Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0952.McDonald & Pasternak.92-01-27IN TRB RATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under TRB CROWN MPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING~ACT BEFORE : FOR THE GRIEVOR FOR-THE EMPLOYER REARING Grievor Before TBE GRIEVANCE SBTTLBMENT BOARD OPSEU (McDonald/Pasternak) - end - The Crown in Right 6f Ontario (Ministry of Citizenship) .~ Employer S. Stewart Vice-Chairperson I. Thomson Member Ii. Roberts Member V. Reaume Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Shilton Barristers h Solicitors J. Knight Counsel Fraser & Beatty Barristers & Solicitors December 4, 1990 May 30, 1991 November 19, 1991 - , DECISION The grievor-s, Mr. A. MacDonald and Mr. B. Pasternak, are employed as Business Development Officers in the Thunder Bay office of the Native Community Branch ,of the Ministry of Citizenship. The position specification for their position is attached hereto as Appendix A. The Business.Development Officer position is classified as IndustrialDevelopment Officer 1. The preamble to the Industrial Development Officer class series and the Industrial :Development Officer 1 and 2 class standards are attached hereto as Appendix B. The Union claims that the position OZ the grievors is improperly classified and that it ought to be classified as Industrial Development Officer 2. In the alternative, the Union seeks a "Berry order", an order'directing the Employer to properly classify the'position. At the outset of the hearing the Employer raised a preliminary issue with respect to the timeliness of the grievance. It was the position of the Employer that because the grievance was not submitted at stage two of the grievance procedure in accordance with Article 27.3.2 of the Collective Agreement the grievance ought to be deemed to have been withdrawn in accordance with Article 27.13 of the Collective Agreement. There was no dispute with respect to the facts giving rise to the timeliness issue. At this point we will also or..\ ,‘.~~’ 2 address additional background factsdealing with the filing of the grievance as there is an issue of retroactivity extending beyond twenty days prior to the filing of the grievances. Mr. MacDonald testified that the issue of re- classification of the, two Business Development Officer positions in the Thunder Bay branch was first raised in April, 1989, when the Director of the Branch, Mr. R. Dickson, stated that he felt there was a need- to reassess the classification of that position. Mr. MacDonald testified that Mr. Dickson made a committment to "do something" about the re-classification of these positions by September of 1989. Mr.-MacDonald stated that as no action had been taken by September,of 1989 he.discussed the matter furthe'r with Mr. Dickson who said that he would "get back to him". As Mr. MacDonald heard nothing further from Mr. Dickson he filed a grievance on November 22, 1989. Mr. Pasternak filed his grievance on December 7, 1989. Following the filing of the grievance the Employer undertook an audi,t of the grievor positions. In order to complete the audit it was agreed that the time limits for the Employer's response to the grievance at stage one would be extended to December 30, 1989. A further extension, until January.15, 1990 was'agreed to. The audit was prepared and -. -1 3 submitted to Mr. MacDonald.under cover of memorandum dated January 5, 1990. The Employer's reply at stage 1, denying the grievance, is dated February 9, 1990. Article 27.3.2 of. the Collective Agreement provides for 'the referral of a grievance at stage two within seven days of receipt of the'. decision .at stage one. The matter was submitted to the second stage of the grievance procedure by the Union by memorandum dated June 1, 1990. The explanation provided by the Union for the delay in the referral of the grievance to stage 2 was that there had been an adminizstrative oversight. Article 27.13 of the Collective Agre'ement provides that if a grievance has not been processed within the time prescribed it shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. The issue in this case is whether the grievors have been improperly classified. By virtue of section 18(2) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act an employee has the - statutory right to grieve his classification. It is settled law at the Grievance Settlement Board th,at the breach of a provision relating to timeliness does' not preclude a matter which an employee has a statutory right to grieve from proceeding to arbitration. (See Keeling, 45/78, (Prichard), upheld by the Divisional Court, 30 O.R. (;!a) 662.) However, we agree with Mr. Knight's submissionthat the delay in this matter may have implications in terms of the remedy that may 4. be ordered. This is a matter which is dealt with later in this decision. As previously noted, the grievors work out of the Thunder Bay office of the Native Community Branch. Thunder Bay is the regional headquarters for the district offices in the Northwest region. Mr. MacDonald commenced his employment with the Ministry in his current position in February, 1988. Mr. Pasternak commenced his employment in his position in March, 1988. Mr. MacDonald has a Bachelor of Arts degree and Mr. Pasternak is a CMA and has a Bachelor of Commerce. Mr. MacDonald had three years of experience in dealing with native communities in the area in which he was hired. Prior to that he was employed as a business development officer in the public service of the North West Territories. The mandate of the Native Community Branch is. essentially to help native communities determine their needs and develop plans to meet those needs. The main function'of the Branch in all three regions is to provide consultation services and assistance to native people, communities and organisations with respect to access tobusiness, capital and development programs, including provision of technical and financial assistance. At the relevant time, the Branch was involved in administering four main programs: 1. Northern Native Small Business Program .