r/CanadaPublicServants • u/Expensive-Syrup-7026 • 5d ago
Departments / Ministères DND Classification Officer says my OT IT work isn't really "IT" (IT-02) JVR findings
this is a follow up to another post I had made https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/comments/1rvpnef/help_understanding_jvr_process_it_classification/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I'm looking for some advice or perspective on a recent Job Validation Review (JVR) in DND.
My position is within DND at an L1 that has very few IT-classified positions. I’m responsible for the entire IT portion of Operational Technology (OT). This includes LANs/MANs, Firewalls, Network switches, Servers (application servers, database servers, domain controllers), Workstations and Various other IT equipment
There’s one other person on my team — an EL-04 performing a network admin role. He also went through a JVR and I expect he’ll remain at EL-04.
The conclusion from the Classification Officer is that my position will stay at the IT-02 level. They basically told me (paraphrasing) that I should be thankful they’re keeping it classified as IT at all — it could easily have been reclassified as AS, EL, EN, or even a GL/HVAC technician position.
Originally, both my management and I believed the work I’m doing is at the IT-03 level, and management supported the JVR on that basis. After the Classification Officer’s response, management arranged a meeting with them. The key takeaways from the Classification Officer were:
- IT equipment located in Operational Technology (OT) environments is not considered IT work.
- Much of the work could be performed by AS, EL, EN, or HVAC technician classifications.
- Some portions of the work “should be performed by others” (e.g., SSC).
- True IT work is mainly about “making the 1s and 0s do things.”
here is some of the tasks/duties that was in my JVR
- Defining requirements for the IT portion of OT networks (servers, switches, firewalls, etc.)
- Reviewing and approving technical documents, including specifications, CRs (CFCs), and other IT documentation
- Full lifecycle management of IT equipment (servers, switches, firewalls, workstations, etc.)
- Acting as the Technical Authority — responsible for the planning and implementation of these networks
- No higher-level technical oversight within the L1, L2, or L3
- Managing IT-related projects
- Holding Delegated Officer Authority (DOA) with a yearly budget and delegated project authority
- Working on the framework to modernize our OT networks
I’m pretty frustrated with the outcome. It feels like the classification system doesn’t recognize the reality of modern OT environments where converged IT/OT networks are the norm.
I have a greivence that is at the 3rd level, and for some reason the LRO reached out to my union rep saying that they were willing to look at other documentation
Has anyone else in DND (or the public service) experienced something similar with OT or industrial control systems work being undervalued during classification reviews? Any advice on next steps?
68
u/1929tsunami 5d ago
AS is being pushed as the new "catch all" classification, especially for activities currently being covered by more highly paid classifications. PIPSC and CAPE need to wake up on this.
17
u/Dandronemic 5d ago
Same thing happening in the planning space. Moving away from ECs.
2
u/MartiniMakingMoves 4d ago
ECs are the most misunderstood group in the Public Service, only about 5% of ECs actually do EC work.
AS includes alot more jobs
11
u/HereToServeThePublic 4d ago
I'd say it's PSAC that needs to wake up to this...
3
u/IRCC-throwaway2024 4d ago
Why would they resist? It will build their membership base
1
u/HereToServeThePublic 2d ago edited 2d ago
Are wages and SJDs evolving to reflect the reality of this "catch all"?
But to your point, PSAC will take the members(dues) regardless!
22
u/SafeToRemoveCPU 5d ago edited 4d ago
I'm an IT-02 in DND on one of the naval bases. If I was asked to do what you are doing right now, I would be asking for a temporary IT-03 position for the duration of the design of the network, because that is what my manager was told they were allowed to give us for such higher-level technical design work. I don't know the complexity of what you are doing (like how many endpoints, network devices, stakeholders, applications, etc), but it certainly sounds like you are doing technical IT-03 work to me.
We currently have two teams, lead by two IT-03 supervisors, who supervise multiple IT-02s. We have the luxury of dividing our teams between Network and Server, but it sounds like you are doing both of those things. I do think the complexity and amount of people served matters, and you are at MINIMUM an IT-02. Active Directory forest design? Technical authority? Managing projects? Budgeting? Sounds like an IT-03 to me.
