Date: March 4, 2013
From: Linda McKnight, Director, Advisory Services, Human Resources, and Michelle Berner, Director, Total Compensation, Human Resources
CC: Human Resources Advisory Services, Total Compensation
Subject: CUPE 2950 General Wage Increase as of April 1, 2013
Human Resources and Payroll are preparing to implement the CUPE 2950 General Wage Increase (GWI) that is effective April 1, 2013.
For the CUPE 2950 employee group, there will be two implementations happening simultaneously:
- the 2% GWI across all jobs except for grade 1 step 1; and
- the introduction of steps 4 and 5 for positions in grade 5, and the introduction of step 5 for positions in grades 6 and 7.
The GWI has been entered into HRMS as of Feb. 28, 2013, for both monthly and hourly employees. CUPE 2950 employees will see the increase on their April 15, 2013, pay cheque.
The implementation of additional steps will be processed manually and gradually throughout the month of March:
- An employee who has been in the applicable job at Step 3 for two or more years will be moved from step 3 to step 5, effective April 1, 2013.
- An employee who has been in the applicable job at Step 3 for at least one year but less than two years will be moved to step 4, effective April 1, 2013, and then will be moved to step 5 on their job anniversary date. For example, if an employee has been in the job since Jan. 1, 2010, he/she will be moved to step 4, effective April 1, 2013, and then to step 5 effective Jan. 2, 2014.
- An employee who has been in the applicable job at Step 3 for less than one year will remain at their current step, and will move up to the next step after April 1, 2013, based on their anniversary date.
- An employee in the above scenarios, whose current salary is above the step to which they would be moved, will not receive a salary increase. They will also not receive a salary decrease.
If you have any questions, please contact your HR Advisor.
Note: This memo was originally distributed indicating that an employee moving to step 4 as of April 1, 2013 (scenario #2, above) would have been in the job since Jan. 1, 2009, not Jan. 1, 2010. This has since been corrected.