Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-1190.Armstrong et al.90-02-281 ONTARIO EMPLOY~SDEU CO”RONNE CROWNEMPLOYEE.s DEL’ONTARIO GRIEVANCE CPMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 1190/87, 1191/87 IN TEE MATTER OF AN WITRATION Under THE CROWN ENPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.ACT' Before TBE GRIEVANCE SETTLEHENT BOARD BETWEEN: OPSEU (Armstrong et al) .Grievor BEFORE: FOR TAR GRIEVOR: FOR TBE EAPLOYER: HEARINGS: - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) Employer M.R. Gorsky vice-chairperson T. Kearney Member D. Walkinshaw Member N. Roland Counsel Cornish & Associates Barristers & Solicitors J. Benedict Manager Staff Relations and Compensation Ministry of Correctional Services July 28, 1989 August 11, 1989 November 9, 1989 DECIiION The grievors are employed by the Ministry of Correctional Services at the R'deau Correctional Centre, which is located at Burritts Rapids, Ontario. The grievor, Donald A. Armstrong, has the position title of Farm Manager and is classified as an Agricultural Worker 4. The grievors, John D. Buchanan and Carl Patterson,each hold the position title of Farm Worker and each of them has the classification title of Agricultural Worker 1. Each of the grievors alleges that he has been improperly classified and each of them requests that he be properly classified and be given full pay, benefits and interest, retroactive to May 1, 1985. As will be noted later in this Award, the latter claim was amended to cover the period commencing twenty days prior to the filing of the grievances. Each of the grievors relies on a class standard argument and each of them claims that his best fit is not within his present classification, which is in the Agricultural Worker series, but submits that his best fit is within the Industrial Officer class series. Counsel for the grievors placed great reliance on the case of ( O.P.S.E.U. Townsend et al (Ministry of Correctional Services) 0004/85 ETC. In that case t.here were a number of classification grievances dealing with employees at the Guelph Correctional Centre. The Board, there, heard evidence concerning the grievance of Mr. Townsend alone. It was there alleged that the grievor ( Mr. Townsend) was improperly classified as an Agricultural Worker 2 and the remedy sought was reclassification as / i ; an Industrial Officer. In the first decision relating to the Townsend case, dated February 26, 1987, the majority of the Board noted at p.4: . . . the Agricultural Worker series is not peculiar to this Ministry, the Industrial Officer series is. Classifications in the Correctional category, such as the Industrial Officer series, recognize the custodial responsibility of the incumbents. Classifications which are not in the Correctional category may not recognize custodial responsibility. Accordingly, the parties have agreed for a number of years that employees who are classified in jobs that do not normally recognize a custodial component should be paid an allowance to compensate them for'this responsibility. That allowance is set out in Appendix 9 to the collective agreement between the parties... and the conditions necessary to receive the allowance are set out...in the Appendix.... The grievor has received the Custodial Responsibility Allowance for as long as he has been classified as an Agricultural Worker." The grievors, in this case, received the Custodial Responsibility Allowance at all material times. Their custodial responsibilities are with respect to inmates who were described as medium or minor security risks. The grievor in the Townsend case was a graduate of Humber College's three-year Landscape Technologist diploma course, which is equivalent to the Ontario Diploma in Horticulture. In the Townsend case, it was agreed that the position specification for the grievor's position title of Greenhouse Officer fairly accurately setsout his duties and responsibilities which were as follows: "1. Under seneral supervision, incumbent,ulans, coordinates and supervises the efficient operation of the cireenhouse facilities, bv: ,’ A 3 - receiving orders for plants, shrubs, etc. via supervisor for various institutions and agencies such as Main Office, Ontario Milk Board, Cecil Facer School, Guelph C.C., Niagara, Quinte, Hamilton & Toronto Detention Centre, etc. and entering orders in order book; - preparing planting schedules in order to meet delivery dates; - estimating quantities of supplies required, such as seedlings, insecticides, fertilizers, planters, etc and requisitioning supplies through supervisor; - liafsing with institutions and agencies regarding delivery dates and method of pick-up and delivery; - ensuring that heating and air circulation systems in the greenhouses are in efficient working condition and adequately controlled; - recommending changes in final costs, cheaper methods of operation, supplies, etc to supervisor; - recommending the cancellation of orders if overstocking of plants or backlog of orders occurs; - ensuring that costs and wastes are kept to a minimum; - supplying plants via the Industrial Programmes Branch of ministry to facilities where planters produced by Maplehurst C.C. are sold; 2. Supervises and instructs an averaqe of twelve inmates assisned to the Greenhouses, bv: - escorting work party to and from work location; instructing and supervising inmates in the various operations and procedures applicable to the greenhouse operation such as pasteuring of soil, transplanting of seedlings, cultivating, fertilizing and weeding, use of pesticides, cleaning of flats and pots and the general care of annuals, perennials, ornamental shrubs, exotic plants, etc.; - assigning inmates to specific tasks commensurate with their aptitudes and abilities; - preparing written reports, evaluations and assessments of inmates' progress; - maintaining inmate discipline, counselling and warning 3. Performs other related duties, such as: - ensuring cleanliness and safety of greenhouses, equipment, tools, supplies, etc. - performing minor repairs to greenhouse and equipment and advising'maintenance department where more major repairs are required; - assisting in the designing of institutional flower beds, etc.; - ensuring that inmates are assigned for weekend duty to maintain proper heat levels, watering of plants, etc. in the greenhouses; - other duties as assigned." Hav ing heard the evidence of the grievors and the witnesses for the employer, I am satisfied that the description of the duties and responsibilities of the grievors is consistent with their evidence. Mr. Armstrong testified that his duties are accurately summarised in Exhibit No. 10, being an "Opportunity Bulletin" relating to his 4 regarding infractions and laying misconduct charges when necessary; - advising correctional staff of any inmate movement to or from work areas; - ensuring that operations are conducted in accordance with institution regulations pertaining to security, industrial safety, etc.; - checking inmates' work for adherence to proper standards, suggesting methods of improving performance and technical guidance; giving - supervising work party in the planting and maintenance of Guelph C.C. flower beds, borders, etc.; - supervising the construction of flats, hessian covers, hot beds, cold frames, preparation and packing of plants for delivery, etc. position. The duties are there set out as follows: DUTIES: Supervising all aspects of a 500 acre farm in its day- to-day operations, and supervising subordinate staff and inmate work programmes; consulting with Senior Assistant Superintendent to establish general requirements for production and distribution of crops, beef, pork and poultry. Providing responsible administrative and operational supervision of the various levels of agricultural workers; directing specialized farm operations such as produce, pork, beef, eggs, vegetables, feed, etc.; analyzing soil, crops, health of animals and advising in problem areas; developing storage, packing methods and establishing a method of distribution; directing the harvesting and storage of farm products, controlling deliveries of fresh produce; inspecting farm buildings and equipment. Planning and organizing the institutions's woodcutting operation by supervising work crews under the controi of Correctional Officers; liaising with Natural Resources regarding trees to be cut; submitting reports to Senior Assistant Superintendent regarding progress of operations. Supervising subordinate staff and CO 2s in charge of