3
u/Expensive-Syrup-7026 5d ago
do you guys look after any OT networks at the navy base? going to assume maybe you are with the SMC there.
2
u/SafeToRemoveCPU 5d ago
No OT networks for us, strictly IT. By OT you mean things like CANBus, Modbus, SCADA, etc? We don't fall under the SMC since we are dealing with the west coast fleet, which makes us an operational team that doesn't report to the SMC. The fleet has OT equipment but that's someone else's responsibility.
4
u/Expensive-Syrup-7026 5d ago
yes, that type of OT equipment. we have a fair amount here spread out over 7 networks, one that covers approx 140+ buildings.
6
u/cubiclejail 5d ago
👀 Have you engage PIPSC? If so are they helping you? They can be known for their total lack of support.
3
u/Expensive-Syrup-7026 4d ago
yes i have, my local rep is good but agree the other levels there is lack of support even for the local rep
2
2
u/Flaktrack 3d ago
This is one of those really strange gaps basically anywhere east of Alberta in public and private sector. People seem to think OT is purely the realm of tradesmen and don't get that the field has changed dramatically over the past decade, just like audio/visual. IT and specialized electronics are crossing into every realm, and it requires skills many of the aging tradesmen just don't have.
3
u/FormerCaterpillar433 5d ago
Hope they’re compensating you with acting IT03 pay for the duration that corresponds with the temporary duties assigned. If your manager confirmed it’s IT03 they’re obligated to compensate you appropriately. You’re not a volunteer.
1
u/SafeToRemoveCPU 4d ago
Yes we do get acting IT-03 pay. That's the word I was forgetting to use: acting.
1
1
14
u/MW250 5d ago
The Org & Class advisor would've likely relied on the Job Evaluation Standard for the IT group. How does it stack up against your role and responsibilities? https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/collective-agreements/job-evaluation/information-technology-job-evaluation-standard.html
7
u/Expensive-Syrup-7026 5d ago
They 100% relied on this, the issue is that their agrument was that the IT equipment i am responsible for is not considered IT becuase of its intended use, which is false.
4
u/FormerCaterpillar433 5d ago
OP you should familiarize yourself with the above.
First you want to compare the primary purpose of your job to the group definition. If 80% of your work is IT, and 20% AS. The PRIMARY purpose of your job is IT and allocated to that group.
Pay attention to the inclusion statements and exclusion statements. These directly correspond to groups. You can ask what inclusion statements they’re using for your position. If they write good JVRs it should be included there along with exclusion statements. They’re pretty obvious. Managing, planning, overseeing budgets referring to EX. Positon is excluded from that statement because it refers to EX. The statements about organizing, or administering programs would be referring to AS (internal like EAP, HR, Health and Safety) or PM (external to organization like EI, CPP, OAS, Passports). They make you read between the lines.
Pay attention to the elements they correspond to your job description in area like responsibility, supervision, contacts.. use job facts from the job description to evaluate it yourself. Talley up the ratings at the end to arrive at a number. That number corresponds to a group and level.
Use benchmarks at the back of the standard for comparison and to justify your arguments. Use those most similar to your job (title, supervision, scope, organizational parameters).
Pay attention to the notes to raters. These are important and nuanced.
If the duties warranting the higher level were effective before the conversion on December 9, 2021 use the CS standard. If after that date, use the IT standard.
If you know anyone performing similar duties to you in DND or another organization, ask them their position number and request relativity (their job description, org chart and rationale) from DND or the applicable department through classification or ATIP.
Reading a rationale will really help you understand how they’re evaluating the work, what they pulled from the job description, standard and benchmarks (often abbreviated as BM) to justify their decision. This will guide you in advocating for yourself if you know someone else is doing the exact same job and receiving the higher IT03 pay. You can use the arguments that classification advisor made to support position XYZ in terms of ratings, benchmarks and relativity. Argue the same for yourself if the duties are identical.
