HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-1280.McIntyre et al.90-03-07EHP‘O”ESoEMCO”RONNE 0.5 L ‘ohmRIo
! GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT RkGLEMENT
1 BOARD DES GRIEFS
I80 OLINOAS STREET WEST. TORONTO, ONT*RIO. MO I.?B-s”rEzIw TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE
180, r?“E 0”NcMS OUEST. TOAONTO. fONTARlol Mm 120. B”REA”?IW ,416,59.-0688
@$
1;94,86:
mm;;;,
1296186:
1289166, ~1283/86, 1290/66. 12841867 1292/86,1293/8b, 1285186, 1286/86,
1297/86, 1298186, 1868/90
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE. BARGAINING ACT
1..
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLERENT BOARD
Between: OPSEU (MCI&e et al)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
Employer
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearings:
D. Fraser Vice-Chairperson
T. Kearney Member
C. Linton Member
T. Hadwen
Counsel
Cavalluzzo, Hayes & LennOn
Barristers & SOliCitOrS
K. Cribbie
Staff Relations Advisor
Ministry of TranSportatiOn
November 17, 1988
March 22, 1989
March 23, 1989 August 10, 1989
DECISION
2
This grievance is brought on behalf of Randy K. McIntyre, who holds the
position of Intermediate Designer wlth the class title of Technician 2, Road
Design (T2RD). or. McIntyre claims that he 1s improperly classified, and that
there 1s no sufflclently slmllar and appropriate class series for the work he
does. He accordingly requests that his posltlon be remltted to the Mlnlstry to .- .~.
create a new and appropriate classlficatlon in accordance..with the
determination of the Ontario Divisional Court in -0 Pv
in v
Q, released March 13th, 1966:‘; :
Retroactivity in res&t of such a reclassification 1s sought to a date flve
months prior to the grievance, which 1s dated~.Cctober 16th, 1986, together with
interest. The parties have agreed that some further sixteen grievances will be
determined by the result of the instant grievances. Those grievances are
listed in a letter from counsel for the union to the Registrar; Grievance
Settlement Ward, dated October 6th, 1989, and as both parties agree with that
list, we shall not referto it in further detail.
The employer.denies that the grievor is improperly classified and resfsts
the claim for retroactivity, should the grievance be successful, insofar as it
goes back beyond October lst, 1986, which Is-the retrcactlvlty date claimed In
the grievance. The employer does not challenge, in such event, the awarding of
interest to an appropriate retroactlvlty date.
The grievance 1s essent-fally concerned with three matters. They are the
question of an increase In duties when two positions are consolidated into one
“b&t-fit” position as a result of an amalqamatlon; the general question of an
increase in dutles over time; and the specific questlon of an increase In
dutles relatlng to computerisation. It 1s alleged that these matters have
3
resulted In a, situation where a Class Standard for w,
dated February, 1966, does not adequately describe the duties performed. Both
that Class Standard, received as Exhibit 1, and the current Position
Specification for the grievor’s position of Intermediate Eeslgner (Technician
2, Road Design), are attached.to this decision.
The grievor’s current posltlon as T2RD 1s In the southwestern reglon
London office of the Planning and Design Section of the Ministry, and that
section plans and designs new highway construction and highway improvements.
As a Technician 2, the grievor 1s at~the working level in that office, and
reclassification to a higher level, should the grievance be successful, would
ix inappropriate as such.are successive supkrvisory levels, a function which
the grievor does not do.
We vi11 nov briefly review the grievor’s employment history In order to
provlde a context for his evidence. In order to do so, it 1s necessary to
outline ‘the planning and design process used by the Ministry for provincial
highway improvement praects. That process 1s divided into three broad areas: ~,.
planning, preliminary design, and detail design. The first area, planning,
lnvolves,such matters as the preparation and update of a Provincial Highways
Inventory, the preparation of Highway Assessment Reports, the preparation of
Justlflcatlon Reports required to place a project on a construction program,
and the preparation of Program Status Report3 for the same general purpose.
The second area, prellmlnary design, lnvolves such matters as the preparation
of a Prellmlnary.Deslgn Project Appraisal Report, and Prellmlnary Eeslgn
Studies involving Preilminary Design Reports.
4
These two areas may involve substantial data gathering, analysis and
assessment of that data, the preparation of alternative proposed designsand
their costing and impllcatlons, and the selection of preferred alternative
approaches. These plannlng and preliminary design stages essentially provlde
the necessary background information and choice of apprwch, for the third
stage which la detall design. Detall.des1g-n involves the actual design of a
specific project based on the two prlor stages. It may include further data
collection, substantial detail design respecting the actual work to be
undertaken, and the preparation of necessary contract plans and documents. b
.
