Clerk explains that pay equity about job class and not gender

A story in last week’s Wellington Advertiser about a recent $87,000 pay equity payout by the township contained a couple of errors.

The story mentioned that a previous article on April 25 gave the impression that compensation adjustments were “provided only to female employees.”

Last week’s story also stated that clerk Patty Sinnamon later clarified the payments were also provided “to male employees who were denied the personal use of a vehicle.”

But Sinnamon said the references to male and female “employees” should have actually said male and female “job classes.” She explained there can be males employed in a female job class, and vice versa.

“It’s not a gender issue, it’s a class issue,” Sinnamon said.

She added that there are several factors in determining what exactly defines a job class, including:

– the “incumbent” in a particular position;

– the “predecessor” in that position; and

– specifications provided in provincial legislation such as  the Pay Equity Act.

According to the Pay Equity Commission’s website (www.payequity.gov.on.ca),  the Pay Equity Act is based on the following general principles:

– “Female job classes,” or jobs performed mainly by women, are compared to “male job classes,” or jobs performed mainly by men (these jobs may be quite different);

– the value of the job itself is the basis of the comparison and an employee’s performance in the job is not measured;

– the value of a job class is determined by measuring the factors of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions;

– where a female job class is found to be of equal or comparable value to a male job class, the female job class must be provided with at least the same compensation as the male job class;

– an employee’s pay cannot be lowered to achieve pay equity; and

– if a female job class is due an adjustment, both men and women in that job are entitled to the adjustment.

Sinnamon said the township has received several calls on the matter and she felt it was important to clarify the issue.

The Advertiser regrets those errors.

 

Comments