6 |
6 |
Officer 4 - Corp GR7 |
10 |
Officer 4 - Prog GR7 |
22 |
Officer 5 - Corp GR8 |
1 |
Officer 5 - Prog GR8 |
14 |
Officer 6 - Corp GR9 |
1 |
Policy Analyst 1 - GR7 |
10 |
Policy Analyst 3 - GR9 |
1 |
Team Lead 4 - Corp GR8 |
1 |
Total |
271 |
Table 3 lists the 17 male-predominant job classes and the number of individual positions in each job class, which sums to 42. For these job classes, at least 60% of the positions in the job class are or were historically occupied by men.
Table 3: Male predominant job classes
Job class |
Number of individual positions |
|---|---|
Advisor 4 - Corp GR 9 |
4 |
Audit - GR10 |
1 |
Audit - GR9 |
2 |
Executive 1 - Corp EX01 |
12 |
Executive 2 - Corp EX02 |
2 |
Executive 4 - Corp EX04 |
1 |
Executive 4 - Program EX04 |
2 |
IT Administrator 6 - GR8 |
1 |
IT Professional 1 - GR6 |
4 |
IT Professional 2 - GR7 |
2 |
IT Professional 4 - GR9 |
3 |
IT Professional 5 - GR10 |
1 |
IT Supervisor 2 - GR6 |
2 |
IT Supervisor 3 - GR7 |
1 |
IT Supervisor 5 - GR9 |
1 |
Officer 1 - Corp GR4 |
2 |
Team Lead 5 - Corp GR9 |
1 |
Total |
42 |
Table 4 lists the 12 gender-neutral job classes and the number of individual positions in each job class, which sums to 86. These job classes are or were occupied by less than 60% men or less than 60% women (for example, 58% women and 42% men) and are thus considered gender neutral.
Table 4: Gender neutral job classes
Job class |
Number of individual positions |
|---|---|
Analyst 2 - Corp GR6 |
22 |
Analyst 3 - Corp GR7 |
14 |
Analyst 4 - Corp GR8 |
6 |
Clerk 1 - GR2 |
4 |
Clerk 2 - GR3 |
1 |
Coordinator 3 - Corp GR5 |
10 |
Executive 1 - Program EX01 |
11 |
Executive 3 - Corp EX03 |
1 |
IT Supervisor 4 - GR8 |
1 |
Policy Advisor 1 - GR8 |
5 |
Policy Advisor 2 - GR9 |
4 |
Policy Advisor 3 Principal - GR10 |
7 |
Total |
86 |
As part of work carried out by NSERC’s HR team, described in section 6 above, the hourly compensation for all GR levels was calculated (using rates of pay effective April 1, 2023), then used to compare the male and female predominant job classes. By way of example, Admin 2 - Corp GR4 (female predominant) was compared to Officer 1 - Corp GR4 (male predominant).
Table 5: Hourly compensation by job class and comparison by gender predominance
Job class |
Classification |
Overall gender predominance |
Maximum base hourly rate |
Hourly value of performance pay |
Total hourly compensation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Clerk 1 - GR2
|
GR02
|
N
|
$30.66
|
$30.66
|
|
|
Coordinator 1 - Corp GR3
|
GR03
|
F
|
$33.74
|
$33.74
|
|
|
IT Administrator 1 - GR3
|
GR03
|
F
|
$33.74
|
$33.74
|
|
|
Clerk 2 - GR3
|
GR03
|
N
|
$33.74
|
$33.74
|
|
|
Admin 2 - Corp GR4
|
GR04
|
F
|
$37.12
|
$37.12
|
|
|
Admin 2 - Prog GR4
|
GR04
|
F
|
$37.12
|
$37.12
|
|
|
Clerk 3 - GR4
|
GR04
|
F
|
$37.12
|
$37.12
|
|
|
Coordinator 2 - Corp GR4
|
GR04
|
F
|
$37.12
|
$37.12
|
|
|
IT Administrator 2 - GR4
|
GR04
|
F
|
$37.12
|
$37.12
|
|
|
Officer 1 - Corp GR4
|
GR04
|
M
|
$37.12
|
$37.12
|
|
|
Admin 3 - Corp GR5
|
GR05
|
F
|
$41.56
|
$41.56
|
|
|
Admin 3 - Prog GR5
|
GR05
|
F
|
$41.56
|
$41.56
|
|
|
Coordinator 3 - Prog GR5
|
GR05
|
F
|
$41.56
|
$41.56
|
|
|
IT Administrator 3 - GR5
|
GR05
|
F
|
$41.56
|
$41.56
|
|
|
IT Supervisor 1 - GR5
|
GR05
|