In 1974, the grievor started as a Technician I Survey In the construction
section of the Ministry. In 1981 he went on loan from that section to the
Planning and Design Section in the Reglonal,Office, and In 1984 he won a
competltlon for Technician 2 Road Design: horn 1984 to July 1986, he worked In
detail design in Districts I and 2 in the Planning and ~eslgn Section, ~wlth
Project Manager Ed Stevenson and immediate supervisor Fred Luklanow. During
that time, he testified that almost 20% of his work was In planning and
preliminary design, which are the first two areas outlined above. The
significance of that testimony will become apparent later. In July, 1986, he ~
moved from Dlstrlcts 1 and 2 to Districts 3 and 5, dolng detailed design work
under the supervision of DonTurner, Design Production Supervisor, at which
.tlme he had no,involvement in preliminary design. Thus at the date of the
grievance, Odober ‘I6th, 1986, he was not involved In planning or preliminary ~.
design, although he had’been so lnvolved for some time up to July, 1986.
The disputed classlflcatlon held by the‘grlevor ln.1986 and the.dutles it
contained arose in part from an amalgamation of two positions In I972. prior
to 1972, the work of planning and prellmlnary design h&been done by a
‘ii
5
functioml planning section attached to the mgineerlng and Rlght of Way
office.
The employees In that section, doing the planning, had been classified
as Drafter 2. The detall design had been done by a separate road design
section, and the employees who did that were classified as Technician 2 Road
lxslgn. The salaries of each of the two classified were ldentl&.
In 1972, It was decided to amalgamate the two sectlohs. The qoestlon :
arose of the classlflcatlon of the new employees at the working level in the
new section as they included Drafters 2 and Technician 2 Road Design from the - /
old sections. It was declded.that Technician 2 Road Design was the “best fit”
for the combined group, as management felt that position covered design, which
the drafter position didn’t as it covered drafter’s work. Thus in essence,
planning, prellmlnary design, and detailed design were combined in one position
with’the Technician 2 Road Design classification;
;We.will now review the dutles In the Technic,ian 2 Road Design position to : . .L17
see whether they~ are included in the~class standard. In doing 30, we would
first refer to a comment by George Stewart, who la the head of personnel
services for the southwest region of the Ministry. He noted that one should
not expect to see every duty in a job specification to ix also found in the -” _.,.
class standard, as the latter Is written in a general.form which covers major
duties.
Detailed and extensive evidence was tendered by both sides in respect of
the comparison we will sake. However, counsel for both sides categorised and
summarised that evidence In their final arguments in a clear and vell-ordered
fashlon, and we will also refer to the evidence in the llght of those
sumrar les. Mr. Hadwen for the uhlon‘proposed that dutles not in the class -
I., ‘* .. ~.
6
standard could be placed In four categories: planning (done upstream from
prellmlnary design); preliminary design; computerlsatlon; and other duties.
The evidence and KC, Hadwen’s summary.of It with respect to the plannlng
component vas largely uncontradicted. Instead, Mr. Crlbble, for the employer,
submitted that both the planning and the prellmlnary design that were done
should be lndlcated in ~the class standard; as such (and particularly the
preliminary deslgn’had been done in the Drafter 2 position prior to
amalgamation, as those.duties were no greater in complexity than duties done in
-..: detail design, and as .the duties were all part of the design process, which he
submitted wascontained in paragraph two of the class definition found in the
class standard.
.Evide>:e.of the grievor’s’ work in’the planning area that was emphaslzed .~
by the union in argument, includes the follotilng. The grievor testlfled that
in 1984-86, he spent 20% of,his time in planning as distinct from preliminary
design. We have noted the program justlficatlon component in the planning
process. prior to that stage the grievor was involved in accumulating data
gathered previously by other agencies, lncludlng correspondence,‘reports,
inventory reports from the Provincial Highways Inventory, pavement condltlon
reports, fleid.slte readings, and a number of other matters. A substantial
amount of work was involved for a number of these matters. For example, for
fleld site readlngs, the project area is viewed and assessed for deflciencles,
field site meetings are held, attended by a senior designer or a project
manager, plus staff lncludlng the grievor. Information la accumulated,
assesses, and various alternatlve remedies may be developed; Then a
justlflcatlon report would be prepared, vhlch would include such thlngs as
maps, a descrlptlon of the project puTpose and justlflcatlon, a portion of
‘: :
1
exiting and future conditions such as traffic and accident ewrlence, and many
other matters.
The grievor had substantial involvement In this plannlng stage, including
such things as data accumulation, participation in field site meetings,
assessing deficiencies 1,n the project, and a series of other functions. It 13
quite clear from the evidence that he spent a slgniflcant portion of his time
in the planning process, although it was not the largest component. He was
supervised to various extents at various times, ‘and rarely, If at all, had
flnal~authorlty to make recommend&.lons or approve matters, but that does not
detract otherwise from his substantial involvement in the duties.