work parties; training new staff in specialized or general farm operations; assigning work to subordinates and co 2s; reviewing work of subordinates, evaluating and assessing their performance; issuing or approving work schedules, time off, vacations, etc. Reports to the Senior Assistant Superintendent. QUALIFICATIONS: Knowledge of agriculture, husbanding cattle, pigs and poultry. Prior experience in general farming. Knowledge of administrative techniques normally required to service a multipurpose farm. Good physical health. Possession of Grade 12 or Agriculture Diploma. Good planning skills. Good communication skills. Mr. Armstrong testified that his educational qualifications include a diploma in agriculture from the Kemptville Agricultural College. Mr. Armstrong described the farm that he manages as having 6 approximately 500 acres of workable agricultural land together with a further 500 acres of bushland. This is a large farm by the standards of Eastern Ontario. Of the workable land, 40 acres are devoted to growing potatoes, 4 acres to carrots, 4 acres to turnips, 4 acres to cooking onions, 1 acre to Spanish onions, and 1 to 4 acres to fresh garden crops such as tomatoes and cucumbers. One hundred and fifty acres are devoted to growing grain corn for use as formula feed for livestock and 45 acres of grain corn as silage for cattle, 20 to 60 acres of barley (grain or silage for cattle feed) with some of the residue baled as straw for bedding. One hundred and twenty to 160 acres are devoted to hayland. Some 6 to 12 acres is devoted to growing sweet corn for use as fresh produce. The farm also has approximately 2400 laying hens which are fed with the grain from the farm operation. The only additional resource used, which is not produced on the farm, is a certain amount of high protein feed supplement which is purchased privately. The farm also practices crop rotation for disease protection. The farm produces 150 pigs which are purchased as piglets and it also raises between 70 and 150 beef cattle for meat (depending on the time of year and the money available for this operation). Eggs produced by the laying hens raised on the farm in the chicken house are processed in cold storage and distributed to jails, correctional centres and detention centres in the Eastern region. 7 The meat operation cuts, wraps, freezes and tenders beef and pork produced using the services of a local butcher. The inmates truck the animals to the butcher and the meat is returned to the institution for distribution in the manner described in the case of eggs (above). The institution is responsible for distributing 90% of the eggs, 30% to 70% of the pork and 40% to 60% of the beef used in the Eastern region of the Ministry. The program governing the operation of the farm is referred to as the Self-Sufficiency Program, under which the institution endeavours to avoid, wherever possible, incurring costs for food. At the same time, the institution, through the grievors, is responsible for training the inmates in proper work habits within an agricultural food production environment. The grievors are responsible for teaching and directing the inmates, who perform all the work within their skill and ability. The grievors are also responsible for maintaining cost avoidance within the ambit of the Self-Sufficiency Program. In addition to the above items, the farm is expected to provide such horticultural crops as carrots, turnips, potatoes and corn to the institutions above referred to. The inmates involved in the training program at the Rideau Correctional Centre number ten to twenty during the winter months and twenty to thirty during the summer months. The grievors, in addition 8 to their other responsibilities, are responsible for the safety of inmates and other staff arising out of the farm operation. Mr. Armstrong testified that in addition to the grievors' responsibilities with respect to the production and distribution of agricultural products, there is a significant security concern because of the correctional nature of the Centre and the grievors must, on an ongoing basis, deal with the preparation of occurrence reports and the counselling of inmates arising out of instances of inappropriate conduct. In addition to the agricultural products grown, packaged and distributed under the direction of the grievors, they co-ordinate, with the Ministry of National Resources, the woodcutting operation, which occurs between December and the end of March. The grievors work with the Ministry of National Resources land expert in the marking of trees that are to be removed or harvested for forestry management and they are responsible to see that the trees are cut, that safety concerns are attended to and that the wood is transported for custom cutting for lumber. The lumber is then returned to the institution where it is used for building purposes or as firewood. The physical work, such as cutting and splitting wood is performed by inmates and their supervision is directed at introducing them to proper work procedures and habits. Mr . Armstrong stated that he and the other grievors would be 9 responsible for the assignment of training tasks to the inmates on an ongoing basis and each of them would make the decisions as to which program would be carried out at a particular time. As such operations as the raising of livestock and poultry are conducted year-round, and as other operations, such as the horticultural, field and woodcutting operations are seasonal, operations carried out on the farm frequently overlap. Inmates are assigned to particular tasks. Prior to sending them to perform a particular task, attendance is taken and recorded, usually by Mr. Armstrong, but not infrequently by the other grievors. Correctional officers are not involved in this aspect of the job, which includes transporting the inmates to particular locations within the farm for the performance of their duties. Inmates assigned to different responsibilities have their performance regularly reviewed by the grievors and reminders are given to them on an ongoing basis concerning the correct way of performing particular tasks. The grievors are responsible for furnishing constructive criticism, which will not discourage the inmates. Mr. Armstrong noted that the operation involves considerably more than planting and harvesting crops and raising chickens and livestock. Decisions must be made as to what to produce, how much to produce and where production will take place. Product has to be sorted, graded, packaged and loaded for transportation. In the case of chickens and 10 livestock, the grievors have to decide which animals .are .to be selected for slaughter. Additional decisions relating to the operation have to be made on an ongoing basis, including such matters as the harvesting of product and delivering it to cold storage, disassembling irrigation equipment and transporting it to other portions of the farm. The grievors rotate employees so that there is an even distribution of difficult and less difficult jobs among inmates. The grievors are in communication with other employees at the Centre and they are frequently responsible for conveying an inmate as a result of a request received on the two-way radios which they carry. I am satisfied that all of the day-to-day operations described are the responsibility of the grievors and that they have responsibility for the day-to-day running of the ,farm operation. This conclusion will be amplified upon further in this Award. The grievors are responsible for knowing the whereabouts of each inmate assigned to them. Mr. Armstrong referred to certain inmates who are assigned to the grievors from the Treatment Centre and from the Correctional Centre at the Rideau Correctional Centre. The Treatment Centre inmates are being treated for alcohol and drug abuse problems and are instructed in the development of skills which enable 11 them to deal with anger and develop life skills. The grievors are responsible for rating the progress of inmates in the Treatment Centre program, which program has an incentive rating system based on observable improvement. Because of on-going security concerns, the grievors last job of the day is to divide up the responsibility for checking all buildings and gates to see that they are left secured. The grievors are also responsible for seeing to it that the inmates are returned to their dormitory between 4:30 and 4:40 p.m. I am satisfied that the grievors carry out their duties and responsibilities