(NNSB) 2. Ontario Native Community Infrastructure I Program (ONCIP) 3. Native Small ,Business Centre:s Program (!&iBC) 4. Special projects and services grants. Mr. G. Besharah, whose title i's Area M~anager, is the supervisor of the grievors. There are two Business Development Consultants employed in the Northwest area who are also supervised by Mr. Besharah. These positions are classified as Industrial Development Officer 2. As well, there are five Native Development Consultants, classified as Community Development Officer 2; It is .the position of the Union that the grievors perform essentially the same duties as the Business Development Consultants. The Board heard evidence only from the two grievors. There was no evidence called by the Employer. Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Pasternak both gave extensive evidence regarding their duties. The audit report of the position, which was filed with the Board and which both parties agreed is accurate, sets out a detailed description of the work entailed in the position of the grievors. 6 The grant process works in the following manner. The Native Development Consultants in the field offices receive grant applications. The Native Development Consultants collect basic information and refer the. application to the Business Development Officer. The assignment to a particular Business Development Officer is based on its geographical origin. The Business Development Officer.is responsible for completing the application. This is accomplished by obtaining information related to~the criteria for the grant, assisting with the development of a business plan, assisting withthe'financial statements in terms of format and content, examining feasibility analyses of business plans, performing market analysis, financial analysis, and ensuring that the ,application packages is completed in accordance with guidelines before being presented to the Industrial Development Unit (the I'IDU"). If the Business Development Officer is not familiar with the proposed business he will carry out research to familiarize himself with it. Mr. MacDonald testified that he may return the application if it clearly does not comply with the program criteria. However, a client is entitled to insist that the application proceed for an assessment. Mr. MacDonald testified that many applications involve other provincial or federalgovernmentdepartments. He works with members of these departments to ensure that there is no : 7 overlap in funding and that common rules are applied. The IDU is composed of the Business Development Officers and the Business Development Consultants. They meet periodically to review applications which are presented by the Business Development Officer. On a few occasions the Business Development Consultantshave presentedapplications. Mr. Besharah may or may not attend the IDU meetings. The purpose of the meeting is to determine whether the application has sufficient merit that it ought to proceed to the Program Review Committee (the "PRC") at head office. At that meeting all persons engage in a discussion of the merits of the application and probe for any weaknesses. Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Pasternak testified that there has always been a consensus with respect 'to.tihether an application should proceed to the PRC. The Employer"s written policies suggest that the process to be followed.is a review of the work of the Business Development Officer by the Business Development Consultant and that the evaluation of the application is the sole responsibility of. the Business Development Consultant. However, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Pasternak were uncontradicted in their evidence that this is not the manner in which the work is carried out in.practice. Following the presentation of the application to the IDU and the decision to refer it to the PRC, a project analysis is prepared. The matter is then referred to Mr. Besharah, who ~-., ,. a is responsible for presenting the application to the PRC. As well as approving or rejecting applications the PRC periodically issues policy directives which the Business Development Officers are required to consider in assessing applications.. The project analysis is most commonly prepared by the Business Development Consultants. They sign'it, as does Mr. Besharah. On occasion, project analyses have been prepared by the Business Development Officers. The projects analysis contains background information with respect to the project and deals with matters such as ownership ,and