F
|
$41.56
|
$41.56
|
|
|
Officer 2 - Corp GR5
|
GR05
|
F
|
$41.56
|
$41.56
|
|
|
Officer 2 - Prog GR5
|
GR05
|
F
|
$41.56
|
$41.56
|
|
|
Coordinator 3 - Corp GR5
|
GR05
|
N
|
$41.56
|
$41.56
|
|
|
Admin 4 - Corp GR6
|
GR06
|
F
|
$46.65
|
$46.65
|
|
|
Advisor 1 - Corp Comms GR6
|
GR06
|
F
|
$46.65
|
$46.65
|
|
|
Advisor 1 - Corp HR GR6
|
GR06
|
F
|
$46.65
|
$46.65
|
|
|
Coordinator 4 - Corp GR6
|
GR06
|
F
|
$46.65
|
$46.65
|
|
|
Officer 3 - Corp GR6
|
GR06
|
F
|
$46.65
|
$46.65
|
|
|
Officer 3 - Prog GR6
|
GR06
|
F
|
$46.65
|
$46.65
|
|
|
IT Professional 1 - GR6
|
GR06
|
M
|
$46.65
|
$46.65
|
|
|
IT Supervisor 2 - GR6
|
GR06
|
M
|
$46.65
|
$46.65
|
|
|
Analyst 2 - Corp GR6
|
GR06
|
N
|
$46.65
|
$46.65
|
|
|
Advisor 2 - Corp GR7
|
GR07
|
F
|
$52.14
|
$52.14
|
|
|
Management 1 - Corp GR7
|
GR07
|
F
|
$52.14
|
$52.14
|
|
|
Officer 4 - Corp GR7
|
GR07
|
F
|
$52.14
|
$52.14
|
|
|
Officer 4 - Prog GR7
|
GR07
|
F
|
$52.14
|
$52.14
|
|
|
Policy Analyst 1 - GR7
|
GR07
|
F
|
$52.14
|
$52.14
|
|
|
IT Professional 2 - GR7
|
GR07
|
M
|
$52.14
|
$52.14
|
|
|
IT Supervisor 3 - GR7
|
GR07
|
M
|
$52.14
|
$52.14
|
|
|
Analyst 3 - Corp GR7
|
GR07
|
N
|
$52.14
|
$52.14
|
|
|
Advisor 3 - Corp GR8
|
GR08
|
F
|
$57.35
|
$57.35
|
|
|
Analyst 4 - Prog GR8
|
GR08
|
F
|
$57.35
|
$57.35
|
|
|
Management 2 - Corp GR8
|
GR08
|
F
|
$57.35
|
$57.35
|
|
|
Officer 5 - Corp GR8
|
GR08
|
F
|
$57.35
|
$57.35
|
|
|
Officer 5 - Prog GR8
|
GR08
|
F
|
$57.35
|
$57.35
|
|
|
Team Lead 4 - Corp GR8
|
GR08
|
F
|
$57.35
|
$57.35
|
|
|
IT Administrator 6 - GR8
|
GR08
|
M
|
$57.35
|
$57.35
|
|
|
Analyst 4 - Corp GR8
|
GR08
|
N
|
$57.35
|
$57.35
|
|
|
IT Supervisor 4 - GR8
|
GR08
|
N
|
$57.35
|
$57.35
|
|
|
Policy Advisor 1 - GR8
|
GR08
|
N
|
$57.35
|
$57.35
|
|
|
Advisor 4 - Senior GR 9
|
GR09
|
F
|
$63.97
|
$1.84
|
$65.81
|
|
Management 3 - Corp GR9
|
GR09
|
F
|
$63.97
|
$1.84
|
$65.81
|
|
Management 3 - Prog GR9
|
GR09
|
F
|
$63.97
|
$1.84
|
$65.81
|
|
Officer 6 - Corp GR9
|
GR09
|
F
|
$63.97
|
$1.84
|
$65.81
|
|
Policy Analyst 3 - GR9
|
GR09
|
F
|
$63.97
|
$1.84
|
$65.81
|
|
Advisor 4 - Corp GR 9
|
GR09
|
M
|
$63.97
|
$1.84
|
$65.81
|
|
Audit - GR9
|
GR09
|
M
|
$63.97
|
$1.84
|
$65.81
|
|
IT Professional 4 - GR9
|
GR09
|
M
|
$63.97
|
$1.84
|
$65.81
|
|
IT Supervisor 5 - GR9
|
GR09
|
M
|
$63.97
|
$1.84
|
$65.81
|
|
Team Lead 5 - Corp GR9
|
GR09
|
M
|
$63.97
|
$1.84
|
$65.81
|
|
Policy Advisor 2 - GR9
|
GR09
|
N
|
$63.97
|
$1.84
|
$65.81
|
|
Management 4 - Corp GR10
|
GR10
|
F
|
$71.98
|
$2.29
|
$74.27
|
|
Management 4 - Prog GR10
|
GR10
|
F
|
$71.98
|
$2.29
|
$74.27
|
|
Audit - GR10
|
GR10
|
M
|
$71.98
|
$2.29
|
$74.27
|
|
IT Professional 5 - GR10
|
GR10
|
M
|
$71.98
|
$2.29
|
$74.27
|
|
Policy Advisor 3 Principal - GR10
|
GR10
|
N
|
$71.98
|
$2.29
|
$74.27
|
|
Executive 1 - Corp EX01
|
GREXE01
|
M
|
$74.56
|
$6.95
|
$81.51
|
|
Executive Corp -- EX01
|
GREXE01
|
M
|
$74.56
|
$74.56
|
|
|
Executive 1 - Program EX01
|
GREXE01
|
N
|
$74.56
|
$6.95
|
$81.51
|
|
Executive 2 - Corp EX02
|
GREXE02
|
M
|
$82.92
|
$7.56
|
$90.48
|
|
Executive 3 - Corp EX03
|
GREXE03
|
N
|
$91.69
|
$8.78
|
$100.47
|
|
Executive 3 - Program EX03
|
GREXE04
|
F
|
$105.46
|
$8.78
|
$114.24
|
|
Executive 4 - Corp EX04
|
GREXE04
|
M
|
$105.46
|
$13.64
|
$119.10
|
|