with a minimum of supervision, as Mr. Armstrong's supervisor, Dwight Carroll, is rarely at the farm and Mr. Armstrong's recommendations with respect to the day-to-day operation of the farm, on the evidence adduced, were invariably followed by Mr. Carroll. Mr. Armstrong testified that his previous supervisor was the Senior Assistant Superintendent of the Centre. Following the latter's retirement, Mr.Carroll, Manager, Trades and Vocational Industries, at the Centre, became Mr. Armstrong's immediate supervisor. Mr. Carroll assumed his position in October of 1986. His duties and responsibilities relate to supervision in the following areas: food services, maintenance, five trades instructors, the Self-Sufficiency Program, member of the senior management team at the Centre. Mr. Carroll also chairs committees concerned with occupational health and 12 safety and fire and accident prevention. He is the co-chairman of the Inmate Work Board and is responsible for staff in all departments, He has a budgetary responsibility with respect to areas under his supervision, is responsible for program planning and has supervisory authority over certain department managers. He has a further responsibility to establish liaison with officials in the Ministry of Correctional Services and in other Ministries. He summarised his basic responsibilities and duties as relating to essential services. Mr. Carroll indicated that he would visit the farm, on average, once or twice a month. From the evidence, it is clear that the grievors are very good at what they do. Although Mr. Armstrong is the supervisor of the other two grievors, as well as two farm labourers and some students, it is evident that he has a management style which stresses consensus and leadership by example. All of the witnesses who testified did so in a straightforward manner. Mr. Armstrong testified that while he had a power of direction over the other grievors, when decisions had to be made concerning the operation of the farm, the three grievors discussed what had to be done, the options available, and, from the evidence, arrived at a consensual understanding. I am, nevertheless, satisfied that if consensus was unattainable, Mr. Armstrong would have to make the decision upon which an action was to be based. From Mr. Armstrong's perspective, all of the grievors were performing virtually the same tasks, as a team. They appeared to have thought of themselves as a team and to have functioned accordingly. The smooth 13 operation of the farm is both a tribute to Mr. Armstrong's powers of leadership and to the ability of the other grievors to adapt to his style of running the farm. When the evidence is closely examined, what emerges is an operation where Mr. Armstrong was clearly the leader and the one who directed the other grievors, but with such tact and sensitivity that no one of them would appear to be the supervisor. In cross-examination, Mr. Carroll acknowledged that Mr. Armstrong was responsible for the quality of what was produced on the farm and in this task he was assisted by the other two grievors. He also acknowledged that the three grievors assigned work tasks to the inmates and demonstrated proper working procedures in the manner described by all three grievors. He acknowledged the broad knowledge of farm management techniques possessed by all three grievers and agreed that such knowledge was necessary for them to carry out their respective responsibilities. One of the considerable differences between the positions of the parties was the emphasis placed by Mr. Armstrong, agreed to by the other grievors, of their independence in carrying out the functions above described. The situation described by them placed Mr. Carroll in the position of a supervisor who, because of his lack of knowledge of farm operations and farm management, was completely dependent on the their input, and particularly that of Mr. Armstrong, when it came to decisions relating to what should be produced, how it should be produced and, as well, the maintenance of quality. There was nothing 14 in Mr. Carroll's evidence which would dispute the fact that in the case of the day-to-day operations of the farm, the grievors were pretty well left to make the necessary decisions, with Mr. Armstrong being in charge. There was considerable difference between the parties, however, with respect to certain matters, such as the purchase of material and equipment necessary to carry out the farm operation. There was also a difference as to how the responsibility was handled for the actual planning with respect to such items as: woodcutting, the kinds of crops to be produced and the production of livestock and chickens. Reference was made to Exhibit No. 11, being the "Self-Sufficiency Program" for the Centre, being a two-year plan for 1989-90 and 1990- 91. It was agreed that the planning for the Self-Sufficiency Program was carried out annually, but the plan, while emphasizing the immediately upcoming year, looked beyond that year. The process concerned immediate needs, short term future needs. and long term future needs. Mr. Armstrong acknowledged that Mr. Carroll prepared documents such as Exhibit No. 11, but testified that the actual identification of needs was the responsibility of the grievors, in the first instance, and then by Mr. Carroll, with the further assistance of Mr. Armstrong. That is, Mr. Armstrong and the other grievors would meet to discuss the plan, arrive at conclusions and these conclusions were then put forward to Mr. Carroll by Mr. Armstrong in subsequent meetings. Mr. Carroll's contribution was said to be limited to putting into written form the material furnished to him by Mr. 15 Armstrong, based on the prior discussions and decisions arrived at by the grievors. Somewhat reluctantly, Mr. Armstrong acknowledged Mr. Carroll's overall management discretion. The two-year plan (Exhibit No. 11) is then used by Mr. Armstrong as a guideline in the management of the farm. Mr. Carroll, agreed with Mr. Armstrong's evidence that the grievors managed the farm on a day-to-day basis with decisions being made by them on an apparently consensual basis. I am satisfied, however, that the overall plan which they followed is represented by the two-year plan with respect to the Self-Sufficiency Program (Exhibit No. 1-l), the ultimate responsibility for which rests with Mr. Carroll, subject to its being approved by his supervisor, and so on, up the chain of command. While the carrying out of day-to-day responsibilities on the part of Mr. Armstrong and the other grievors involves the supervision of farm contracts performed by outside contractors, including the furnishing of goods, this can be seen as part of the acknowledged work of the grievors of running the farm in accordance with a pre- determined plan. I think that Mr. Armstrong accurately stated the role of the grievors, and particularly himself, in their relationship with Mr. Carroll. Recommendations are made to Mr. Carroll, after discussion between the grievors, a recommendation almost inevitably coming from Mr. Armstrong. On the basis of the agricultural expertise of the grievors, information was given to Mr. Carroll who made such decisions as to whether a new product or process should be chosen in the operation of the farm. Mr. Carroll had to place, and did place, , . 16 great reliance on the input from the grievors, usually transmitted through Mr. Armstrong, because of Mr. Carroll's lack of knowledge and experience in the day-to-day running of a farm operation. In this respect, he was little different from many administrators who lack professional expertise in the area they administer. They are not hired as experts in the field, but as administrators and facilitators. Such persons, inevitably, must accept most of the information they receive from persons with the actual expertise of carrying out particular day-to-day operations. Such a situation does not deprive the supervisor of his or her designated supervisory role. There may be occasions where a supervisor has, in fact, abandoned any true supervisory role and transfers this responsibility, through inaction, to the person or persons being supervised. This is not the case here. I believe that Mr. Armstrong, without any improper intent, tended to downplay the role of Mr. Carroll. I believe this was done because of the apparent excellence of the information furnished by him to Mr. Carroll, so that it might appear to Mr. Armstrong, and the other grievors, that there was no real supervision from Mr. Carroll. Mr. Armstrong referred to his responsibility in the area of personnel matters involving the granting of time off. He stated that during the tenure of Mr. Carroll's predecessor, this responsibility had been delegated to him. I am satisfied that Mr. Armstrong was given some leeway in arranging work schedules during the week and this would leave room for accommodating the wishes of the other grievors, . . 