Abstracts
Sommaire
S'il est plus difficile de rendre compte des actions des hommes que de rapporter leurs idées, la démarche en ce sens n'en présente que plus d'intérêt. Sans dissocier les deux ordres, qu'il nous soit permis de décrire une expérience, inspirée de propositions implicites; elle nous servira à formuler des hypothèses précises. L'expérience des prédécesseurs et les connaissances que nous ont léguées les théoriciens permirent la réalisation du projet; le compte rendu de sa mise en oeuvre dans un cadre nouveau servira, nous l'espérons, à d'autres organismes. Si ce compte rendu contribue à l'amélioration des méthodes d'évaluation, il aura dépassé son but; s'il fait réfléchir sur leur application, il l'aura atteint.
Le déroulement d'opérations souvent simultanées nous oblige à adopter un plan dont les séquences mettent l'accent sur les jalons principaux. Après un bref aperçu historique, nous passerons aux travaux préliminaires, notamment l'étude pilote, les termes et les formules. Nous retracerons ensuite les étapes majeures de la procédure. Le choix et l'élaboration du système et du plan feront l'objet dun chapitre distinct ainsi que l'essai et la modification de ce plan. Nous verrons enfin l'évaluation de tous les emplois et leur classement.
Summary
The « Association professionnelle du personnel administratif de la Commission des écoles catholiques de Montréal » obtained from the Quebec Labour Relations Board, on July 13th 1961, a certificate in favour of « tous les salariés au sens de la loi, du personnel administratif » excluding certain executive jobs. The bargaining unit included all clerical positions, many supervisory, a few line management and technical and a smaller number of craft jobs; the total number of employees amounted to around 600.
The collective agreement signed on February the 5th 1962 stipulated that a joint committee composed of three representatives from the Commission and three from the Association had the responsibility of evaluating and classifying the jobs. Mr. Roger Chartier was the arbitrator in case of disagreement and his decision would bind the parties.
The Commission hired an industrial relations specialist, orderer of the project under the direction of the personnel director Mr. Roger Lauzon. Mr. Jean Robert Gauthier was the technical consultant of the Association.
The Committee studied all phases of the project before their enforcement; it did not discuss the problem of wages but limited itself to the mutual interest task of classifying the jobs in the most orderly way.
The experience of other organizations and opinions of experts were used but the operation progressed through essays and tests effectuated in the working environment.
The pilot study of fifteen key jobs to which 16 others were later on added helped to initiate analysts and members of the Committee. It helped moreover to establish the forms, prepare the evaluation plan, try and modify it.
The Committee adopted a series of terms used throughout the evaluation and adopted the « questionnaire » (also used as an interview guide) the description form and the analyst's guide.
Employees were called by groups of 40 to 60 and well informed of the procedures. A film was presented to them and standardized explanations were given before they were asked to fill out the questionnaire. They could bring it at home and complete there all information they were asked to provide.
The analysts would then using the questionnaire procede to the necessary interviews and establish the descriptions.
The point system was adopted with a maximum of 1,000 points, a total of 11 factors and a geometric progression within each. The plan originally established was modified after the evaluation of the key jobs with the plan, and the comparison by factors. The results were checked by the simple ranking method.
Given the group of jobs to be evaluated, it did not seem practical to use many plans but to use one and adapt it to our particular needs.
However, we thought useful at a given moment to use an « elemental » factor, variable by job family. But the determination of these factors involving additional research, we hoped to use this idea later on.
The Committee used the evaluation plan, the interpretation it had given of it and the classification of 31 key jobs to evaluate the remaining jobs and classify the jobs of the bargaining unit. They checked their judgments by comparing all jobs by factor and by job family.
Members of the Committee could, privately or collectively, check the descriptions and, occasionnally, visited work places before the evaluation meetings.
The evaluation of a few jobs being completed, the representatives of the Association were working with more and more hesitation on a project that seemed to rank very low quite a few of the jobs. At a general meeting where were present the personnel director and the technical consultant of the Association, it was decided that the classification would be made according to the importance of each job and to its position in the hierarchy established by the classification. The members of the Association adopted henceforth a more positive attitude.
The jobs were grouped within ten grades, and this result appeared in the new collective agreement signed on the 5th of April 1963. The wage scale then adopted covered the period of negotiation reopening until June the 30th 1963 and the period of the new collective agreement until June the 30th 1965. This latter stipulated that the joint committee should go on evaluating the new or modified jobs to keep to date the classification established. This new order had widened the wage differentials between lower and higher level jobs.
If we cannot on the basis of a particular case formulate general conclusions, it is however possible to elaborate precise hypothesis:
Within certain problems traditionally considered as conflicts of interest between employer and employees, it is possible to find areas of mutual interest and to define them. The cooperation so established contribute to the peaceful settlement of interest conflicts.
The better informed, the parties, the more mature their relationship, and the better defined are their task, the easier will it be for them to cooperate.
A single evaluation plan can be used, to evaluate many job families precisely provided its adoption be preceded by essays or research necessary to establish elemental factors relevant to each family and that the improvement of the tools used be assured in the future. An uncompromising attitude in this respect would be harmful.