Module 17
Position Description Forms & Reclassification
20 min read
Not legal advice. Examples use Ontario law.Read the full note
Education for the floor — not legal advice. Examples use Ontario law. Confirm every deadline, remedy, and procedure against your own collective agreement and the law where you work.
What this module covers
When an updated job description arrives, compare it with the work the member actually does. This module shows stewards how to log duties, challenge inaccurate comments inside the agreement's review window, and start the right classification or joint-evaluation process. Rating grids differ, so use the one named in your agreement.
- Know: That a position description form is the employer's official description of regular, recurring duties and the usual foundation for pay-band classification; how point-factor plans typically score education, complexity, accountability, communication, physical or sensory demand, and working conditions (labels vary by plan); and that review windows and JJEC processes come from your CA, not from this module.
- Feel/Understand: Confident challenging uncompensated duty dumps; protective of bargaining-unit work boundaries; unwilling to let "administrative cleanup" become a silent pay cut.
- Be Able To: Run an old-vs-new position description audit; help a member complete a 10–14 working-day Duty Frequency Log; draft Employee Comments and, where your agreement allows, sign "received, contents contested"; and start Module 1 intake for a classification grievance or JJEC referral.
A draft PDF is a claim about the job. Test it against the work actually done before the review window closes.
See the diagram
A draft PDF is a claim about the job. Test it against the work actually done before the review window closes.
How to use this module
Allow 20 minutes for the reading and self-test. Bring the member's current position description form, any draft update the manager just issued, the pay-band / job-evaluation article in your collective agreement, and a notepad. Read in a private space — duty logs record who directed the work and can name colleagues.
The strongest classification file compares the old form, the new draft, and a dated log of actual work. This module follows that evidence into written comments and the next step under your agreement. Module 1 covers grievance intake, Module 16 covers seniority and bumping, and Module 8 covers settlement wording. Module 10 is for safety and labour-management committees, not a job-evaluation panel.
The resources under Further learning go deeper on reading factors. Review windows, and whether a Joint Job Evaluation Committee (JJEC) exists, depend on your collective agreement. Confirm yours before you quote a number of days.
💭 Reflection
A manager's "routine cleanup" of a position description form is not a courtesy. It is a claim about the job. Your job is to test that claim against the work actually done.
1. Anatomy of a position description form
A Position Description Form is not a job posting. It is the employer's written claim about regular, recurring work assigned to a position — usually the document a point-factor or JJEC plan rates when it places the job on a pay grid.
| Piece | What it usually means | Steward check |
|---|---|---|
| Regular / recurring duties | Daily, weekly, or monthly core work, often with a percentage of time | Do the percentages match a two-week log, or only the manager's wish list? |
| Occasional / periodic duties | Seasonal, peak, or coverage tasks | Is "occasional" doing 40% of the week? That is regular work wearing a soft label. |
| Qualifications | Education, experience, licences the position requires | Added credentials after hire can be a dump — compare to the last signed form. |
| Independence / decision-making | Follows procedures vs. modifies them and resolves exceptions | A one-line upgrade here often moves complexity and accountability factors. |
| Physical / sensory / environment | Lifting, standing, screen focus, hazards | Unrecorded load increases belong in comments even when pay is the main fight. |
💡 Note
Some workplaces call this a job fact sheet, job description, or classification questionnaire. The job is the same: a dated employer description you can audit. Use the name in your CA.
❗ Warning
Signing a draft form without comments can be treated as agreement that the description — and the unchanged pay band — is accurate. Consequence: the union later argues against the member's own signature. Remedy: review with a steward inside the CA window; attach written Employee Comments; if your agreement allows, sign "received, contents contested"; keep a copy.
2. Spotting Duty Dumps and Scope Creep
Managers often present an updated position description form as "housekeeping." Train members to read for higher-rated work at the same rate of pay.
| Red flag | What it looks like on the page | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Supervisory / lead work | "Assign, check, and guide junior staff" added to a non-lead classification | Lead or supervisory factors usually sit on a higher band — check your plan. |
| Elevated independence | "Follows procedures" becomes "modifies procedures and resolves complex exceptions" | Complexity and accountability points move even if the title stays put. |
| System administration | Database, access, or architecture duties added to clerical or support work | Tool use is not the same as system ownership. Log the difference. |
| Hidden physical / sensory load | Continuous monitoring, heavier lifts, or new hazards with no environment update | Working-conditions factors are easy to skip when the fight is about software. |
Duty dumps also move bargaining-unit work away from higher-rated classifications. If someone is doing the work of a higher band or classification without the pay, the higher-rated complement shrinks.
Treat the position description as evidence, not courtesy stationery.
❗ Warning
"Everyone is doing more since the vacancy" is not a defence. Consequence: unpaid higher-level work becomes the new normal. Remedy: log frequency and who directed the work; file toward reclassification or a complement grievance as your CA allows.
3. The 14-Day Duty Frequency Audit Log
When the member disputes the draft, gather objective time evidence before the review window closes.
For example, if a member spends 35 minutes on exception reports Monday and 50 minutes on the same task Tuesday, record both days instead of calling it "occasional" from memory. Note the task, time spent, tool used, and who assigned it. At the end of the window, compare the log with the draft's frequency label and ask the member to check that the record matches the work.
What to log (10–14 consecutive working days)
- Task name in the member's words, then mapped to a line on the position description form.
- Minutes or hours spent that day.
- Frequency label: daily, weekly, monthly — and whether that label is honest.