The preliminary design stage followed the plarning stage, and it involved
in general terms, the project appraisal and the preliminary design of the
project. The grievor had a substantial number of duties at this stage, which
basically involves an expansion of the project justification material in the
area of design and planning considerations. The grievor’s role was to 1.
&cumulate lnformatlon, develop.alter&ive proposals and estimates, and to
draw and sketch various diagrams for the appraisal. The data gathering to
accumulate further information can be an extensive task, involving such thlngs
as formal requests respectiilg new construction, or the disturbing of existing
grounds, or information respecting existing structures. The “alternatives”
stage 13 similarly complex, with the grievor possible required to draw up
alternatives, cost estimate then, compare them for feasibility, and determine
the best alternatlve.to recommend.
. .
.
.,
8
Once the planning and preliminary design stages are completed, the
material Is all forwarded for the detail design process, involving a “turn-
over” meetlng, vhlch the grievorwould.attend and answer questions.
Moat of the duties we have referred to are contained in the posltlon
specification for the grievor’s position of Intermediate Designer. That
position specification was revised in 1986, and it refers under Part 2 “Purpose
of Position”, for example, to such matters as project appraisals, rout&
selectlon’studies, and preliminary designs. In Part 3, “Duties and related
tasks”, it includes more detailed matters such as assembling and analysing~data
lncludlng pavement condition reports, area planning studies, and route
selection studies; identifying information from other material sources (which
are 1lsted);~asslstlng in the preparation of project appraisal reports and
preliminary design report, and other’matters. The duties above are taken as a
representat4ve example from the grievor’s testimony, because they ail relate to
the.plannlng and prellmlnary,design stages and none can be specifically found
in the class standard when it refers to specific representative duties.
The cIa&standard doestalk directly in its first paragraph about’
determining “highway design features”, and it includes more specifically in the ~
_. second paragraph, such things as plotting “plans, profiles and cross-sections”,
“preparing~guantlty estimates for large projects” , and participating “directly
in the design process to establlsh design features such as location and grade
of culvert&“. There 13 thus some reference to some specific duties, and we
would refer again to Mr. Stevart’s caution about the generality of class
standard language. However, when we look at the function of determifilng
highway design features In the first paragraph of the standard, and-then go to
the more specific set of representative dutles In the second paragraph, It is
9
patently apparent that the set of dutles there are deslgned to refer largely to
something other than the set of dutles done by the grievor in plannlng and
preliminary deslgn. That set sits quite comfortably In the area of dutles
relating to detail design, In view of the evidence we have received in that
area. They do not.seem to relate In any cogent way to the set of duties done
by the grievor in planning and preliminary design, for example, when we review
the planning work he has done relating to project justification and project
appraisal. It Is possible to select some individual duties from that second
paragraph and flnd'they are performed in those lnltial stages, but the two sets
of duties are overall of a different nature. The representational duties in
the standard.are detail deslgn duties, and only represent planning duties in a
limited and incidental way.
It~was, however, suggested by the employer that the phrase. "highway
design features" ln the first paragraph would encompass the duties lnvolved In
planning and preliminary design. However ouz comparison above of the more
specific duties done by the grievor ln those areas, and the more speclflc
dutles listed In the second paragraph of the class standard, does not support
this stilsslon.
That result is supported by the evidence respecting the amalgamation In
1972, after the class standard had been prepared. we have noted earlier that
prior to that amalgam&ion, Drafters 2 did the planning and preliminary design,
and Technicians 2 Road, Design did the detail design. On amalgamation, the
class standard for Technician 2 Road Design was seen as the "best fit" for the
combined group, and that may well have been a very appropriate decision at the
time. Bqt however good a flt It was, It adopted a-class standard for those
I :. _, z-~ .&
.: 10
doing planning and preliminary deslgn, which, as the evidence shows, does not
include those functions in any satisfactory and cogent way’ln its wording.
Finally, we would refer once agaln’to the evidence that the grievor dld
planning and preliminary deslgn for 20% of his time during 1984-86, ;hlch
lndlcates that It was neither an insignifkcant nor particularly minor part of
his job. We conclude on this aspect that the class standard does not include
the slgnlflcant duties of plannlng and prellmlnary deslgn done by.the grievor,.
which are Included in large part in the position specification.