Executive 4 - Program EX04
|
GREXE04
|
M
|
$105.46
|
$13.64
|
$119.10
|
|
Executive 5 - Corp EX05
|
GREXE05
|
F
|
$118.17
|
$17.95
|
$136.12
|
The results of the analysis conducted by HR and the consultant group confirmed that the value of all positions, and all job classes, whether female- or male-predominant or gender-neutral, within the agency has been determined in a consistent and legislation-compliant manner. In addition to determining the gender predominance for each job class, the analysis has confirmed that there are no gender pay inequities as defined by the legislation and, therefore, no compensation is owed.
A brief diagrammatic overview of the steps undertaken in NSERC’s response to pay equity legislation can be found in Appendix C.
NSERC employees had 60 days from May 31, 2024, to provide comments on the report and the results of the analysis. The feedback received from employees resulted in no modifications to the report being necessary.
If a pay equity committee developed the pay equity plan, as is the case for NSERC, and the final pay equity plan has been posted, an employee may file a complaint only if they believe that the employer has acted in bad faith or in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner while performing their duties or functions. A complaint must be filed within 60 days after the day on which the employee became aware of the alleged behaviour.
This Pay Equity Plan, and the information used to create this plan, are accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature of the employer or the person representing the employer:
_____________________________
Where a Pay Equity Committee created the pay equity plan, include signatures of all Pay equity Committee Members:
Name |
Signature |
|---|---|
|
Melanie McNeill, co-chair
|
__________________________
|
|
Jeffery Nerenberg, co-chair
|
__________________________
|
|
Kelly-Anne Hoop
|
__________________________
|
|
Melanie Pabstel
|
__________________________
|
To obtain more information on the Pay Equity Act and pay equity plans, please visit
Position title |
Program Officer |
NSERC job code |
000466 |
Title of immediate supervisor |
Manager, Program Deputy Director, Senior Program Analyst, Manager or Deputy director, Senior Program Analyst, Deputy director, manager |
Effective date |
|
Job class |
GR-07 |
SSHRC job code |
|
Directorate |
As applicable |
Division |
As applicable |
Reviewed date |
October 2023 |
Describe the primary purpose of this position in three to six lines and what role this position plays in the organization.
The Program Officer (PO) is responsible for the delivery of funding opportunities and for representing and promoting the agency within the scientific/research community. The PO ensures the integrity and quality of peer review processes and takes part in the planning and monitoring of the program operations. The PO serves as the external facing authority for aspects related to program delivery, directly responding to internal and external queries. The PO provides policy and procedural direction to peer review committees, external reviewers, applicants, and others in the scientific/research community. Provides analysis and advice to management on program and policy related issues.