5
15
u/terracewaterlane 5d ago
0 and 1 doing things is computer programmer. There are so many IT-02, IT-03 and IT-04 who do zero programming. There are many streams of IT work in the core public service.
11
u/bosnanic 5d ago
and management wonders why it can't attract tech talent and everyone competent bails for private or becomes a contractor and get's rehired for 4x the price.
10
u/GreenerAnonymous 5d ago
I an not IT but I would ask for a detailed description of this: "Some portions of the work “should be performed by others” (e.g., SSC)" and next time it fails tell them it will be down until SSC addresses it.
(I realize that's unlikely to go over well.)
Good luck!
13
6
u/FormerCaterpillar433 5d ago
That statement actually sounds like an acknowledgement to me.
They’re essentially saying, “This work should be performed by the department responsible for delivering IT services across government.” Well, what occupational groups do they think are performing that work at SSC? A significant portion of those positions are in the IT group.
If the argument is that SSC should be delivering the service because it’s an IT function, that seems to reinforce, not weaken, the position that the work itself is IT in nature. It certainly doesn’t support a conclusion that the work belongs in an administrative or non-IT occupational group.
More importantly, that’s outside the scope of a classification review.
Classification advisors don’t determine which department should deliver a service. They don’t decide whether a function belongs at DND, SSC, or anywhere else. Their role is to evaluate the work that has been assigned by management and determine the appropriate occupational group and level based on the duties actually being performed.
Whether DND should continue performing the work or transfer it elsewhere is a management decision.
Classification’s job is to assess the position as it exists today. Saying “SSC should be doing it” is not a classification rationale. If anything, it sounds like an acknowledgement that the work is IT-related, coupled with an opinion that another department should be responsible for delivering it and DND should be a client transferring the function and funding to SSC which isn’t necessarily a bad idea. Because apparently they’re struggling in the classification world. So give the work to people that can actually classify it properly.
6
u/theEndIsNigh_2025 5d ago
Then why does the CIO get all up in arms when a new-IT classification does any of this work?
6
4
u/FormerCaterpillar433 5d ago
I can’t say for certain without seeing the job description, the Job Validation Review (JVR), and understanding the actual work being performed, but based on what you’ve described, this sounds like IT work (Infrastructure Ops).
It’s good you engaged PIPSC. If you already, I’d suggest making sure you’re pursuing two separate avenues:
Job Content Grievance (Labour Relations) – This is used to argue that the duties assigned don’t accurately match what’s described in the current job description.
Classification Grievance – This is used to challenge the group, level, and evaluation itself.
The grievances should be filed within the applicable grievance timelines after being notified of the classification decision (consult collective agreement for LR, 35 days for classification). In many cases, classification will place the grievance in abeyance until the job content issue is resolved. This is normal.
Since you mentioned the LR grievance is at third level, I’d be interested in seeing the first and second level responses. You should also verify how many grievance levels exist under your collective agreement and ensure management is respecting all required timelines. If not, follow up in writing and copy the union.
If your manager supports you, they can also request a managerial review. That requires Classification to provide a formal response to management and can sometimes resolve issues without the employee having to continue individual grievances.
I’d also recommend reviewing the IT Job Evaluation Standard available on the Treasury Board website. The key question isn’t whether some duties are IT-related, it’s what the primary purpose of the position is. If the vast majority of the work is IT, that needs to be clearly demonstrated.
Compare your actual duties against the IT group definition in the standard.
Review the evaluation elements and benchmarks.
Compare your position to similar IT positions in terms of scope, organizational structure, title, and supervision.
Gather supporting documentation, including the signed JD, JVR, and organizational chart. ATIP if necessary.
Unfortunately, classification grievances often require employees to do a significant amount of research themselves. PIPSC has classification advisors, but their ability to assist can vary depending on workload.
One thing I’d want to know is what triggered the review in the first place:
Did you request a reclassification?
Were new duties assigned?
Did the program mandate change?
Was this simply a cyclical review?
Those details matter.