We will now turn to the question of computerisation. The use of
computers 1s not specifically found In the;class standard, which refers, J,~.~sL
‘u to the preparation of Quantity estimates for large projects using
geometric and trigonometric formulae to compute horizontal and vertical curve
data”. The evidence indicates these curve data refer to such things as the
production of alignment and grades, and such may be done prior to detail design
.although it Is done extensively in that phase. It Is Important to note, then,
-that the class standard deals with the results and not the process for producing
that result, except with the reference to “formulae” which the evidence shows
were used in manual calculations.
We agree with I%. albble’s proposition In reviewing this matter that It
1s not critical In itself that the use of computers 1s not mentioned In the
class standard, and that the Issue is essentially whether the use of computers
has altered the grievor’s job In the areas of responslblllty, complexity, and
quallflcatlons to the extent that-the omlssfon of that use from the class
standard is &gnlfIcant (see ur et & 1528/88 (Roberts)).
.
11
Computerisation may, in some cases, involve a m in duties, but the
eventual result may be that the change Is an essential one of using a new
process to do other dutles, In which operatlon of the new process 1s only
marginally more complex than the old one, and for which It cannot be sald that
the overall responsiblllty and complexity of the job has changed or increased
in any significant way. Indeed, all other things being equal, computerisation
can simplify a job by the ellmlnatlon of handslone data ordering and sorting,
and onerous manual-calculations. In evaluating the effect ofcomputerlsatlon,
it would seem appropriate, then, to evaluate two things: the actual job of
operating the computer, and the change in the overall job that is done. t
. . . .
Since the adoption of the class standard, a series of computer programs
were introduced fin the grievor’s field of work, with such names as Systems 50,
CCGO, SD Update (or Systems 53),~and SDEK Grade. The evidence lndlcates that
those were all used to varying extents, but the significant program in terms of
OUT review is SD Update, which wasused extensively by the grievor. The
Systems 50 program Is used to provide base lnformatlon for detall design, and
SD Update 1s used to @ate the material generated by Systems 50. The two
programs work lh sequence this way.
Systems 50 assesses a cross-sictlon of a road in terms of alignment,
distances of shoulders, lane widths, depths of asphalt, etc., and It produces a
cross-sectioned roll contalnlng~a number of labelled sections. It Is run by a
Computer Services Officer, and the grievor would submit data for input. The
cross-sectional vlew produced, does not give a. final design. That is done by
the.SD update program whlch’allows an operator to access the Systems 50 Output,
and to update and edit the materIal.on a graphic screen.
12
The Technician 2 Road Design operates the SD Update program completely.
To do that, the file 1s accessed, and Information is put in to do the up-
dating, which can be done, for example, by changing the plotted lines on a
graphic screen. Evidence from both the grievor and a Computer Services Officer
indicate that the SD Update is a difficult program, and it Is operated by the
Technician with little supervision. It is full of “bugs”, and the manual is
often of little help. Many steps are needed, on occasion, to work around those
“bugs”. Those steps are developed by the operator, such as the grievor, on a
trlal-and-error basis over time. The evidence also indicates that not all
those employees at the working level master thls program. It IS operated by
those who are Yapable”.
It is c1ea.r from this and other evidence we have reviewed respecting this
.‘. &gram that from one perspective, the overall job of%etail design In this
area may be said to.&? simplified to the extent that manual calculations and
consequent revisions are done automatically by the computer. However, it is
also clear that operatlng the program, partlcularly~ln view of lts.“bug” ridden
deslgn, is a significant and reasonably complex new skill, whlch’does not ease
the life of the technician, and which is dlfflcult to the extent that such
operation is generally limited to those technlclans at the working level.who
can learn to vork around the bugs.
In addition, the grievor has testlfled that supervlslon on the program
(and others) is basically “nil” from senior staff, as most don’t knov the
programs, although they know what the~programs can pr&ce. The grievor is
self-taught for about 90% of the operation of.all programs, lncludlng SD
Update, and he would learn in most cases by picking up a manual and working
through the instructions.
Against thls background of evidence, when we turn again to the class
standard, we see that it refers to various calculations, which we would accept
as Including the various manual calculations according to the set formulae for
producing the results now generated by the various computer programs:.Had
those merely been done more efficiently by the computerisation, It would have
been difficult and probably incorrect to conclude that the new-programs had
added to the overall responsibility and complexity of the job. However;those
,manual calculation processes are still retained as a back-up, and in vlew In
particular of the complexity andbug-ridden operation of the SD Update program,
and of the general lack of supervision for that program and others, we would
conclude that computerisation has changed the job to the extent that the class
standard is insufficient in falling to refer at least in a general way to this
added, complex responsibility.