Provide brief statements (two to three lines) describing the five or six major responsibilities for which this position is held accountable.
- Serves as the agency’s authority in the delivery of one or more funding opportunities throughout the program cycle. Provides advice, guidance, and support on policies and procedures to all relevant parties. Identifies and recruits potential Chair, committee members and other reviewers to participate in the peer review process while taking into account the agency’s guidelines and policies.
- Represents the agency by organizing, participating and/or leading information sessions. Promotes awareness of the agency’s role, priorities, programs and policies within the academic community and to relevant stakeholders. Collects feedback from external stakeholders and recommends policy changes to management.
- Plays an advisory role in the distribution and oversight of the agency’s program budgets. Ensures accountability of public funds through the verification and monitoring of program budgets. Provides analysis and recommendations on post award matters. Reviews and evaluates progress and final reports, when applicable.
- Supervises the work and contributes to the performance evaluation of one or more Program Assistants (if applicable) and other support staff as required. Initiates, coordinates and participates in staffing exercises. Mentors, trains, and shares best practices to meet divisional and agency goals.
- Contributes to working groups (divisional, directorate, tri-agency, etc.) and corporate efforts. Identifies, monitors and conducts quantitative and qualitative studies of the research trends, changing needs and interests of the stakeholder community.
- Conducts analysis and provides information related to program/project delivery, performance measurement and program evaluation as required. Contributes to the development and/or improvement of the agency’s programs and policies by making recommendations to management.
- The Program Officer reports directly to the Manager
- Up to two (2) of Program Assistants typically reporting directly to the Program Officer
- Program Assistants reporting to the Program Officer are typically responsible for the following:
- The Program Assistant (PA) upholds the integrity and quality of the agency’ programs and peer review processes by providing administrative, technical and scheduling support.
- Through the knowledge and communication of information about the agency’s systems, policies and procedures, the PA provides quality frontline assistance to partnering organization and/or students, applicants, and grant holders applying for grants, scholarships, fellowships, awards or prizes issued through its programs.
- Program Assistants reporting to the Program Officer are not typically responsible for FTE’s
Know-How is the sum total of every kind of knowledge and skill, however acquired, needed to perform the job’s major responsibilities, such as planning, organizing, integrating, coordinating, guiding, directing and/or controlling activities and resources associated with an organizational unit or function, in order to produce the results expected of that unit or function.
Describe the practical procedures, specialized techniques or scientific disciplines, skills, education and/or experience required to achieve the results expected of this position.
The work requires:
- Knowledge and understanding of the agency’s and directorate’s mandate, objectives, policies (e.g., Access To Information and Privacy, Official Languages Act,), guidelines, budget management, funding opportunities and their objectives, services, strategies, priorities, roles, responsibilities, organizations and structure as well as those of other agency Directorates.
- An in-depth understanding of research training and trends in the stakeholder community, Equity Diversity and Inclusion considerations and the research landscape in Canada and abroad; an ability to apply this knowledge in order to assess, analyze and research various aspects of a policy or program.
- Ability to, independently or as part of a team, plan, manage and control a high volume of diverse activities under tight deadlines; ability to coordinate and manage the peer review processes for grants, scholarships, or prizes programs and an understanding of the technical, financial and political aspects of those programs.
- Effective oral, written, and interpersonal skills to support and maintain stakeholder (committee members, applicants, the broader research community, various partners and others) relations; this includes the ability to influence decisions and actions by preparing reports, presentations and engaging in dialogue to affect policy.
- Knowledge of human resource management principles, practices and techniques, and the ability to supervise the work of program assistants, students, and/or temporary staff as required.
Describe the most significant internal and external contacts, other than with the supervisor and subordinates. Show the end result or purpose of these working relationships including the frequency of such interactions.