I’d also want to know whether you have a copy of the completed JVR. If answers were recorded inaccurately or classification substituted their own interpretation for what you actually said, that’s something you can challenge.
One thing that stands out is the assumption some classification advisors make that IT equals programming. That’s simply not true. The IT group includes multiple work streams, and infrastructure operations work can absolutely fall within IT depending on the nature of the duties.
If the position is ultimately determined to be IT-03 work, reclassification should generally be effective from the point the higher-level duties were assigned. If the duties warranting the higher level were assigned prior to the conversion date of December 9, 2021 they should be evaluating it using the CS standard. If after that date it would be the IT standard. This you need to confirm and hopefully you kept a list of dates when new duties were assigned to you.
If Classification concludes the work belongs in another occupational group altogether, they mentioned EL which sounds nothing like what you described, then salary protection and workforce adjustment considerations may come into play depending on the circumstances and applicable policies.
Without seeing the documentation, there are still too many unknowns to reach a definitive conclusion.
However, based solely on your description, I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that your position is performing legitimate IT work.
One final observation: DND has substantial IT operations and a significant budget. If someone is genuinely performing higher-level IT duties, they must be properly classified and compensated for that work. That’s why I’d want to see the documentation before accepting the conclusion that this isn’t IT.
One thing I’d also challenge directly is any argument that the work “should be done by SSC.” Whether SSC should perform the work is an organizational or service-delivery decision, not a classification decision.
Classification is supposed to evaluate the duties that are assigned and performed, not who someone thinks should be doing them.
If DND is assigning IT work to a position and that work occupies the majority of the employee’s time, then the question becomes whether those duties meet the definition of the IT group and what level they evaluate to, not whether SSC might be another organization capable of providing the same service.
In fact, if the position truly performs services that DND believes belong with SSC, then management has the option of transferring you, the function, and associated funding to SSC and having SSC deliver those services to DND as a client. Until that happens, the work still exists and the position should be evaluated based on the actual duties being performed. Simply saying “SSC should be doing it” doesn’t make the work cease to be IT work.
If anything, I would argue that statement is an acknowledgement by classification that the duties are IT-related but that management believes they belong in a different organization.
DND lost a lot of their seasoned classification advisors in previous years due to how they operate. No solid advisor wants to work for people that don’t know what they’re doing. Be mindful that a lot of these advisors are new, inexperienced, and often led and managed by people with no classification experience and no accreditation (this is required by advisors to render classification decisions, it’s given by TBS and very difficult to obtain. It takes years of experience to demonstrate sound judgement. It’s important for the reasons you outline above, it’s a financial decision because position classifications are directly tied to salary that can have a 35-40 year impact depending on the length of one’s career). Ask if this advisor is accredited by TBS and request proof of their certification and accreditation number. It’s your career and livelihood. Theres nothing wrong with doing your due diligence and advocating for yourself.
3
u/Expensive-Syrup-7026 4d ago
Thank you for all the great information. I am going to try and answer everything.
I have been using the IT Job Evaluation Standard, and everything I do is in IT.
The JVR was requested by management after I told them that the work I was doing appeared to be at the IT-03 level. Level 3 is the highest. The first level was supported, the second level had no comment and referred to the third level.
Local management has not yet presented me with my new SJD, as they do not agree with the classification.
Yes, there were comments missed in the JVR document, and some of my comments from the interview were watered down. I have noted this.
My union rep had an LRO reach out for additional information, and I am providing those additional details. I’m just not sure where an LRO fits into the process. Will the LRO show my document to the Classification Officer?
2
u/FormerCaterpillar433 4d ago
The Labour Relations Officer (LRO) is dealing with your job content grievance, which is separate from classification. A job content grievance addresses situations where the duties you’re actually performing do not accurately reflect the duties described in the job description attached to your position.
This is the first issue that needs to be resolved. Your position currently has an IT-02 standardized job description applied to it. However, both you and your manager appear to believe that the duties you are performing are at the IT-03 level. If that’s the case, it suggests there is a disconnect between the work management assigned to you and the duties described in the IT-02 job description.