The other:dutIes alleged by the union not to be included in the class
standard are: single designer duties, described in more ,detail on page 3 of
the position speclflcatlon at paragraph 2; oral and written communication
described In more detall on the same page at.paragraph 3;‘attendance at and .:<4... .>b
participating In such meetings as Regional Contract Reviews and Regional
Technical Revlews; attendance at public meetings; and preparation of display
material for meetings. Of these matters; after a detailed review of the.
evidence, we conclude that none involve significant new duties and
responsibilities except possiblyfor the single designer duties. The other
duties, are either referred to directly in the position specification or are
part of the normal evolution of job duties over time which are Important
elements, but notslgniflcant new dutles and responslbllltles to the extent the
class standard is lmpugned. That standard 1s couched In general terms, and It
would be unusual to see every duty as noted Ihsuch a document. The duties are
‘.
14 I . part of the slowly changing process In the position, and none of the latter
group appear to us to have achieved such signlflcance that thelr omlsslon 13
material.
The question of single designer duties, found In paragraph 2 on page 3 of
the position speclficatlon, is somewhat different. In this respect, the class
standard refers to various component parts of the technician’s function, but
does not bring a number of them together in respect of a.project done by a
single designer. The grievor~has also given evidence that he has on occasion
been the sole designer on a project. However, we are not prepared to conclude
on the &+s of the evidence before us,‘that the bringing together of several
tasks or duties In a project results in a significant new duty. Should that
aggregation have required a substantial new level of responsibility, for
example, we may have concluded otherwise, but.the evidence does not go that
far.
In our opinion, therefore, the tasks of planning and preliminary deslgn,
and the operation of computers and particularly of the SD &date program,
reflect a signlflcant level of duties and responsibilities not contained in the
class standard for Technlclan 2, Road Design. In arriving at this conclusion,
we are mindful of Mr. Cribble’s submlsslon that these duties came in part from
a posltlon of Drafter 2 which was at .the same salary level as. the “best-fit”
Technician 2 Road Design posltlon which vas adopted on amalgamation.
Nonetheless, they are added duties to that latter position, and as such, go
beyond the relevant class standard and add to the complexity and
responslbllltles of the Job that that standard deflnes.
.
‘I
15
We adopt the remedy used in the Berry case; which we referred to at the
outset of this declslon. We therefore direct the Employer to flnd or create an
appropriate classlflcatlon for the grievor. In so dlrectlng, we would note
once more that the parties have agreed that some slxteen related grievances
will be determined by this result.
The partles.dlsagree on the retroactive date for compensation on the
completion of reclasslficatlon. The employer ,has proposed that the “20 day
rule” be applied (see, for example, &&Sojn et al. &~M. McQJJ, 0092/86,
0229/86 (Dellsle)) and that compen3ationbe limited to twenty working days
prior to the date the.grlevance was filed, which was &to&r 16th, 1386. The
union has proposed that compensation be ret&active to the date that the ,
substance of the complaintwas put forward, and that an informal attempt was
+nade to resolve the grievance (see, for example, u, 0539/85
(Mltchnlk) 1. ;.
In support of its posltlon, the union produced in evidence a letter of
June 18th, 1986, in which a representative of the Intermediate Designers raised
their concern about ,“generlc job descrlption9 and salary, and noted the,.
situation was ‘Vgrlevable”. Mr. Patterson, Head, Planning and Design Section In
the Southwestern Region responded’to that-by letter dated June 25th, 1986, in
which he noted, m & that the class standard had “nc$ been up-dated for
many years”, and that there was a project to’review and up-date them which will
produce new class standards. This evidence shows that a grlevable matter was
16
raised, and that the employer response constituted an attempt to lndlcate that
the matter would be resolved by a process currently in place.
In v (supra)., Vice-chairperson Mltchnik reviewed the case
law dealing with the application of the 20 day rule for retroactivity, and the
justlflcation for the extension back of the retroactive date under
circumstances which bear some relatlbnto the situation before us. The 20 day
rule,req&es that the union formally grieve its concern at the earllest date
if It wishes to nnxlmize retroactivity in the event, of success. Application of .>,.
that rule thus brings the matter into the early prelimlnary stages for
adjudication, and such may not be ln thee best interests of either party. As
Vice-Chairperson Mltchnlk noted at p.16 of Wwin &Lyns,
“Where management has been made fully aware of the
complaint;and 1s actively in the process of reviewing
it, the parties would be little served by the Board
adopting a position which would force the employees
concerned to “formallze”, and potentially polarize, the
situation by grlevlng before management has had the
opportunity to render its decision.”
Vice-Chairperson Mitchnlk then ordered a retroactivity date which took
into account the date~the misclassifications were originally raised in that
case, but which exempted a period since that date wherein the grievers knew of
the employer’s rejection of their position, but did not grieve. :.
!