17 and of the casual farm workers and students employed in the farm operation, but that the subject of compensating leave remained the ultimate responsibility of Mr. Carroll. I am also satisfied that Mr. Carroll paid close attention to such significant matters as the needs of the various institutions serviced through the Self-Sufficiency Program. While Mr. Armstrong would be quite autonomous in the case of small equipment purchases, it was necessary for him to pass on larger items. Mr.' Carroll was responsible for the budget submitted under the Self- Sufficiency Program and had to consider, and did consider, the input furnished through Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong had some input in terms of personnel matters, such as the hiring of staff and casuals, but the decision, above Mr, Armstrong, was that of Mr. Carroll. If complaints arose under the Self-Sufficiency Program, for example, from other institutions being serviced, these would ultimately have to be dealt with by Mr. Carroll. His budgetary responsibilities were such that his was a decision made in a real sense using the input furnished by the grievors, and particularly Mr. Armstrong. A further example of the extent of Mr. Armstrong's responsibility is found in Exhibit No. 12, which is a production report for the Self- Sufficiency Program from April 1, 1988 to March 31, 1989. The report contains such significant information as production quantities and the cost of production, which report permits an evaluation of the success of the program in meeting its goals. Supplementary information is ,L 18 also found in the report showing whether the planned value and cost of production was met. Once the target figures were arrived at, it was Mr. Armstrong's~ responsibility, with the assistance of the other grievors, to meet the goal established. The establishment of the goals, however, were Mr. Carroll's with the assistance of the input from Mr. Armstrong and the other grievors. Mr. Armstrong downplayed the involvement of Mr. Carroll because the figures which were collected and entered in the form came from a variety of sources but were submitted by Mr. Armstrong with the assistance of the other grievors. The same comments are applicable to other reports such as Exhibit No. 13, which is a list of Self-Sufficiency reports presented by Mr. Armstrong to the office manager, Mr. J. Snelgrove. Exhibit 13 lists seventeen reports covering such items as Market Hog Inventory, Feeder Cattle Inventory, Laying Hen Inventory, Invoicing All Produce to Jails and Centres, Monthly Consumption Reports of All Self- Sufficiency Products for Jails and Centres, Annual Reports With Respect to the Latter Item. These reports are gathered by all three grievors and, consistent with Mr. Armstrong's evidence, any one of them could make any particular entry, He did note, however, that certain of these reports were done exclusively by himself and the rest were done "co-operatively". He stated that he was exclusively responsible for the preparation of Monthly and Annual Consumption Reports of all Self-Sufficiency products for jails and centres and for the input into MBR reports. Another example of Mr. Armstrong's view that he had greater 19 authority than is actually the case relates to the purchase of items necessary to carry out the farm operations. Requests are made by Mr. Armstrong by completing a standard requisition form which is submitted to Mr. Carroll for approval. Mr. Carroll reviews the request to see whether funds have been allocated for such purchase, and, if so, he signs to indicate his approval. This is then forwarded to the office manager who executes the document authorising the purchase to be made. Depending on the amount, the office manager is required to check to see if funds have been budgeted for such items. If not allocated, funds must be obtained through an application for special funding, which is completed by Mr. Carroll. Mr. Carroll identified the role of Mr. Armstrong in relation to the Self-Suff i of furnishing information to Mr. Carroll. sought directly from Mr. Patterson and Mr. absence of Mr. Armstrong, and reference to ciency Program, as one I Information would be Buchanan only in the Messrs. Patterson and Buchanan for such information occurs infrequently. Requisitions for the purchase of items to run the farm are not received from either Mr. ion. Patterson or Mr. Buchanan to the best of Mr. Carroll's recollect Mr. Carroll's description of Mr. Armstrong's role in the preparation of the budget is consistent with Mr. Armstrong's evidence. Mr. Armstrong drafts the budget for the attention of Mr. Carroll, who then reviews it with Mr. Armstrong, at which time it is discussed in detail. Mr. Armstrong explains to Mr. Carroll why funds are being sought for specific purposes and, in Mr. Carroll's description, they try to "fine tune" the budget. Mr. Carroll then takes the budget to 20 senior management at a budget meeting and submits it with the necessary explanations for the items contained. When approved, the budget is sent forward for further approval within the Ministry. Mr. Carroll testified that he does not rubber-stamp the draft budget, but first satisfies himself that the money requested is required and,.if not, the item is deleted. While Mr. Armstrong is, no doubt, correct that most of his submissions are accepted, that cannot detract from the significant role of Mr. Carroll, which is consistent with his supervisory responsibilities. The extent to which the grievors maintained that their positions were the same can be seen from an examination of Exhibit No. 5, which is headed "Position Description of Armstrong, Patterson and Buchanan". This document was prepared by counsel for the grievors, the contents being furnished to him by them. I have found that the duties and responsibilities of the grievors were not the same and my conclusions are set forth above. Much of the description of the duties and responsibilities is valid, but it is incorrect in certain material respects. Exhibit No. 5 is attached to this Award. In the "Purpose of the Position", the grievors state: "consulting with Senior Assistant Superintendent to establish general requirements for the production and distribution of crops, beef, pork and poultry...." The reference to the Senior Assistant Superintendent should now be to Mr. Carroll. As noted above, it is Mr. Carroll who consults with Mr. Armstrong, and it is Mr. Carroll who has the responsibility to prepare the documentation for further approval as 21 it relates to this item. Mr. Carroll consults with Mr. Armstrong, who consults with Messrs. Patterson and Buchanan. Under "Summary of Duties and Responsibilities", there is reference to: "estimating, requisitioning and maintaining farm supplies, machinery and property". I have found that the requisitioning of farm supplies, machinery and property is in accordance with Mr. Carroll's evidence. As long as it is understood that the request contained in the requisition has to be reviewed and approved by Mr. Carroll and, on occasion, by Mr. Snellgrove, and sometimes by others, the statement is correct. In his evidence, however, Mr. Armstrong placed a gloss on his role which is inaccurate, although I am satisfied that he, at no time, endeavoured to mislead the Board. In referring to the subject of "design, construction of farm structures", Mr. Armstrong stated that the grievors dealt only with rudimentary matters such as dimensions; whether the structure should be heated, insulated and how it should be foundation: full or otherwise (floating slab insulated; the k ind of ,- 1. The item "issuing or approving work schedules, time off, vacations, et cetera," is not entirely accurate. It would appear that Mr. Armstrong is given a fair amount of latitude in this area. That cannot be said about the function of either Mr. Patterson or Mr. Buchanan. . 