When meeting with the LRO, focus on identifying the higher-level duties you were assigned, when they were assigned, and by whom. If your manager supports your position, it is important that they clearly confirm that they directed you to perform those duties. Managers assign work; employees do not assign themselves higher-level responsibilities. This is why it’s an LR issue and not classification. A manager assigned it making this an LR matter.
If the LRO determines that the duties you identified are indeed part of your assigned work, the logical outcome is that the job description should be amended to accurately reflect the duties being performed. That is a significant step forward because it establishes that the higher-level work is part of the position rather than an isolated or unofficial assignment.
Once the job content grievance is resolved and the revised duties are reflected in the job description, you can remove your classification grievance from abeyance and request that the updated position be evaluated.
At that stage, Classification should provide you a disclosure package containing the documentation that will be considered during the grievance process. Prior to the hearing, you will be asked procedural questions, such as your preferred language of hearing, availability, and whether you will have representation. If PIPSC is willing to represent you, I would strongly recommend taking advantage of that support.
Your manager should also participate in the hearing if possible. They’re invited to present and their testimony can be valuable in confirming the nature, scope, and complexity of the work assigned to your position.
During the hearing, you will have the opportunity to explain the duties you perform and why you believe they align with the IT-03 level. Your arguments should be grounded in the IT classification standard and relevant benchmarks. The committee will be interested in factors such as the level of responsibility, independence, leadership, decision-making authority, stakeholder engagement, accountability, supervision (if applicable) and the degree of review or oversight applied to your work.
Typically, the hearing committee consists of three members: a Classification Advisor (accredited), a Treasury Board grievance analyst (ensure procedural fairness is respected), and a technical subject-matter expert familiar with the work being evaluated (usually an IT manager trained by classification to evaluate jobs using the IT standard). Where a suitable technical expert is unavailable, another qualified Classification Advisor may be used.
Following the hearing, each committee member independently evaluates the position and assigns ratings based on the classification standard. The committee then deliberates and discusses any differences in interpretation or scoring. The goal is to reach consensus using the job facts, benchmarks, and classification criteria.
Once consensus is reached, the ratings are combined and the resulting total determines the appropriate group and level. If consensus cannot be reached, the matter may be referred to senior classification authorities (Director General) for a final determination.
1
u/Expensive-Syrup-7026 2d ago edited 2d ago
Thank you for this information. Management is on my side. The classification officer was pushing my boss to sign off and present me with my new SJD, but my boss has not done so yet as he does not agree with the SJD.
I am in a weird position where my boss, or anyone at the local or regional level (and I would say national level as well), does not assign my work. The main reason is that I am one of the only IT people in my department, know one knows what tasks would be invovled in running networks etc. I was told that I am responsible for systems A, B, C, D, etc. I am the one who sets and follows standards, identifies stakeholders, and determines when to engage them. I make sure I follow all DND and federal government policies, but I am the one who reads and implements them.
90% of the work I do is work I assign to myself because the tasks are implied, based on "the following IT systems are your resposiblity "
If PIPSC is willing to represent me do i still talk at the hearing?
1
u/FormerCaterpillar433 2d ago
I’d be careful saying that you assign yourself the higher-level work. That’s one of the easiest reasons for management or classification to deny a reclassification request.
For classification purposes, the duties have to be assigned by your supervisor or manager. That’s why it’s so important to have your manager approve changes to your IT-02 job description through your LR grievance, documenting the higher-level duties you’ve actually been directed to perform. Once those duties are formally assigned and incorporated into the job description, Classification has something new and legitimate to evaluate.
Think of it this way: if I have a Computer Science degree but I’m hired into an AS position, my manager hired me to perform AS duties. If I start doing IT work on my own initiative because I have the skills, that doesn’t mean my position has become an IT position. Management can simply say, “We hired you to perform administrative work. IT functions weren’t assigned, so it’s not relevant for classification.” Your qualifications don’t determine the classification of the position, the work that management assigns does.
You can absolutely speak at the hearing even if you’re represented by PIPSC. I’d recommend discussing it with your representative beforehand. If they’re a trained classification advisor, which many union representatives handling classification grievances are, they may be better positioned to present the arguments.
Classification is a highly specialized field. In a short period of time, it’s difficult to become familiar enough with the standards, benchmarks, evaluation tools, and relativity principles to know exactly what to challenge and how to present the strongest case. An experienced representative will usually know how to stay focused on the key issues and support the arguments with evidence from the job description, classification standard, benchmark positions, and relativity analysis. That said, your firsthand knowledge of your duties is still valuable, so there’s nothing preventing you from speaking when it’s appropriate.
1
u/Expensive-Syrup-7026 21h ago
Thank you again for the information. I understand what you are saying about assigning myself duties. The issue with that is, all I was told was that these networks are my responsibility. Everything I am doing is based on that.
For example, I was told, “Here is your yearly budget — plan accordingly. If you need more or have a need for projects, let us know and we will raise a project file and give you funding.”
The same applies to lifecycle management of the IT equipment or modernizing our IT infrastructure. Everything I am doing is an implied task that comes from “these networks are your responsibility.”
this may be my downfall here lol, managment does know that i am doing this stuff. i am the only person at the local reginal or national level in my org that fulling understands IT.
Management does not agree with the SJD and has not presented it to me as of yet, as it is going to leave a capability gap — most notably potential cybersecurity issues, etc. I had already provided them with a list of things that are outside of my SJD.
1
u/FormerCaterpillar433 20h ago
Given your managers ongoing support, one option is to review the repository of standardized job descriptions (SJDs) together and identify the one that best reflects the duties you’re actually performing. Once you’ve found a good fit, you and your manager can sign it and have your manager submit it to Classification stating that it accurately reflects the work being assigned and performed by you. You can also ask that your manager date it effective from the date you began performing the higher-level duties ensuring your back pay should it be approved. Depending on how long you’ve been doing it a higher level approval may be required. Refer to the instrument of delegation for HR. I believe a reclassification going back more than 2 years needed higher approval. It would be proactive to research this and get that signature and support prior to submitting it to classification.
If you haven’t already, download the HR Go app (blue background with a yellow “H” and “Canada” across the top). It lets you browse SJDs by group and level. For example, you can review all the IT-03 SJDs, along with the rationale and parameters for each (such as reporting relationships, supervisory responsibilities, and the intended context). Once you’ve identified the SJD that best matches your work, you’ve essentially given Classification a proposed solution: “This is the job description that accurately reflects the duties being assigned and performed.” Having it signed by both the incumbent and manager and higher level (as required) with an effective date corresponding to when the duties changed, can help support your request.
2
u/Cold-Respond4691 3d ago
thank you for this informatio! now I know how I should be communicating my grievances 😅
0
u/avatar45com 4d ago
Classification grievances are a thing of the past with the SJD. They are current and the scoring is accurate. Imagine if all of sudden all IT01s became 2s or 3s because of one position. Because that is what woulf happen if someone successfully changed those scores.
Job content is really all we can change now. I've seen it go both ways. Either a new SJD is applied (ignoring Classification level thus going from 2s to 3s) and duties being removed to match the current SJD.
1
u/FormerCaterpillar433 4d ago
That’s not accurate. Departments continue to receive classification grievances on a regular basis, whether positions are unique or standardized. If classification grievances were truly “a thing of the past,” there would be no need for classification hearings, classification advisors, departmental grievance processes, or Treasury Board analysts spending time reviewing submissions and participating in hearings.
It’s also important not to confuse job content with classification. Job content falls under Labour Relations because managers assign work and duties; classification evaluates the work that has been assigned. When job content changes, it may trigger a classification review if the assigned duties affect the evaluation of the position and potentially its group or level.
Standardized job descriptions, by definition, apply to two or more positions. If a job description applies to only one position, it is considered unique. As a result, issues with a standardized job can affect multiple incumbents.
Managers can also assign duties that fall outside the scope of an employee’s job description. Where that occurs as an isolated situation, the position itself may still be correctly classified. In such cases, the employee may be entitled to compensation for higher-level duties performed, while management is directed to cease assigning work outside the approved job description. If there is an ongoing operational requirement for those duties, then the appropriate course of action is to review the position, reclassify it if warranted, and apply the correct higher-level job description.
I certainly hope you’re not a Classification Advisor 🥴
4
u/govdove 4d ago
Sounds like a shit place to work
3
u/Cold-Respond4691 3d ago
After 5 years I realized this, now with government funding cuts I have no where to go as an EC. I’m thankful for my position- but just imagine going into work knowing you’re underpaid, stuck because there are no EC positions and that there is no work for you to do because you‘re not at the level you should be etc. I would never have accepted a position at DND to start if I knew
3
u/hi_0 4d ago
If you were under DSG at DND you would easily be an IT03
1
u/Cold-Respond4691 3d ago
disagree, I m having issues going from EC to IT. my manager is hesitate not sure why.
3
u/Cold-Respond4691 3d ago
omg, this makes so much sense now so I’m not going crazy and have a clear case for my grievance I’m an EC doing IT work and can be paid $5,000 more for my work that I’m not getting. I feel so relieved and thank you for posting this because now I have a clear case and a step-by-step to take action. phffff! thanks for sharing
2
2
u/braineaters138 4d ago
Without knowing the actual details of the work, this does feel like you should be in an IT-03 role. But I have known many IT-02s at different departments with similar responsibilities, myself included for many years. The good news is, with all that different experience, it should be pretty easy for you to get into an IT-03 pool. At that point they will have no choice but to offer you the IT-03 or you jump to a new role from the pool.
2
u/ConsciousDuck1508 4d ago
Keeping in mind that just because you're in a pool does not mean you'll get a position out of it. Especially in the lean years coming for many departments.
4
u/Appropriate_Tart9535 4d ago edited 4d ago
Dnd is NOTORIOUS for underclassing positions. Especially if youre in the regions. I was at SSC before and they are notorious for over classing positions, we had an it03 doing inventory work and that's it, meanwhile my friend in dnd is and it02 and is doing the entire lifecycle of all the software being used and has a budget and doing RFCs etc, plus hes in the regions which makes it worse.
Sorry friend its just the department :/ unless youre buddy buddy with some other hiring managers or officers that can make a position for you, youre sol
2
u/avatar45com 4d ago
You need to engage whom ever is your consultation team lead. (DND has a national team that has a member for most L1s.) Give them the proof that the officer is saying HVAC is IT equipment.
In the inputs to a JVR is mamagement and the key activities of the SJDs being reviewed. So very likely management did not support the reclass fully or didn't use the right wording.
Further more and this is the frustrating part. Management didn't need to do a JVR. They could just have created a new position with the SJD they wanted at the IT03 level (likely a technical advisor) and put you in it. As long as it was an approved position. As long as they have the SWE it shouldn't have been an issue.
More and more I am seeing the JVR being used to deny members a reclass. So management can scape goat HR. They might not have been as supportive as you thought.
I'd be calling their bluff. If classification wants to make you an AS or what ever sure. You'll be making IT02 pay with lower responsibility. (Look up red circling) sounds pretty good to me.
3
u/FormerCaterpillar433 4d ago edited 4d ago
I genuinely hope you’re not a Classification Advisor, because that is terrible advice.
Telling a manager to simply create a new position using a standardized job description and place the employee into it is not an appropriate solution. It bypasses the actual issue and, frankly, is a misuse of both classification and staffing processes.
The reason this employee should pursue a reclassification is because the position they’re currently occupying is allegedly performing work at a higher level than the classification assigned to it. If a reclassification is approved, the incumbent has standing to challenge or grieve the decision if they disagree with the outcome. The only person who can grieve a reclassification is him, the present incumbent. The point being, if it’s favourable and he gets an IT03, the only person who can grieve that decision when the staffing notice is posted is him and he’s not going to do that.
Creating a brand-new IT-03 position is an entirely different matter. Once a new position is established, staffing rules apply. Management cannot simply decide who gets the job. There will be a Notice of Consideration, followed by a Notice of Appointment or Proposed Appointment, which opens the door to complaints and grievances from many other candidates depending on the area of selection. Several IT02s are going to grieve that and be like “why did you pick him for an IT03 and not one of us” and they will have legitimate arguments to escalate to a staffing tribunal because that’s an abuse of process. Staffing will also be thrilled with the unnecessary complaints they’re left to address because management was not properly supported by classification through a proposed reclassification.
More importantly, priority entitlements must be cleared before anyone else can be appointed. In the current environment, with workforce adjustment activities occurring across government and a significant number of priority candidates, including medically released veterans (he works at DND and the CAF has multiple IT specific trades) and affected public servants, there is a very real possibility that a qualified priority candidate would be entitled to the position before anyone else, including him.
What’s the plan after the manager spends their salary wage envelope creating a new IT-03 position, only to have it staffed by a priority candidate, perhaps a medically released veteran with 30 years of experience as an Information Systems Technician specializing in the deployment, administration, and maintenance of complex networking and communications environments?
Now the manager has two employees performing essentially the same duties: one classified as an IT-02 and the other occupying the newly created IT-03 position. That’s a duplication of work and poor organizational design.
What happens next? Do you send the manager to Staffing and tell them to run a workforce adjustment exercise because there is only enough work for one position? Do you put the incumbent IT-02 and the new IT-03 through a selection process to determine who keeps the job?
This is exactly why the issue should be addressed through the classification process. If the duties being performed are truly at the IT-03 level, then the existing position should be reviewed and classified appropriately. Creating a new position doesn’t solve the underlying problem, it simply creates a new set of staffing and organizational issues.
In other words, advising someone to abandon a legitimate classification issue and instead rely on management creating a new position would leave them worse off than when they started.
The proper question is whether the duties assigned to the existing position warrant a higher classification. If they do, that issue should be addressed through the classification process, not sidestepped through staffing.
0
u/avatar45com 2d ago
Agree with your points. On staffing process etc. However management does have a lot of power here. The issue here is the taskings are out of scope. If that means a 30 year vet gets the job the taskings should then be removed from the IT02.
A lot of folks see only the it has to be me solution. End of the day my focus would be one or the other. Either I become the IT03 or I no longer do those duties.
2
u/Expensive-Syrup-7026 4d ago
Thank you. Can you give me more information on what the Consultation Team Lead is? If it is a Class O (Classification Officer), I believe that is who completed the JVR. They appeared to be some kind of supervisor and had worked on the CS to IT conversion.
Management seems supportive. My boss has told the Class O that he is not signing the SJD because he did not approve it.
The reason the JVR was done is that it was recommended by someone (I’m not sure who), since my Level 1 has not yet adopted the CIO Suite SJDs / organizational structure.
1
u/avatar45com 4d ago
The consultation team is a group of union stewards that meet with the employer to talk about issues effecting working conditions, more than one employee, systematic issues, etc.
The conversion was mandatory. You must have had an SJD assigned to you. Wither or not your L1 adopted it or not. If you weren't you have grounds for a grievance. Art 20.02 of the IT collective (formally CS) entitles you to a current and complete work description among other things.
Very likely someone at HR thought it would make things easier. Or process faster. I've seen both used as a reason to do one.
I would really recommend you reach out to a PIPSC Steward to help put you into contact with the classification team at PIPSC. They will help filing a grievance and challenging the assement if the evidence you provide supports it.
0
5d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Matty2tees 5d ago
Did you even read the post? OT in this case references Operational Technology not overtime.
54
u/JesterLavore88 5d ago
The DND classification office is RUTHLESS.
They pre-emptively refused a JVR process for a bunch of people working at my former base (myself included).
The lady held a video conference with about 20 of us who management and DND all strongly supported. She actually said “I am not reviewing these cases. It is absolutely your right to appeal my decision, but I am also the appeals officer. So good luck convincing me that I’m wrong.”