17
We adopt the approach in principle used In tha'ocase, which places weight
on a prxess which attempts to resolve a classification by review and action by
the emF.oyer, rather than by promptness in grieving the d~isputed matter,
although we would note in SO doing that there must be particularly clear
evidence that the lssue has been raised as a serious and formal concern by the
grievor or unlon. Such was done in the instant case on June l&h, 1986, and we
order that compensation be retroactive to that date, with interest paid in
accordance with the usual practice of.the Board as found in the i&a&2&U ;
decision. We remain seized in the event there are any difficulties in the
lmplementatio.n of this award.
Dated at Ottawa
the 7th day of March I 1990. \-
4 D. Fraser,Vice-Chairperson
T. Kearney, Member
..-_
"I dissent" (Dissent ~attached)
C. Linton, Member
L.
DISSENT
OPSEU (McIntyre et al>
Grievance #126E1/86
I have read the Vice-Chairperson’s Award in the subject grievance
land cannot agree with then finding that the class =ta”dard is ,oe,t-
dated and inappropriat&. I would. submit th’at the class sta,ndar>j
is dated, but given the purpose of a~ class standard, ttie ir.rt
that the following job duties are not specificaily ref*.vec,r-a:>
does not, in my opi’nion, render the ciass standard e1tii=t-
outdated or. inaopropriate:
1) Computer work - Computersi at-e part of the DI-ocess that one
utilizes to reach a desi’red result. Whether the “formL!iae~~
are programmed into a computer by the Computer Services Group rst-
calculated manually by the TR2, I wouid submit that the job’~
itself does not change in any significant way; I wo13:d submit
that if the entire operation were computerised, the job itself
would be 1 es5 complex; however some design ‘is do”, 0”. the
drafting board. In fact, ‘the drafting board, vrhich is a “LL;2.3; :!
as the computer is, is. not mentioned in the cl ass standard.
The SD Update program, according to the represantative grievor,
is utilized mot-e by the Senioi Draftspersons than the TX?‘s.
2) Preliminary design - Prelimi~nary design requires the use oi
the same skills as. detail design, that is,. preparing COr;traCt
documentation and drawings. The contract documentation wouid
include the planning and preliminary desi,gn. The grievor’s
evidence during cross-examination .: was that the “Preliminary
Design Report” was prepared by the senior designers, not the
TR2’S.
-;.
For the above reasons, I cannot agree that ei~tl+,er of the+ tasks
are not reflected i” the class standard; therefore, I would ha.+e
denied the grievance.
Ali of which is respectf~uily submitted.
,.,. ._ .- ~. ..~.
.Sxole Linton, Emp 1 oyer Melmber .
^ .,_-,1.
. )- .&. i3.. L ._ t . i. ., (Reler IO L.+k of form lo! completion Instructions)
Posltlon Spec’” ?allon & Class ~ll~catlon-CSC 6i;O
use only ‘. ,. ? . . .
,f! , .~ ,,‘.. I’, ,,
r,ition liUi ,Intermedin&e .Designer. ‘.., ‘. F&i”” Corlr k (. ,. .,
oo-5245- 14 9
POIl,lO” Ido”l;lie~ (5.1 “.r.rw,
t
I I I
~;rpore’qf pasi,tion lwhv doer this Posilion exist11
I &+q& 10
.’ .) esalst 1n the production of project appraisals, route selection studies ?slgne, .deFall designs, final-contract drawings, preliminary
:sn~p?rtetlon Systems projects. estimates and tender dociments for
‘elimlnary,+and. detailed deslgns, ,.~O? some projects involving only one Designer, to produce
flnel contract drawings and tender documents. !.,,: ..‘. <. ~,,. . . . ::~
I .’ 3
uties end related tasks (what is employae required to da. how and why? Indicate Perceow@ of time went on each dulvl
tder the technical supervision end general direction and guidance of B Senior Designer, !rforms. the following: .,.
.+4:;t4k;,ine:if e”rod~‘BE~~~,ofi~r,oi~~~,:~~:s~~;;gToote selection studies, preliminary
estunatea and tender documents for 1% Transportation:Systems pfojects by performing task: such as:
i i-j ,;Assembling and!analysing’all available data applicable to‘s projetit such as pavement
‘.-’ con$ition reports, plane, mosaics, area plsnnlng studies, route selection studies, municipal reports,~ Internal reports, and correspondence, etc.
.T~ :. identif ing Plans ( t;
information needed from other internal sources such as:
eglonsl Structural Office, Regional Geotechnical Office, etc. Surveys and
- .reviewing information supplied from internal sources such as: ‘Traffic,, co; # Construction, Structural District,
,. , j ,,: I. .,,.,,; , :, : .t. Property, Environmental, etc,. Geotechnicsl,
.~
-“assisting ‘in then pre !I
aration of Project Appraisal Reports,
and Design Synopsis : eports,..‘::,‘:. ‘,: ~” Preliminary Design Reports,
I ; I . . . ,. %i.,..:I ,,,, II ,.,e.,,., .