22 As I have also indicated above, it is Mr. Armstrong who, notwithstanding his own perceptions, is engaged in the application of "administrative techniques required to service a multi-purpose farm in the context of a provincial correctional institution setting." This is so, notwithstanding the administrative technique that he employs in incorporating Messrs. Patterson and Buchanan into the decision-making process. Mr. Armstrong testified that within the confines of the farm operation, security arrangements with respect to inmates devolve on himself and Messrs. Patterson and Buchanan. He stated that it was not usual to have the assistance of Correctional Officers. He described certain times when Correctional Officers were available. One of these occasions occurred with the opening of the Treatment Unit at the Centre, when the staff of Correctional Officers doubled. In order to familiarize them with the Institution, they were temporarily assigned to different areas, including the farm operation. Other, infrequent, occasions when a Correctional Officer or Officers were present occurred when one of the grievors requested additional help for security reasons. Mr. Armstrong stated that if a security problem arose with an inmate, any one of.the grievors could give the inmate verbal counselling and other possible actions included the laying of misconduct charges and requesting that the inmate be locked-up. According to the evidence of Mr. Armstrong and the other grievors, they spent approximately 60% of their time in the process of supervising and instructing inmates. In carrying out the training ‘J function, the inmates, as above noted, did most of the work, with the grievors only doing the more complex or high risk jobs. The grievors, therefore, have dual roles: the production of food as part of the Self-Sufficiency Program, which goes further than the mere production of product but includes grading, packaging, storing and distribution. The challenge is to meet the production levels so that product can be distributed, as required, to the receiving institutions in the Eastern Region. Given the nature of the institution, the grievors have a significant responsibility with respect to the training, instruction and supervision of inmates in the carrying out of a variety of farm operations. The training of inmates involves instruction in the operation of a variety of kinds of farm equipment in a safe manner. Equipment used on the farm includes agricultural tractors, some with front end loaders, ploughs, discs and cultivators. There are planters, potato harvesters, feed mixers, snowblowers, agriculturai sprayers, self- unload .i blades ng wagons, standard farm wagons, three-point hitch grader and a large variety of agricultural hand tools. Mr. Armstrong acknowledged his responsibility to act as supervisor of the other farm staff (two casual, unclassified staff) and some students but stated that because of the size of the farm and the isolation of certain operations, Messrs Datterson and Buchanan frequently had to be "self-supervising". He did acknowledge that when 24 "push comes to shove" he is the supervisor. He noted that as supervisor he attended all meetings relating to the Self-Sufficiency Program and was the spokesperson for the farm operation. Mr. Armstrong testified that in addition to supervising casual employees and students, the grievors also, infrequently, supervised Correctional Officers. It was put to Mr. Armstrong, in cross- examination, that Mr. Carroll would be called as a witness who would testify that this never happened. Mr. Armstrong stated that he or the other grievors "may" have supervised Correctional Officers on one or two occasions during Mr. Carroll's tenure, which commenced two to three months prior to the filing of the grievance. He emphasised that he believed that the grievors did, occasionally, supervise Correctional Officers prior to that time. Mr. Armstrong appeared to regard the supervision of Correctional Officers as including those occasions when Correctional Officers delivered the Self-Sufficiency product, each week, to the receiving institutions. The vehicles are driven by Correctional Officers, without the assistance of inmates, but the inmates load and unload the trucks. It was the position of the employer that the Correctional Officers, in the circumstances described, only drove the vehicles and were not involved in the loading and unloading process. TO be fair to Mr. Armstrong, he did not try to picture the way in which the three grievors functioned as being exactly the same. He 25 acknowledged that he was more likely to look after the setting of schedules and that Messrs. Patterson and Buchanan were more often responsible for overseeing the work done by contractors to ensure that it was being performed properly. He also noted that he was more likely to deal with outside suppliers and Ministerial representatives than were Messrs. Patterson and Buchanan. In his evidence, Mr. Buchanan agreed with the evidence given by Mr. Armstrong and added that he had, in his present position, supervised Correctional Officers involved with inmates who were part of the farm program. He referred to incidents where a load of potatoes was to be placed in a transport by a crew of eighteen inmates. In this circumstance, a Correctional Officer's presence was requested to keep count while the transport was unloaded. Mr. Buchanan stated that he instructed the officer how to maintain a count of the four different kinds of potatoes being unloaded. In cross- examination, he stated that the supervision of a Correctional Officer lasted for a period of between three and four hours and that the last time this had taken place was in April of 1989. In the example given, the grievor directed the work of the inmates while the Correctional Officer kept count of the potatoes. Mr. Patterson stated that he had been employed by the Ministry of Correctional Services for twenty-three years and prior to his 26 employment as an Agricultural Worker 1 had been a Correctional Officer 2. He agreed with the testimony given by Mr. Armstrong and added that he had a Correctional Officer assigned to him in 1988 during the harvest of carrots when he instructed the Correctional Officer to perform certain duties. The Officer's 'role was to supervise six inmates involved in the harvest. In cross-examination, Mr. Patterson acknowledged that he only had a Correctional Officer assigned to him infrequently. Both Mr. Patterson and Mr. Buchanan acknowledged that they had no right to have a Correctional Officer assigned to assist them. Mr. Carroll did not deny that Correct ,i onal Officers were assigned I to the grievors, but said that he was not aware that Correctional Officers had been assigned to the Self-Sufficiency Program. He expected that the Correctional Officers' supervision would focus on security perspectives. I do not believe that Mr. Carroll was suggesting that the grievors were not telling the truth when they described their involvement with Correctional Officers. In cross-examination, Mr. Carroll acknowledged that in the absence of Correctional Officers, with specific responsibility, the grievors were responsible for the security of inmates assigned to them. He also acknowledged that when a Correctional Officer was present with security responsibilities along with the grievors, then the security responsibility would be a shared one. On an examination of the evidence, I am satisfied that this would be the case. As noted above, the Union relied on the Townsend case as being binding upon us because of the Blake decision of the Chairman. In the Townsend case, the Board only heard evidence of one of the grievors in the case (Mr. Townsend). The grievance alleged that Mr. Townsend had been "improperly classified as an Agricultural Worker II and requested [the remedy] of reclassification as an Industrial Officer." As in the Townsend case, the grievors have received the Custodial Responsibility Allowance. In the Townsend case, the grievor estimated that he spent between 80 and 85% of his time supervising inmates and that inmates did virtually everything which required physical labour and that he spent his time instructing them how to do the work and going from person to person ensuring that production was on-line. In the case before us, I am satisfied that the gri approximately 60% of their time supervising inmates similar to that of the grievor in the Townsend case. ( case at p.8) evors spent in a manner See Townsend In the Townsend case (at p.9), the grievor, in operating the greenhouse, was said to be under the general supervision of his foreman. In the case of Mr. Armstrong, he was under the general supervision of Mr. Carroll, who was above the position of foreman. 