Contact |
Purpose/Result of contact |
Frequency |
|---|---|---|
Past and current peer review committee Chairs and members, and external reviewers |
Provide interpretation, advice and guidance on the peer review process and the agency’s policies; obtain and provide assistance in planning and conducting competition sessions and policy meetings. |
Varying – daily at certain times of year, less frequently at others. |
Potential and current applicants and grantees, unsuccessful candidates and university officials |
Provide interpretation of the agency’s programs and policies and advise on the application and post award processes. Collect feedback, respond to questions and provide advice on the suitability of applications to specific programs. Solicit additional information from applicants and grantees when necessary. Mediate to ensure the processes of review and the basis of decisions are clearly explained and understood. Promote awareness of the agency’s role, priorities, programs and policies by attending meetings, making presentations and answering questions. Follow trends and identify potential problems in client relations. |
Regular, more frequent as deadlines approach and when results are released. |
Other granting agencies, federal and other levels of government departments and agencies, the scientific/research community, subject matter experts, the NGO and private sector in Canada and internationally |
Represent the division on interdepartmental and inter-agency committees and other working groups in order to explain natural sciences and engineering perspectives and the division’s position, policies and programs. Participate in formal and informal networks, in meetings and conferences in order to develop or maintain common research agendas and funding partnerships. To garner input and to present, promote and explain agency policies and priorities. Recruitment for peer review committees and selection of external reviewers. |
Varying frequency depending on program needs, where applicable. |
Finance, Communications, Program Operations, Translation, Secretariat staff, and other common services divisions across the tri-Agencies |
Consult with, inform as required and provide recommendations to staff in all these supporting divisions as needed. Consult on external communications requirements. Provide input and work with Secretariat staff regarding ATIP, ethical and Environmental Assessment issues, program literature and other Corporate level issues as required. |
Varying frequency depending on program needs, where applicable. |
Senior management |
Assist in the provision of analyses, recommendations and briefings on strategic research issues and their implications relevant to the mandate and priorities of the agency. |
Varying frequency depending on program needs, where applicable. |
Information and Innovation Solutions |
Obtain guidance dealing with technical support issues, ensuring that all technologies are functioning and meeting business needs. |
Based on need. |
Problem Solving is the amount and nature of the thinking required in the job in the form of analyzing, reasoning, evaluating, creating, using judgment, forming hypotheses, drawing inferences, arriving at conclusions, and the like. It takes into account two dimensions: 1) the environment in which the thinking takes place, i.e. the extent to which assistance or guidance is available from others or from past practice and precedents; and 2) the challenge of the thinking to be done (i.e. the novelty and complexity of the thinking required).
Describe the three critical challenges or situations encountered which are linked to results and the response or essential thinking undertaken to address such challenges/situations. Also specify what assistance or support is available to address these matters (e.g. policies, procedures, guidelines, standards, etc.).
Challenge/Situation and Response |
Assistance/Reference/Support |
|---|---|
1. Challenge/Situation: Ensuring high-quality delivery of programs for which the incumbent is responsible; providing policy advice and interpretation. Identifying gaps or overlaps within programs, the need for policy or procedural changes, and recommending alternatives to achieve work goals. |
Agency’s programs, policies and procedures; existing practices and precedents, general guidance of NSERC management, committee members and the scientific/research community. |
Response: Analyzing, reviewing and interpreting the agency’s policies, precedents and committee discussions to provide accurate and timely advice and guidance to applicants, committees, and university and government officials. Recognizing and dealing with sensitive and complex issues. Using foresight and attention to anticipate and respond to difficult cases. Identifying the need for policy and procedural changes and participating in policy development, including preparing policy documents for staff and standing committees. |
|
2. Challenge/Situation: Identifying peer review committee members with the appropriate background and expertise for the funding opportunity under the purview of the committee. Assigning applications to the appropriate committees, assigning appropriate members to review applications, and assisting in the selection of external reviewers. |
Peer review committee(s), network of contacts in the scientific/research community, agency staff and management. Guidelines, policies and precedents related to committee membership. Internal and external databases. |
Response: Consulting committee chairs and members, as well as appropriate external individuals and organizations. Analyzing committee composition to ensure areas of research are well represented and monitoring gender, linguistic, regional and university/industry/government balance. Using knowledge and understanding of NSE to ensure applications and reviewers are assigned appropriately based on subject matter and expertise, respecting conflict of interest guidelines. |
|
3. Challenge/Situation: Making clear and concise presentations as a representative of the agency, and answering questions during forums. Providing input in the development of and participating in promotional activities. |
Agency’s programs, policies and procedures, existing methods, techniques and practices in program administration and presentation. |
Response: Developing and adapting presentation material to audience level and needs. Anticipating questions in order to prepare responses in advance. Identifying areas requiring targeted promotion, and suggesting new and novel ways to reach/inform clients. |
Accountability is related to the opportunity that a job has to bring about some results and the importance of those results to the organization. Tied closely to the amount of opportunity is the degree to which the person in the job must answer for (is accountable for) the results.
