1

L’Arche Canada Salary Policy Development Project

Proposed Direction for the Structure of Compensation in Canadian L’Arche Communities

2

Objectives

Examine the feasibility of a cohesive and comprehensive salary system for all L’Arche communities in Canada.

Base the system on just and reasonable wages that encourage commitment and that support a sustainable way of life for people employed by Canadian L’Arche communities.

Provide recommendations to the L’Arche Canada Board of Directors regarding the adoption and implementation of this system.

3

Why this Compensation Review?

In recent years, many L’Arche communities in Canada and other regions throughout the Federation have had to review their salary policies. This is because:

There has been marked incoherency between what we say we value and our actual practices in terms of how we remunerate assistants.

A system of individual negotiation has sometimes taken precedence over a common salary grid.

4

Why this Compensation Review?

With the hiring of more and more “employees”, a different set of standards has sometimes been used to compensate employees compared to “community members”, that have led to complex and questionable practices.

As some longer term assistants approach retirement age, the impact of low salaries over many years has left some people very vulnerable financially in their old age.

5

Committee Members

Peggy Keaney (Chair)

Bill Calder, Bernard L’Abbé (Board)

Carl MacMillan, Ingrid Blais (LTM)

Pat Favaro, Eric Bellefeuille (Coord. Gr.)

6

Compensation Consultants

The Hay GroupHR Consultants who have considerable

experience in the not-for-profit sectorOffices in all major cities in CanadaContracted with them in May 2007

7

Hay Group – Tasks Completed

Designed compensation survey that was completed by 26 communities.

Analyzed the survey data to evaluate each role in communities and consider its placement in a compensation system.

Reviewed data and findings from the L’Arche Canada “values” survey.

8

A B C D Eonly primary significant some none NA

Length of Service 7.0% 23.8% 56.6% 9.6% 2.1% 0.9% 100%Previous Experience 1.1% 7.9% 48.3% 31.3% 9.6% 1.9% 100%Education/Formal Qualification requ'd by role 1.3% 7.0% 51.0% 29.0% 10.0% 1.3% 100%Level of Responsibility in Role 1.9% 22.1% 55.5% 15.1% 4.4% 0.9% 100%Family Composition 0.9% 4.7% 25.7% 29.8% 37.9% 1.1% 100%Market Factors 1.9% 11.9% 46.8% 32.5% 5.7% 1.1% 100%

Members “Values” Survey

•This survey – completed in 2007 - identified the major trends in salary policy development for L’Arche Canada by examining the views of members and employees

•The following were identified as primary criteria by members and employees for developing L’Arche Canada’s salary policy:

9

1. Salary Scales

There is not a lot of consistency in the way that salary policies are set - reflected in the current salary scales

Service/seniority is the only consistent means of differentiating salaries within the scales across communities

10

Salary Scales cont’d

There are significant differences in the levels of pay among the different communities and in particular among different regions.

There is no correlation between the levels of pay, room and board costs and community fund contributions

11

Proposed Salary Administration

Based on these results Hay Group proposed the following salary administration policy:

L’Arche Canada should have broad bands; no more than 6 levels top to bottom

Levels should be determined first by responsibility of the role then by the qualifications (the two actually go hand in hand)

There should be a significant overlap in pay between levels

Pay within a band should be a step rate based on length of service (primary consideration) and previous experience (secondary consideration)

12

Proposed Salary Administration – Incorporating Length of Service & Previous Experience

max

3 years of service &/or experience

fully qualified job rate

1 year of service &/or experience

min

Level 6: "Zone / Regional Guidance"

Level 2: "Administration Coordination /

Community Support"

Level 3: "Team / Community Leadership"

Level 4: "Managerial / Community Direction"

Level 5: "Strategic / Community Guidance"

4 5

Level 1: "Student / Intern / Volunteer"

6

$

max

LEVELS

min

fully qualified job rate

1 2 3

13

Examples of Roles in Levels

1. Students, GAP assistants, first-year assistants with little or no experience, volunteers (GVS)

2. House Assistant, Program Assistant Administrative Secretary

3. House Leader, Health Care Coordinator, Community Life Coordinator

14

Examples of Roles in Levels

4. Homes Coordinator, Assistants Coordinator, Finance Manager, Development Officer

5. Community Leader

6. Regional and Zone Coordinators

15

2. Community Fund

14 communities reported having a community fund

The regional averages vary from $521 to $9,352 annually

16

3. Pension Funds

There is a lot of consistency in pension or RRSP funds as all communities offer retirement benefits to assistants and most offer them to employees. L’Arche Canada Group RRSP ( 23 communities participate) is the most common means of providing these benefits.

17

4. Insurance/Benefits

There is consistency across communities as all offer insurance and benefits to the assistants and most offer them to employees. In addition there are 8 types of insurance and benefits that are offered in at least 75% of the communities (Basic life insurance,- Basic accidental death and dismemberment, Dependent’s group life insurance, LTD, Extended healthcare, Semi-private or private hospital care, Dental)

18

5. Work Time/Holidays

There is some variability in vacation time, but the most typical vacation schedule is:

2 weeks - 1st yr.

3 weeks - 2nd yr. through 4th

4 weeks - 5th yr. through 9th

5 weeks - 10th yr. on

19

6. Training/Workshops/Retreats

Very consistent. All but one community pays 100% of travel and accommodation costs.

20

Feedback

What do you think of the proposal for 6 pay grades with broad bands?

Do you agree that pay, community fund, pension, insurance, holidays and training support are the main factors that need to be considered in examining more cohesive zone compensation?

What else would you like to tell us about the directions suggested so far?

21

Next Steps

Design of proposed compensation and base salary levels by Hay Group (Fall 2008)

Consultation of communities on compensation recommendations (February – April 2009)

Recommendations to the Zone Board (Fall 2009)

Roll-out of the new compensation program