28 Messrs. Patterson and Buchanan were under the general supervision of Mr. Armstrong as the farm manager. As in the case of the grievor in Townsend (at p.9), Mr. Armstrong made recommendations to his supervisor regarding all sorts of purchases with respect to the operation of the farm. In the Townsend case, the reference is to the operation of a greenhouse. Mr. Townsend also discussed with his supervisor the matter of purchases which were approved. In the Townsend case, the foreman sent the matter on to his supervisor. In the case before us, Mr. Armstrong functions as a foreman and his supervisor is Mr. Carroll. Mr. Armstrong has similar input into the planning function relating to the farm as did the grievor in the Townsend case in relation to the greenhouse operation, and he was left very much on his own to organize the work and run it on a day-to-day basis as was Mr. Townsend in the case of the greenhouse operation. The grievor in the Townsend case was assigned a work gang of inmates every day of the year in a manner similar to that applicable to Mr. Armstrong. In the case of Mr. Townsend the gang was made up of eight inmates (Townsend case, p.9). As in the case before us, Mr. Townsend was responsible for picking up the work gang, escorting them to the place of work and generally assigning work, supervising work and instructing inmates in proper work procedures. In the instant case, all grievors have engaged in the assignment of work and all of them regularly supervise the work of inmates and instruct them in proper procedures. As in the Townsend case, instruction is given on 29 a one-to-one basis (Townsend, p.9). In the Townsend case (pp.9-lo), Mr. Townsend was responsible for preparing various reports on inmates. In the case before us, all of the grievors were involved in preparing reports on inmates, as above described. As in the Townsend case (at p.lO), the grievors, in the case before US, may supervise some Correctional Officers doing agricultural work, and I am satisfied that the grievors gave them some direction in the carrying out of their duties, although such occurrences were infrequent. As is evident from this Award, a good deal of evidence was led concerning the custodial responsibilities of the grievors,and its extent, and the significance of the payment of the Custodial Responsibility Allowance. As in the Townsend case (at p.25-26), .we agree that it is irrelevant if a grievor is paid the Custodial Responsibility Allowance when it is required to determine whether a job is properly classified: The payment of the allowance is consistent with the Employer's position that the job in question is not one which is in the Correctional Series where custodial responsibilities in relation to inmates are recognised. Clearly, whenever the allowance is paid, the Employer is recognizing that the employee is called upon to perform custodial duties. It assumes that there is a proper classification of the employee's job before the allowance becomes payable. If the job is not properly classified, the fact that the allowance is paid does not correct the wrong. We do agree, though, that if an employee's job is properly within a class series which does not recognise such responsibility as being part of the job, then the fact that those responsibilities are assigned when the job 30 is performed within a correctional facility should not enable the employee to claim that his job should be classified in any of the 'classes which already take into account responsibility for the control of inmates... .' In the Townsend case (pp.28-9), the majority of the Board made a statement which clearly identified the problem which affected the Board there and which, equally, affects the Board here: The real difficulty in this situation may be that there is too much of a disparity between the non-correctional classifications, such as Agricultural Worker, which require virtually the same responsibilities and comparable skills as employees in the Industrial Officer class series and the correctional classifications... . The issues to be considered by the Townsend Board are identical to those before this Board. In the Townsend case (at pp.23-24), it is stated: P, . . . We consider that the proper way to determine the issue in this case is to compare the grievor's duties and responsibilities to the class definition of Agricultural Worker II...given the basic definitions of terms used in the Agricultural Worker class standard, the Guelph Correctional Centre would have to be considered either a 'provincial government building' or an 'institutional farm'. The class definition for Agricultural Worker II insofar as it applies to either of these places of work, clearly covers only one 'group leaders of two or more employees performing agricultural work at a provincial government building or institutional farm...' The grievor is not a group leader. There are no other employees who work as his subordinates. The class standards clearly indicates that inmates at institutions do not meet the definition of subordinates. To argue that the grievor is more than an Agricultural Worker I and less than an Agricultural Worker III and so must be an Agricultural Worker II is to ignore what the class definitions set out in the Agricultural Worker series. It would appear that the progression within the series is based upon greater responsibility in relation to the operation of a particular unit and/or the supervision of employees. The Agricultural Worker II classification is dependent solely upon the supervision of employees; it is impossible to read it reasonably otherwise." Further, at page 25 of the Townsend decision, it is stated: Assuming that the grievor is properly within the Agricultural 31 Worker series and that his responsibility in relation to the greenhouse operation does not meet the test of being 'fully responsible' or 'supervising gardener' [as is provided for in the Agricultural Worker III] it is not a proper act of classification, in our view, to place the job in a classification where the duties do not meet the class definition by any stretch of the imagination or the words used to define the class. It is therefore our view that the grievor is not properly classified as an Agricultural Worker II.... It is evident from the decision of the majority of the Board in the Townsend case that it was only after they concluded that the grievor was not properly within the Agricultural Worker series that they examined the applicability of the Industrial Officer class series. In the Townsend case, the majority of the Board did not find that the grievor was not performing agricultural work. The series was not applicable to him, as written, because he did not fit within the language used in the class definitions. In the case of Mr. Armstrong, he can be seen to fit within the class ! definition in the following manner: he is a senior supervisor "responsible for implementing extensive work programs" at an institutional farm. He also fits under the rubric of -a person who directs "a large scale subordinate agricultural unit requiring four or more subordinate agricultural staff". In addition to the two other qrievors, there are two part-time casual agricultural workers or farm labourers, and there are students working from time to time in an agricultural capacity. In addition, he could be seen to be the manager of "a satellite farm physically separated from the main 32 establishment". As I have also noted above, "general direction is provided by [an]... administrative...supervisor". Mr. Armstrong also fits within the definition of a supervisor of a large scale industrialunit in that he plans, coordinates and assigns work to four or more subordinates, gives technical direction, evaluates work performance and maintains discipline. He also estimates and requisitions supplies and is responsible for the discipline of staff and maintenance of equipment in his unit. It was acknowledged that while the imposition of disciplinary suspensions or discharges would have to be imposed by Mr. Carroll, Mr. Armstrong has an important role in recommending the imposition of discipline and, at a lesser level, could issue warnings. As a manager of an institutional satellite farm, Mr. Armstrong is responsible for the estimating and ordering of all operational supplies. He plans the work schedules, instructs and disciplines staff and is responsible for all aspects of the operation of the unit. His responsibility for discipline is