Describe the decisions and recommendations that are made by this position and how they influence the results of the unit, service areas, directorate or organization.
If applicable, provide two or three examples of decisions taken independently with their associated impact. These are decisions reached where actions may be taken without further reference to other individuals such as supervisors.
Decisions |
Impact |
|---|---|
|
Influences the effectiveness of peer review committees, the quality of review, and ensures compliance with conflict of interest and privacy regulations.
|
|
Ensures an effective peer review process, the timely adjudication of applications and the announcement of results.
|
|
Enhances functioning of the team, delivery of programs, and professional development of individuals.
|
Provide two or three examples of the most important recommendations made and to whom. These may be recommendations for changes, new policies, dealing with a situation, etc. These differ from the decision examples provided above since the individual is not free to act without further approval of others
Recommendations |
To whom |
|---|---|
|
Managers, Deputy Directors, Associate VP, Vice-President and, occasionally, Chairs
|
|
Managers, Deputy Directors and Directors
|
|
Managers, Deputy Directors,Director and Senior Management
|
Working Conditions considers the conditions under which the job is performed. It is the effect the environment has on the achievement of end results. It is assumed that the incumbent is reasonably suited to the job, and that all appropriate measures have been taken to eliminate or minimize undesirable working conditions; what remains is unavoidable. It has four sub- elements:
Physical effort
Jobs may require levels of physical activity that vary in intensity, duration, and frequency or any combination of these factors, which produce physical discomfort or physical fatigue.
The work requires sitting for long periods of time. Significant daily computer use which can lead to back, eye, hand, wrist and/or arm strain. Handling equipment required for making presentations in various forums. Potential fatigue resulting from travel, long days of presentations, meetings, etc.
Physical environment
Jobs may include progressive degrees of exposure of varying intensities to unavoidable physical and environmental factors, which increase the risk of accident, ill health, or physical discomfort.
Open office environment requires employee to tolerate and remain focused despite ambient noise and frequent interruptions. Employees may also be situated in a home office environment. The work involves exposure to the glare from a computer monitor and the requirement to sit for extended periods that can result in muscle strain. The sustained use of a computer keyboard and mouse while sitting for extended periods can result in backache and the risk of potential repetitive strain injuries to fingers, wrists and elbows. Employees are guided on ergonomic set-up both in the office and at home. Need to attend meetings through the computer (WebEx, MSTeams etc.) if the employee and/or their staff, Manager or other team members are working remotely.
Sensory attention
Jobs may require concentrated levels of sensory attention (i.e. reading/ watching/ studying/ observing/ listening) during the work processes that vary in intensity, duration and frequency.
The work requires sustained periods of sensory attention when drafting, reviewing and proofreading documents. Conducting adjudication meetings requires long days of concentrated attention and interaction with committee members. Responding to questions from audience members at NSERC presentations and taking minutes at meetings are also required.
Mental stress
Mental stress refers to progressive degrees of exposure of varying intensities to factors inherent in the work process or environment which increase the risk of such things as tension or anxiety. (These are different from the factors considered in the “Physical Environment” dimension. See definition above.)
If the “normal” work process or environment causes tension and/or anxiety resulting in psychological stress, explain how and give examples (pace of work, work repetition, lack of control).
Emotional stress brought about through dealing with contentious situations in committee activities; communicating with applicants to convey committee decisions (communication of negative decisions must be handled with care and tact); interacting with university administrators and researchers during NSERC presentations and site visits to explain contentious policies, procedures or processes.
The work involves a continuous and increasing requirement to balance multiple, concurrent, conflicting and unpredictable demands and tight deadlines made by stakeholders and senior officials for analyses, recommendations and information on issues related to research, strategic policy and programs. Interaction and collaboration with diverse and multiple stakeholders within and outside Council who sometimes have conflicting priorities is an important element of the work.
Some disruption in work schedule and lifestyle is caused by required extended presence and overtime during competitions and travel. High stress caused by having to deliver desired results while lacking control over the necessary parameters (e.g., members’ behaviour, committee dynamics, available funds, technological resources, etc.). Frequent internal staff turn-over requiring existing staff to fill workload gaps and provide training.