- During the Preliminary Design phase is involved in investigating design alternatives,
defining associated constraints and preparing comparative cost estimates. :,.~.., , !, ,. . . . . . . . . . 3 I *,, y’,;,’ .:. ._ I.,
zing data to determine the geometric design standards to be used, and assisting e,‘deveLopment::of ,the ,design criteria;.- : ’ 8’ , II .,.,,. .!,~i ,..,,.. ; I .;
- interpreting traffic data and,determining levels’of service and design requirements. l,,< ..s .,i. ,.; ,,,.. .* .,.I ;,; .:, :~I,.‘...,,; ‘\(’
- sppralslng such,factors,,ee-horizontal and.vertical alignments, cross-sections, structure requirements, intersection and Interchange. layouts, property requirements,
access’ snd,proposed’,rosd closinge, etc. ‘~ ’ .?..., :i .,.I ‘.I’ I il. :I :
,’ ,.:~ (Continued)
kills and knowled afting ski1 B e required Io perform iob sl full working level. IIndicate mandatory credentials or licences. If aopllcablel s,.geometry,’
trigonometry and related Planning 6,Design exPeri&nce.
Goutedge of deslen orinclples, contract estimating,
Thorough
intract plans end dbcumente, Specifications, preparation of prellminsry and fin?L S eciel Provisions and standards.
iowledge of the yarious computer progrerw.eyel .P able,
A work:ng
:mputlng facllltles on planning 6 design projects. and the ebility,to operate electronic (Continufd)
Da,?,
Incumbent prepares’ final plans,
,’
Calculates quantity estimates and produces .contract
documentation required for all’ types of transportation design projects.
Plots plans, profiles and cross-sections,
investigates design,alternatives.
estimates quantities of contract tender items,
Performs difficult mathematical calculations, requiring a good knowledge of design,
estimating and drafting principles and, techniques.
I- -.
‘se thir form 8s Indlcaled below lo, all p~slllons excepl lhose covered by the Sxecu,lve Compensa,(on plan,, f.fanag&~~nl Cvmpensaljon PI,,,, ,J, office
dmlnlstralion Group: :‘. .’ : :‘. :: ::I ,;;.I, ‘.
: I ::. .:.: : .,. ;. ,:,;,.,:... .,,, .I ‘,: ”
:lesslfled Full and ~afl4~tfIe pOSlt!OnS: Fp,; lo be cqmpleled In 11s enh,e,y except IO, Iha Funcllonal Code box ln S.wlon 1. , ,, ’
I
!nclasslfled SFh36nfd ~OSltf~n.3 (Group 3): Complele Seclians 1 and 6 mepl IO, the Funch~nal Code box In SE&X 1. and the goalie.
on ,a,iansle In Secllon 6. ” ..’ .’ ” ” ! Ii i’ m:,.‘.~ . 1. v* ; . t ,- : ..,’ . . . . . . . 1, :
,II other pOslllOna:. Complehon of Ihls form ln MI o, 8s se, OUI above.~o, Uhclassilied seasonal POA,I~~S; IS qppona,. , ,,~..!I. I
Pan4me . . :.: i -1.1. ~..- L.: ‘.. . ._.- .._-_ ~. . _.. 2 ‘. .- . -
Group 2
Group 1
lnslruclions for coding Sch. Hrs. Work
omplele Ihis box lo, R.P.T. Poshions only. , :, .‘,‘,;I;,: 1’ : ,,
,clude poniona 01 hou,~ lo 2 decimal places.
TE: The average 01 the actual hours worked (less ovenime) OYB, 4 “”
con~ecutlve weeks by R.P.T. employees assigned,lo a posklon I”
must coincide with Ihe Scheduled Hours 01 Woh ldenlilied lo,”
lhal vosihon. Any chaws lo Ihe Scheduled Hours 01 Work will
require the es,~bllshm&d and documentslion al a seperale
posillon. I I a,. ,I,,_ I? . . .,,, , I..,
lnslruclions for coding Seasonal Work Perlod
Suild code 89 lollows: .!.!.,!:,i
I. .,~! , ,i .
l SIngI season. ta., Spring Exsmplo
, ‘::j;;f;sds ,r;--l;;,,.,
NOTE: Mulllple swsons musl be,consecullve lo qualify as one posillon,
> Ir, ,“..,,,, ;..,,I ..*,. .-. :a ,,,....