consistent with the general direction furnished by Mr. Carroll. It is important to note that, unlike the case of Mr. Townsend, Mr. Armstrong does fit within the Agricultural Worker 4 class definition 55 and the fit is a comfortable one. Such anomaly as may appear to exist between Mr. Armstrong's position and that of Mr. Townsend is entirely a result of Mr. Townsend's not fitting into his original classification of Agricultural Worker II, because he did not supervise anyone within the meaning of the class definition. The work that he did clearly did not fall within either the Agricultural I or Agricultural Worker III class definitions, which were the only ones apparently considered. When the majority of the Board concluded that there was no fit available for Mr. Townsend within the Agricultural Worker class series, it proceeded to examine the applicability of the Industrial Officer series to him. While the majority of the Board in the Townsend case concluded that the Industrial Officer series could apply to persons performing certain agricultural work, they did not state that Mr. Townsend was not performing agricultural work. They merely concluded that the nature of this work could be considered industrial in nature so as to enable it to examine the Industrial Officer class definitions when the Agricultural Worker Class Series was clearly inapplicable to him. Accepting the majority's findings that certain types of agricultural operations can be treated as industrial in nature within the Industrial Officer class series, I can not find that Mr. Armstrong performs duties and responsibilities that represent a better fit with the Industrial Officer III class definition than with the Agricultural Worker 4 class definition. As was noted in the Townsend case, the performance of certain custodial responsibilities by Mr. Armstrong and 34 the receipt of the Custodial Responsibility Allowance is irrelevant in determining into which classification he falls. I accept the evidence that he spends 60% of his time involved in the supervision and training of inmates as the classification system has been developed, and as noted in the Townsend decision, provided the duties and responsibilities of Mr. Armstrong place him within the Agricultural Worker series, which does not recognise custodial responsibilities as being part of the job: the fact that those responsibilities are assigned when the job is performed within a correctional facility should not enable the employee to claim that his job should be classified in any of the 'classes which already take into account responsibility for the control of inmates...'. (Townsend case at pp.25-26) I repeat this quotation because of its significance to the facts of this case. The.Agricultural Worker class series does not recognize custodial responsibilities as being part of the job. This may seem unfair, but it is not a factor which can assist us in ascertaining the correct classification of the grievors. The responsibility allowance provides as one of the requirements for its receipt that employees: (c)(i)... are required for the major portion of their working time, to direct inmates... engaged in beneficial labour or (ii)or as group leaders/leadhands, they are directly responsible for the major portion of their working time, for operations involving the control of a number of inmates...engaged in beneficial labour; and (d)they are responsible for the custody of inmates...and their charge and are required to report on their conduct and lay charges where breaches of institutional regulations occur.... On the basis of the evidence of the grievors, we have concluded that they spend the majority of their working time involved in such 35 supervision. In the case of Messrs Patterson and Buchanan, the uncontradicted evidence given by them and by Mr. Armstrong is that they have a role in supervising the two part-time casual workers who assist in the running of the farm as well as in the supervision of students who function as farm labourers. I am satisfied that Mr. Carroll was aware of the functions being carried out by Messrs Patterson and Buchanan and of their relationship to subordinate employees. But for their supervisory responsibilities, Messrs Patterson and Buchanan, would fit within the Agricultural Worker I class definition. At an institutional farm, such as the one located at the Rideau Correctional Centre, "these employees work under the general supervision and within the routines established by senior agricultural staff. They usually receive detailed instructions only in unusual situations." While they have not, as Mr. Armstrong endeavoured to persuade us, assumed his position in a functional sense, they are much closer to "group leaders of two or more employees performing agricultural work at a . . . institutional farm . . . . The work is performed under the general supervision of a professional administrative or agricultural supervisor and according to established methods and procedures." In their function as group leaders, I find that they have been given a responsibility to organize and direct the daily activities of the subordinate agricultural workers and students engaged in 36 agricultural work and that they participate in the duties of leir assigned area. Given the level of independence assigned to them, they determine priorities and explain new projects and provide instruc iion in the use of equipment and check the accuracy of the completene: s of work of the subordinates. The fact that Mr. Armstrong does thi: , as well, does not detract from the assignment of this responsibili- ( to the grievors, Patterson and Buchanan. They transmit the instruc- ions of Mr. Armstrong to the subordinates and it is clear that chey recommend on such matters as manpower and equipment requirement: and changes in work methods for improved efficiency. The only matter lpon which I heard no evidence was their being able to cal Iion subordinates, but I understood that they would refer discipl: lary problems to their supervisor. From the evidence, it appears tha- the operation has functioned so smoothly that difficult situations lave been avoided and discipline does not appear to have been a prob: ?m. Given the way in which the duties and responsibilities of the grievors Patterson and Buchanan have been permitted to develop, and there was no suggestion that they had undertaken t lese responsibilities without instruction or permission, their best f: .: is within the Agricultural Worker II classification. It is evident from the Townsend case that the Industriai Of: Leer classification was only resorted to when a fit could p& be f )und within the Agricultural Worker class series. 31 As was noted in the Townsend case at pp.28-29: . , . there is too much of a disparity between the non-correctional classifications, such as Agricultural Worker which requires virtually the same responsibilities and comparable skills as employees in the Industrial Officer class series, and the correctional classifications.... Unfortunately for the grievors, unlike the grievor in the Townsend case, they fit, and fit very well, within the Agricultural Worker series. While it would be possible to find a counterpart within the Industrial Officer class definition where each of the grievors would fit, employing the definition of "industrial" used by the majority in the Townsend case, the fact is, where, as in this case, the agricultural series & applicable to the grievors,and where it could be argued that the Industrial Officer class series is equally applicable, the pay disparity is not the determining factor. We can not overlook the agricultural nature of the work being performed by the grievors. Its existence in a correctional facility, as was noted in the Townsend case, is irrelevant. We must take the classification system as we find it. It is hardly a perfect system and can iead to some strange conclusions. This Board is also a prisoner of this system (no pun intended). This Board has no power to place the grievors in the Industrial Officer classification series merely because of the apparent unfairness which the majority of the Board pointed out in the Townsend case. Persons doing essentially the same job, in terms of identified duties and responsibilities, are placed in different classification series with marked pay differentials. 