Admin 2 - Corp GR4
- Administrative Assistant
- Awards Reconciliation Assistant
- Compensation Assistant
- Facilities Administrator
- Human Resources Assistant
- Meeting and Travel Planner
- Program Literature Assistant
- Telecommunications Administrator
Admin 2 - Prog GR4
- Program Assistant
- Planning & Reporting Assistant
Admin 3 - Corp GR5
- Executive Assistant
Admin 3 - Prog GR5
- Regional Coordinator
- Data and Program Assistant
Admin 4 - Corp GR6
- Executive Coordinator
Advisor 1 - Corp Comms GR6
- Web Officer
- Senior Web Copy Editor
Advisor 1 - Corp HR GR6
- Compensation Advisor
Advisor 2 - Corp GR7
- Communications Advisor
- Employee Relations and Occupational Health and Safety
- Human Resources Advisor, Strategy and Programs
- Human Resources Advisor
- Senior Contracting Advisor
- Senior Creative Designer
- Webmaster, Corporate Site
Advisor 3 - Corp GR8
- Senior Communications Advisor
- Senior Procurement Advisor
- Change Management Advisor
- Senior Human Resources Advisor
Advisor 4 - Corp GR 9
- Senior Product Manager
- Senior Strategic Procurement Advisor
- Senior Informal Conflict Management Practitioner
Advisor 4 - Senior GR 9
- Senior Advisor
Analyst 2 - Corp GR6
- Awards Administration and Reconciliation
- Budget and Statistics Analyst
- Business Analyst
- Business Intelligence Analyst
- Financial Analyst
- IM Analyst
- IT Support Analyst
- Planning and Performance Analy
- Quality Assurance Analyst
- Service Innovation Analyst
- Technical Analyst
- Technical Comms Analyst
- Web Support Analyst
Analyst 3 - Corp GR7
- ATIP Analyst
- Corporate Security Planning an
- Data Analyst
- Human Resources Analyst, Systems and Reporting
- Performance Analyst
- Senior Business Intel. Analyst
- Senior Financial Analyst
- Senior Technical Analyst
Analyst 4 - Corp GR8
- Senior Financial Advisor
- Senior Analyst
- Senior Business Analyst
- Senior Planning and Performance
- Senior Data Analyst
Analyst 4 - Prog GR8
- Senior Program Analyst
Audit - GR10
- Internal Audit Principal
Audit - GR9
- Senior Internal Auditor
Clerk 1 - GR2
- Mail and Imaging Clerk
- Facilities Support Clerk
- Documentation Clerk
Clerk 2 - GR3
- Facilities Admin. Clerk
Clerk 3 - GR4
- Accounts Payable Clerk
Coordinator 1 - Corp GR3
- Budget Coordinator
Coordinator 2 - Corp GR4
- Coordinator, Language Services
- IML Disposal Coordinator
- Coordinator, Initiatives
Coordinator 3 - Corp GR5
- Events Coordinator
- NCE Communications Coordinator
- Communications Coordinator
- Compliance and Licensing Coord
- Project Coordinator
Coordinator 3 - Prog GR5
- Data and Program Coordinator
- Procurement and Material Management Officer
- Coordinator, Awards Reconciliation
Coordinator 4 - Corp GR6
- Project and Events Coordinator
- Coordinator, Program Literature
- Coordinator, Meeting and Travel
- Coordinator, Accounts Payable
- Coordinator, Awards Administration
- Coordinator, Governance
Executive 1 - Corp EX01
- Director
- Chief Audit Executive
- Director, Budget, Reporting and Systems
- Chief Data Officer
- Director, Architecture and Integration
- Director, Policy and Government
- Deputy Chief Information Officer
- Director, Security, Facilities
- Director, Business Intake and Information Management
Executive 1 - Program EX01
- Director
- Director, Stakeholder Engagement
- Director, Strategic Partnerships
- Director, Innovation Hub
- Director, Programs
- Director, Programs Planning
Executive 2 - Corp EX02
- Executive Director
- Digital Infrastructure Strategy
Executive 3 - Corp EX03
- Director General
Executive 3 - Program EX03
- Vice-President, Research Grants and Scholarships
- Director General
- Associate Vice-President, Research Grants and Scholarships
- Associate Vice-President, Research Partnerships
Executive 4 - Corp EX04
- Vice-President, Strategic, Corporate and Public Affairs
Executive 4 - Program EX04
- Vice-President, Tri-Agency Grants Management Solution
- Vice-President, Research Partnerships
Executive 5 - Corp EX05
- Vice-President, CASD
IT Administrator 1 - GR3
- Documentation Technician
- Assistant Data Administrator
IT Administrator 2 - GR4
- IM Systems Administrator
IT Administrator 3 - GR5
- Senior Data Administrator
IT Administrator 6 - GR8
- Database Administrator
IT Professional 1 - GR6