- Software or tools, and the level of guidance required (procedure vs. exception).
- Who assigned or signed off on the work.
Comparison sheet
Lay the log beside the old form and the draft form. Highlight:
- Duties present in the log and missing from the draft.
- Duties the draft calls occasional that the log shows as regular.
- New higher-level lines with no pay-band movement.
- Time percentages that cannot add to 100% without fiction.
📝 Practice
Pick one week from a real (or redacted) schedule. Write five lines: task, minutes, frequency, tool, who directed. Then write one sentence: "This is regular work because…"
💡 Note
Fourteen days is a teaching default because it captures a full pay period in many workplaces. If your CA or JJEC package asks for a different window, use that window.
4. Disputing a position description and asking for reclassification
Clocks and forums are CA-specific. The sequence below is the usual steward path — confirm articles before you quote days.
- Receipt of the draft position description form: date-stamp when the member received it. The review clock usually starts here, not when the steward first sees it.
- Review window: many agreements give about 10 to 15 working days to review with a steward. That is a common range, not Ontario law. Calendar your article on day one.
- Employee Comments: if the description is wrong, do not leave the comments box blank. Attach a dated letter that lists missing duties, wrong percentages, and higher-level work. Some stewards sign "received, contents contested". Check what your agreement allows. Keep a copy; ask the employer to acknowledge receipt.
- Escalation: if management refuses to amend the form or move the pay band, the union files a classification grievance and/or refers the file to the Joint Job Evaluation Committee (JJEC) where the CA creates one.
Module 1 owns the 6 W's and FAR before the first step meeting. Module 8 owns open-door wording and four-corners settlements after you file. Module 10 is the wrong primary map if the only forum is a job-eval committee.
❗ Warning
Silence inside the review window can be treated as acceptance. Consequence: the new description locks and the pay band stays. Remedy: written comments before the CA deadline; preserve the draft and the log; escalate on paper.
5. Point-Factor Job Evaluation (Labels Vary)
Most public-sector and college support plans score a position, not how hard the incumbent "tries." Factor names differ (Hay, JJEC, college grids). Teach the clusters, then open your rating manual.
| Common cluster | What raters usually look for |
|---|---|
| Education & experience | Formal credentials and time-in-role the position requires |
| Complexity & judgement | Problem difficulty; how often exceptions appear |
| Accountability & independence | Consequence of error; freedom to change the method |
| Communication & interpersonal | Who must be influenced, and in what setting |
| Physical / sensory demand | Effort, concentration, and duration |
| Working conditions | Hazards, interruptions, unpleasant environment |
A duty dump that adds independence or system ownership is a factor argument, not a personality argument. Bring the log and the old-vs-new audit; do not argue "they work hard."
💡 Note
External non-union salary surveys do not replace your CA grid. If the employer cites market, ask where the CA lets market override the plan.
6. Worked practice — three rounds
Round 1 — Old vs. new audit. Take a two-page redacted pair (or write six lines of "old" and six of "new"). Mark every added supervisory, independence, or system-admin phrase. Write the pay band shown on each page. If the band did not move, that is your first question — not your last.
Round 2 — Duty log excerpt. From a 14-day log, total minutes on "guide new staff" and "reset user access." Convert to a percentage of paid hours. Compare to the draft's "occasional" label.
Round 3 — Employee Comments draft. Write a half-page letter: date received, CA review article, three contested lines, two log facts, the ask (amend the form and/or refer to JJEC / classification grievance). If your agreement allows, sign "received, contents contested".
💭 Reflection
Which position description in your local was signed "to get them off my back" — and what work is now unpaid?
Floor checklist
Floor checklist
0 of 14 checked
Checks stay on this device so you can tick items during a real file.
Common pitfalls
- Housekeeping myth: Treating a rewritten position description as clerical when factors moved.
- Blank comments: Signing without a contest letter so the employer records agreement.
- No log: Arguing "they do more" without dated minutes and who directed the work.
- Invented clocks: Quoting 10 or 15 days as law when the CA says something else.
- One-grid worship: Applying another sector's point-factor table as Ontario-wide truth.
- Seniority mix-up: Using Module 16 bumping logic to decide a pay band.
- Verbal deals: Accepting "we'll look at it next year" without a dated referral.
Further learning
- Canadian Labour Congress — steward education on classification and job evaluation
- CUPE classification and job-evaluation steward materials
- Unifor job evaluation and pay equity education
Self-test at the end
This module includes a quiz after the reading. Use Jump to Quiz above when you are ready — a perfect score marks it complete.
Self-test
Module quiz
0 of 6 answered
Further reading from Canadian labour federations, multi-union steward handbooks, and public human rights guidance — not tied to one national. Confirm every rule against your own collective agreement and statute.
Sources & references
- CUPE Steward Handbook
Public CUPE steward handbook — grievance basics, human rights, and accommodation. Useful comparative education for any local; confirm against your own CA and national.
- Unifor — Grievance Handling & Workplace Leadership
Unifor three-day grievance and workplace leadership course outline. Members should register through their local/national education path.
- Canadian Labour Congress — labour education catalogue
National CLC steward and leadership courses (Level 1/2 grievance handling). Cite for multi-union education; confirm live offerings with your labour council.
- OHRC — Human Rights at Work (2008)
Foundational OHRC workplace guide. Supplement with newer OHRC disability and ableism policies for current practice.
- Canadian Labour Congress
National labour congress — solidarity links on local sites; cite, do not mirror.