38 Where there is no evidence of bad faith in adhering to a C lassification system which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the employer, in the sense that the establishment of classifications itself is not the subject of the grievance procedure, this Board can only adjudicate on the question of whether an employee was properly .classified, accepting the classification system as a given. There was no such evidence of bad faith. In arriving at our conclusion that the grievors are all within the Agricultural Worker class series, we do not take issue with the finding of the majority in the Townsend case that some agricultural operations could also be treated as industrial within the meaning of the class standard for Industrial Officers. In any event, we would appear to be precluded from doing so by the Blake decision of the Chairman of the Board. Going one step further, and assuming that the operation in which the grievors were involved could, similarly, piace them within the Industrial Officer series, the fact situation before us is, as above set out, quite different from that a;,slied in the Townsend case, where the grievor, because of the nature of his duties and responsibilities, could not fit within the Agricultural Worker class series, and this had nothing to do with his duties and responsibilities being treated as non-agricultural. The majority in the Townsend case correctly saw that the Agricultural Worker class ification and the Industrial Officer class 39 series, in many respects, called for virtually the same responsibilities and comparable skills. In making a decision as to where to classify the grievors, we can not overlook the fact that they are primarily agricultural workers and that the majority in the Townsend case was not faced with the difficulty that affects us. That is, the grievors fit quite comfortably within the Agricultural Worker class series. The fact that they might also fit into one of the class definitions under the Industrial Officer class series, requiring virtually the same responsibilities and comparable skills, does not permit us to redress an apparent inequity. In arriving at our conclusions, we have, as can be seen, not refused to follow the Townsend case. The facts before us where different in a significant respect. In allowing the grievance, in part, by declaring that the grievors, Buchanan and Patterson, should be classified as Agricultural Workers 11, we recognize Mr. Armstrong's submissions that their duties and responsibilities are somewhat greater than that of Agricultural Workers I. All of the grievors, and especially Mr. Armstrong, perform their tasks in an estimatable fashion and it is unfortunate that their skill and dedication can not be otherwise rewarded. To accede to the submissions made on behalf of the grievors, on the facts of this case, would be to say that where employees engaged in agricultural work might be considered to also be involved in various industries, then, 40 all things being equal, they are to be placed within the industrial Officer class series, is to give predominance to the industrial nature of their duties and responsibilities. Where those same duties and responsibilities can, without straining the language employed, be viewed as agricultural, in a primary sense, and industrial only as a result of fairly complex analysis, there is no basis for preferring the Industrial Officer classification. In the result, the grievance of Mr. Armstrong must be dismissed. The grievances of Messrs. Patterson and Buchanan are allowed as above recorded. The grievors Patterson and Buchanan should be placed in the position of Agricultural Worker II and the relief afforded them should be back-dated twenty days from the date of the filing of their grievances. As agreed, we retain jurisdiction to deal with any difficulties experienced by the parties in the implementation of this Award. DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 28th day of Febt-u,at-y,~ @JO. POSITION DESCRIPTION OF ARMSTRONG, PATTERSON AND BUCHANAN PURPOSE OF POSITION To supervise all aspects of a 1000 acre farm in its day-to-day operations, and to supervise and instruct both subordinate staff and inmates who participate in work programmes: this purpose requires that institution security be maintained: consulting with Senior Assistant Superintendent to establish general requirements for production and distribution of crops, beef, pork and poultry: insuring that production targets are met and that the goals of the **Self-Sufficiency Programme" are met. SUMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Supervise the operations of the Rideau Correctional and~Treatment Centre Self Sufficiency Programme and the training and supervision of inmates and, sometimes Correctional Officers. In this context the incumbent has the following duties and responsibilities: 60%- Providing responsible administrative and operational supervision of the various levels of agricultural workers in the institution. - Seeding, cultivating, spraying, etc.. - Directing specialised farm operations such as provision of sufficient quantities of produce and production of pork, beef, eggs, vegetables, feed, etc. - Analysing the condition of the soil, crops, health of animals and advising in the problems areas. - Developing storage, packing methods of produce and establishing a method of distribution in a regionalized area. - Directing the harvesting and, storage of farm products, controlling deliveries of fresh produce. - Inspecting farm buildings, equipment and advising Senior Assistant Superintendent re the need for repairs, maintenance, etc. - Estimating, requisitioning and maintaining farm supplies, machinery & property. - Planning and scheduling inmate labour on the farm, assessing daily conduct, requesting removal of inmates from the work party for reasons of misconduct, security, or total unsuitability. - Keep constant check on quality and quantity of work produced by the different work parties, taking the appropriate action to rectify any substandard results. - Design, construction of farm structures. - Filling in as a driver for shipping of produce (cattle, pigs, logs to mills, pick-ups). - Supervising extra help, casuals, C02, students. 2 - Report writing, including "occurrence", "accident/injury", V'parole" and 8'misconduct" reports. - Provide security. - Supervise and instruct inmates in various activities in the operation of a 1,000 acre farm. - Insuring safety and instructing in safe farm production techniques. - Evaluate inmates for special jobs i.e., checking of work habits and setting up work schedules for barn workers, etc. - Acting as escort for inmates (temporary absence programme). - Setting schedules, arranging materials, overseeing work done by contractors. - Taking soil samples, rotating crops. - Setting formulas, ordering chemicals annually. - Evaluating conditions of crops, insects and disease. - Meeting production deadlines. - Scheduling production harvesting (potatoes, onions). - Estimating feed and produce material 6 mo. to 12 mo. in advance. - Calculating feeding formulas, scheduling feeding for livestock. - Estimating and ordering machinery parts and scheduling seasonal repairs. - Providing and compiling records, forecasts, reports and inventories. - Prepare weekly inmate treatment unit rating and evaluation forms. 20%- Planning and organizing the institution's .woodcutting operation by performing such tasks as: - Supervising work crews working within and outside of the institution under the control of correctional officers. - Liaising with Natural Resources regarding trees to be cut, etc. and arranging storage areas for wood once it is cut. - Submitting reports to Senior Assistant Superintendent regarding progress of any wood cutting operations. 20%- Supervising subordinate staff and C.0.2'~ in charge of work parties and assigned inmates by performing such tasks as: - Training new staff in general and/or specialised farm operations. - Assigning work to subordinates and C.O.2's, explaining requirements, demonstrating methods, etc. - Reviewing work of subordinates, evaluation and assessing their performance. - Issuing or approving work schedules, time off, vacations, etc. 3 SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE Knowledge of administrative techniques required to' service a multipurpose farm in the context of a provincial correctional institution setting. Work requires knowledge of agriculture, husbanding of cattle, pigs and poultry. Prior experience in general farming. Work requires that the incumbent be in good physical health. Possession of an Agriculture Diploma an asset, good communication skills, good planning skills.