- Test Automation Developer
- Technical Developer
IT Professional 2 - GR7
- Senior Technical Developer
- Information Architect
IT Professional 4 - GR9
- Network Architect
- Business Architect
IT Professional 5 – GR10
- Development Manager
IT Supervisor 1 - GR5
- Team Leader, Mail and Imaging
IT Supervisor 2 - GR6
- Supervisor, IT Client Support
IT Supervisor 3 - GR7
- Team Lead, IT Support Services
IT Supervisor 4 - GR8
- Technical Team Leader
IT Supervisor 5 - GR9
- Team Leader, Quality Control
Management 1 - Corp GR7
- Events Manager
- Executive Office Manager
Management 2 - Corp GR8
- Manager, Language Services
- Manager, Compensation
- Manager, Financial Monitoring
Management 3 - Corp GR9
- Manager
- Manager, Planning, Reporting & Systems
- Manager, Strategic Human Resources Programs
- Manager, Procurement
- Manager, Public Affairs
- Manager, Research Policy and Compliance
- Manager, Creative Services
- Manager, Project Management Office
- Manager, Corporate Security
- Project Leader
- Manager, ATIP and Governance
- Manager, Language Services
- Manager, Financial Operations
- Manager, Strategic and Public Communications
Management 3 - Prog GR9
- Manager
- Manager, RPP Planning & Budget
- Senior Project Manager
Management 4 - Corp GR10
- Manager, Corporate Planning and Reporting
- Manager
- EBS Services Manager
- Deputy Director, Financial Operations
- Manager, Labour Relations and Occupational Health and Safety
- Manager, Information Management
- Deputy Director
- Manager, Client Services
- Deputy Director, Compliance
Management 4 - Prog GR10
- Manager, Regional Office
- Deputy Director, Regional Office
- Deputy Director
Officer 1 - Corp GR4
- 1st Level Support Agent
Officer 2 - Corp GR5
- Contracting Officer
- ATIP and Secretariat Officer
- Media Monitoring Officer
- Multimedia Officer
- Awards Administration Officer
- Accounting Officer
Officer 2 - Prog GR5
- Program Operations Officer
- Business Process Training Officer
Officer 3 - Corp GR6
- Communications Officer
- Program Evaluation Officer
- Environmental Assessment and Secretariat Officer
- Human Resources Officer, Strategy and Programs
- Human Resources Officer
- Data Officer
Officer 3 - Prog GR6
- Program Officer
- Reporting and Performance Management Officer
- Process Change Officer
Officer 4 - Corp GR7
- Senior Officer, Financial Monitoring
- Translator-Editor and Communications Officer
- Senior Accounting Officer
- Media & Public Affairs Officer
- Project Manager
Officer 4 - Prog GR7
- Research Partnerships Promotion Officer
- Senior Program Operations Officer
- Senior Process Management Officer
- Program Officer
Officer 5 - Corp GR8
- Senior Program Evaluation Officer
Officer 5 - Prog GR8
- Research and Innovation Development Officer
- Senior Program Officer
- Partnerships Officer
Officer 6 - Corp GR9
- Senior Evaluation Officer, Interagency Programs
Policy Advisor 1 - GR8
- Policy Advisor
Policy Advisor 2 – GR9
- Senior Policy Advisor
Policy Advisor 3 Principal - GR10
- Portfolio Financial Management Advisor
- Principal Policy Advisor
- Ombuds
Policy Analyst 1 - GR7
- Policy Analyst
- Policy and Planning Analyst
Policy Analyst 3 – GR9
- Senior Policy Analyst
Team Lead 4 - Corp GR8
- Team Leader, Awards Administration
Team Lead 5 - Corp GR9
- Team Leader, Corporate Operations
- Gather and analyze employee and position data
- List of positions
- Job classifications and evaluation factors
- Employee data, including self-identified gender of employees (including non-binary)
- Create job classes and linked positions
- similar duties and responsibilities
- similar qualifications
- same compensation plan and within the same range of salary rates
- Established gender predominance for each job class
- Current incumbency
- Historical incumbency
- Occupational stereotypes
- Determine value of work
- Skill
- Problem solving
- Responsibility
- Working conditions
- Calculate total hourly compensation for each job class
- Maximum Base Hourly Rate
- Hourly Value of Performance Pay
- Total Hourly Compensation
- Compensation comparison
- Comparison of compensation for female- and male-predominant job classes of equal value for the employer’s operations.
- Results for NSERC did not identify pay inequities.