Performance Pay Administration for Certain Non-Management Category Senior Excluded Levels for Fiscal Year 2008-2009
To: Heads, Compensation and Labour Relations
On April 18, 2008 the Canada Public Service Agency (CPSA) issued Guidelines on Performance Management for Certain Senior Excluded or Unrepresented Managers and Specialists (E/U PM). These guidelines, while respecting the Performance Pay Administration Policy for Certain Non-Management Category Senior Excluded Levels, introduced a new performance management approach based on the two-tier design of the current EX PMP model.
This new plan design conforms to a 2007-2008 Public Service Renewal Action Plan commitment to revise the performance management regime for “certain senior excluded or unrepresented managers and specialists” so that this plan becomes more consistent with the approach taken for executives. As indicated at that time: “This first year will be considered a transition year". Since this document was issued as a guideline, Departments had the option to implement its provisions, or to adhere to the present Performance Pay Administration Policy for Certain Non-Management Category Senior Excluded Levels.
For those Departments which have opted to implement the new CPSA Guidelines, the following key features apply:
- Establishment of ongoing and key commitments and performance measures;
- Use of the same rating criteria as currently applies to the EX PMP: i.e. Level 0 (Unable to Assess), Level 1 (Did Not Meet), Level 2 (Met Most), Level 3 (Met All) and Level 4 (Surpassed);
- Use of Key Leadership Competencies for managers to establish expectations and assess the performance of all eligible managers and specialists;
- Regular feedback to employees on their performance, which includes at least two formal feedback discussions;
- Development of an action plan to improve performance when performance is assessed at Level 1 (Did Not Meet);
- Establishment of a review mechanism within the department, if one does not already exist; and
- With respect to “Ongoing” and “Key” commitments, the maximum combined performance award of up to 10% and the departmental performance budget of 5% of the salary total of those eligible managers and specialists as on March 31 remains in effect.
While this new approach has led to changes in several key areas of performance management, the Performance Pay Administration Policy for Certain Non-Management Category Senior Excluded Levelsremains in effect and, apart from the new features mentioned above, is to be applied.
Performance payments are to continue to be made as in-range increases up to the job rate and as a lump sum for employees already paid at the job rate.
For those employees who reach the job rate as a result of an in-range increase, and where such increase is less than the calculated percentage awarded, the lump sum payment is the difference between what the employee received as an in-range increase and the total calculated percentage awarded.
Due to the transitional nature of the current provisions, immediate supervisors who are implementing the CPSA guidelines must consider the employee's achievements in terms of both ongoing and key commitments when determining the appropriate combined rating level of performance.
Using the new performance levels and rating scale, in-range increases up to the job rate and lump sum performance awards thereafter, as a percentage of the employee's salary, may be granted for assessed levels of performance as indicated in the attached Annex A.
For those Departments which have opted not to implement the new approach:
These Departments are to apply the existing provisions of the present Performance Pay Administration Policy for Certain Non-Management Category Senior Excluded Levels as they have done over past performance pay cycles.
Senior Director, Excluded Groups and Administrative Policies
Labour Relations and Compensation Operations
|Guideline Rating Level||Award Percentage||Current Policy Rating Level|
|Surpassed (Level 4)||Up to 10%||Outstanding|
|Met All (Level 3)||Up to 7%||Superior|
|Up to 5%||Fully Satisfactory|
|Met Most (Level 2)||0 %||Satisfactory|
|Did not Meet (Level 1)||0 %||Unsatisfactory|
|Unable to Assess (Level 0)||0 %||Unable to Assess|
- Date modified: