METHOD OF COMPARISON Clause Samples
The "Method of Comparison" clause defines the specific process or criteria by which two or more items, services, or outcomes are evaluated against each other within a contract. Typically, this clause outlines the standards, benchmarks, or methodologies to be used—such as comparing product specifications, performance metrics, or pricing structures—to ensure a fair and consistent assessment. By establishing a clear method for comparison, the clause helps prevent disputes and misunderstandings, ensuring that all parties agree on how evaluations will be conducted and decisions made.
METHOD OF COMPARISON. 1. The basis of comparison used to compare the jobs within the bargaining unit was: skills and responsibility effort working conditions
2. The results of the job comparison were as follows: Elementary A3 Secondary A4 None Elementary A2 Secondary A2 None Elementary A1 Secondary A1 None Secondary C Secondary A1 * Secondary B Secondary A1 * Elementary D Secondary A1 * Elementary C Secondary A1 * Elementary B Secondary A1 * *The parties to this Plan have agreed to Pay Equity adjustments for the job rates for all elementary and secondary teachers in Categories D, C and B, as follows:
METHOD OF COMPARISON. No female-dominated job classes were identified, therefore, no comparisons were necessary.
METHOD OF COMPARISON. The method of comparison used was the CUPE 11-Factor Evaluation Plan. The plan measures a composite of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions as required by the Pay Equity Act. The factors and weights applied are as follows: Skill 35% Knowledge 15 Experience 10 Judgement 10 Effort 20% Concentration 10 Physical Effort 5 Dexterity 5 Responsibility 35% Accountability 10 Safety of Others 8 Leadership of Others 7 Contacts 10 Working Conditions 10% Disagreeable Working Conditions 10 Each job was evaluated by a Joint Committee comprised of union and management representatives using the above noted factors.
METHOD OF COMPARISON. 1. The basis of comparison used to compare the jobs within the bargaining unit was: skills and qualifications responsibility effort working conditions
2. The results of the job comparison were as follows: Job Class Comparison Pay Equity Adjustment Elementary A4 Secondary A4 None Elementary A3 Secondary A4 None Elementary A2 Secondary A2 None Elementary A1 Secondary A1 None Secondary C Secondary A1 * Secondary B Secondary A1 * Elementary D Secondary A1 * Elementary C Secondary A1 * Elementary B Secondary A1 * *The parties to this Plan have agreed to Pay Equity adjustments for the job rates for all elementary and secondary teachers in Categories D, C and B, as follows:
METHOD OF COMPARISON. No female-dominatedjob classes were identified, therefore, no comparisons were necessary.
METHOD OF COMPARISON. The proportional value method determines the HHS pay policy applicable to a representative group of male job classes throughout the Establishment, and then compares the pay of female job classes, to determine if the same pay policy applies to the female jobs. If any female job class is not paid according to the same policy, a Pay Equity Adjustment will be required. The proportional value method uses a statistical method called regression analysis to determine the male pay line, as required by the Pay Equity Act. The regression analysis of the evaluation results for this plan demonstrates that the HHS has had a consistent pay practice in compensating male jobs. A mathematical measure of the accuracy of the male pay line in reflecting the relationship between job value and pay is the r-squared value. In this case, the r-squared value is .89, which is considered very good; this means that the male pay line, on which all comparisons are based, is highly reliable. There are no permissible differences in compensation between the male and female job classes in this Plan, as referred to in Section 8(1) and 8(3) of the Pay Equity Act.