/- preparing.disp.lay’material for Munici el.B?srd~Hearings; Hesrings of.NecE;;b;l, !! .I presentstlon tio,other Ministries, rl cut orltlea, property owners end the
publrc by euperrmpoarng features such as: Historic Sites, Environmenta f and
Geographrcal Features, Alternate Routes, Property Boundarres, ,T~reffic Desi,res . ,end Traffic Protections ..etc.; ;(I.;~ .~I ‘; .I 1’ ,(’ . . . . , ., ,,. .~ 1’ ~’ .I. : I. L)
- preparing Railway Bo;r-d ,eTt,tmates and plans, ., : and National Energy Board ,plans. .., *.,.
-. preparjng requests for ‘title -searches, property,’ trbffic analysis,’ soils ” rnvestrgatrons, photogrammetric coverage and survey informa~tion. *.
- ireparing maps, diagram’s:” lible’s:‘l’Ltc’:’ for inclusion in Environmental Assessment eports, Envrronmental .Study Reports ‘and Preliminary .Design, Reports. 4 ~’ !’ I. 9 ,... . . . ; I 3
- establishing detailed horizontal alignment and carrying out.the geometric ‘.
calculations of channelized intersections and interchanges.
establishing detailed vertical alignment by? ensuring passing and stopping sight distances, optimum balance of cut and fill materials, compatibility birth o_l: existing conditions and by, splining g,rades where necessary to effect a proper .:I’~ ‘. : IL., design solution. ;. :(I ,,:,i , : ,,. .I., 18 ,...‘,l I.! , ~.;.I .,I,., .:,:. I.‘,, I .I.,.
‘-, carrying out deteiled drainage~studies by calculating run-off designing side .*I,.
and offtake drtches Including stream diversions, desr nin
% F
cu verts, storm a,.‘~” ,‘I,
i
sewers and sub-drams to ensure proper surface and su sur ace drelnage, and: ;,
,’ designing erosion prevention features. .I ‘\
L
identifying utility &nfliat areas. ,in orders to X$sist;in determining.‘the. need 1 ’
fo_r =elo_ce*of .ytilitieq,., ,_: .: r - .-.- _ ~~ _ .. _ . . . _ .I_
-‘:” preparin
_ -~ _ ~. _ _ .-L L. ~~. ;,~ ~.;- _ . .
:_~ desrgns f _I
!
(Continued)
;... ‘:
.;. i. ~,~‘.
, /I I..&..?
.
(8 i e- (8 i e- . . - ‘calculeting,.summarizing, - ‘calculeting,.summarizing, i.tems, i.tems, and’finalizing all quantity estimates for tender and’finalizing all quantity estimates for tender msterlals supplied, sundry construction, msterlals supplied, sundry construction,
contract documents. contract documents.
and preparing the necessary and preparing the necessary
- attending Regional~Contract Reviews in the absence of the Senior Designer. ,::
. On Droiects involving onlv one designer. and under the suoervision ok a Senior Pro*ecE Manager, Project kanager 6:~ 1% pre 1. iminary and detail designs, tinal documents for.Transportation Systems
,- performing all of the tasks listed under.,duties 1 above.
- reviewing, documents, ensuring the corn leteness of, and jncorporacing into the contract informatign supp P.
other sources. led by other sectlons wlthln the Minlstry or from
- reviewing fina! contract drawings and tender documents Prior to submission to the Seplor ProJect Manager, ProJect Manager, or.the Design Producti n
Supervisor, ensurIne compliance with standard MInIstry practices an 3
methodology, speciflc.ations and standards.
_ attending Regional Technical Reviews.
- assistin design o at public meetings during the vaiious phases.of the plan’tiing and pl the projects.
. Performs other related duties such as:
0% - accompanying supervisor on field inspections to obtain first hand knowledge of
local conditions.
- assisting in the preparation of correspondence for the pur ose of obtaining and supplying information relevant to the planning or design o P aproject.
- reviewing the effect of design proposals on subdivisions, building and entrance permit applications.
. - acting as a team member, when required, on internal technical study teams.
- “referring unusual problems to the ~Senior Designer, Project Manager or Senior Project Manager.
Design Production Supervisor,
- maintaining the technical progress of a project during the absence of the Senior Designer when so designated.
- providing informal instruction in established drafting, design and estimating procedures to junior members of the work unit.
- checking work completed by other members oft the work unit to ensure accuracy and completeness. .A
- checking drawings and estimaves prepared by, consultants, district staff, construction staff and other’agencies to ensure that standard procedures have
been adhered to.
- as assigned.
SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE W@RK (Continued) ::,
A working .knowledge of soil mechanics; intersection and interchange g:ometry,
structural parameters, and good construction and engineering survey ractices.
P.
The
bility to communicate effectively, both orally and in wrltlpg. Abi lty,to interpret
ind apply all types of data relev~ant to the planning and design of a.proJect.
--I_
-,~ - --__