management, staffing, market, a financial analysis, risk evaluation and a final reaommendation with respect to a.specific amount of funding. According to'the evidence before the Board, the information contained in the project analysis is information that was before the IDU at the time of their approval with the exception of the recommendation with respect to the distribution of funds, which is not discussed at the IDU meeting. The Business Development Consultant may do some additional research, but in general no additional research is carried out. The'IDlJ may decide that further research ought to be c'arri'ed out by the Business Development Officer, in which case the application will be.considered again by the IDU at a later meeting. The ultimate recommendationin the project analysis is the recommendation.of the IDU. 9 Mr. MacDonald testified that he has prepared project analyses as a special assignment on's few occasions. Mr. Pasternak also stated that be has prepared project analyses on a couple of occasions. Mr. MacDonald stated that the Business Development Consultants consult with the Business Development Officers with respect to the completion of the project analyses "from time to time". He stated that the Business Development Officers are often asked to "read over" the project analy.ses once they have been completed. The Business Development Consultants are required to verify an applicant's statement with r.espf!ct to equity in the course of preparing.a project analysis. However, .if the Business Development Officer has obtained a signed statement from a bank with respect to an applicant's equity itwill not be necessary for him to further verify the applicant's statement. If there is any ambiguity with respect to this matter the Business Development Consultantis responsible for . pursuing it. The Business Development Consultant is responsible for obtaining an applicant's credit rating. In cross-examination, Mr. Pasternak agreed with Mr. Knight's cha-racterization of the duties of the Business Development Consultant's in preparing the project analysis as "checking the viability of a project so they can recommend it with confidence". However, as previously noted, the evidence of _.-.., ! : . 10 the grievors with respect to their role in the recommendation of the project in, the context of the IDU meetings was uncontradicted. After the preparation of the project analysis the application is forwarded to the Northern Ontario Development Corporation where a financial analysis of the application is carried out. The entire package is forwarded to the PRC in Toronto which makes a recommendation to the Minister with respect to approval. The Minister ultimately decides whether or not the grantwillbe approved or rejected. If the grant application is rejected or amended the Business Development Officer may assist with the appeal procedure. The Business Deve.lopment Officer monitors the grant by,ensuring payments are received as required.' The Business Development Officer inspects the site at the completion of the project for compliance as set out in the original terms of the.agreement in order to complete a final report. Business Development Officers are responsible for visiting project sites one month prior to the completion of the project. Where the Business Development Officer determines that there has been a breach of terms and conditions he is required to adviselthe Business Development Consultant, who is responsible for investigating the situation and preparing a report for the area manager and the PRC. 11 As previously noted, the grievors obtain their work on the basis of the geographical area fromwhich the application originates. Unless a special request is made they are not given specific instructions fromtheirmanager. They perform their work within the guidelines contained in directives and manuals. Mr. MacDonald described the guidelines as "fuzzy at times" . They report on the work that they perform by recording the details of such work into a computer. Mr. Besharah has access to this information. There was no evidence with respect to the frequency of Mr. Besharah's review of the work of the grievors, other than the evidence of Mr. MacDonald, who testified that he was aware that Mr. Besharah did review this record of work but that he was unaware of the frequency with which this record was reviewed. Mr. MacDonald testified that he meets with his supervisor every two or three weeks, to clarify a situation or discuss a problem. Mr. MacDonald stated that he might approach Mr. Besharah for advice or Mr. Besharah may want clarification of a matter from him. The position advanced on behalf of .the Union was that the Industrial Development Officer 2 .class standard more accurately captures the essence of the duties of the position of the grievors than the Industrial Development Officer 1 class standard. In particular, Ms. Reaume submitted that the Business Development Officer position does not fit within the IL Industrial Development Officer 1 class standard as the grievers; do not carry out their work under "close supervision". As well, it was submitted that the work of this position does not fall within this class standard as'the work is.~ not checked "for accuracy of presentation and for interpretation of facts". Ms. Reaume also made reference to the fact that the qualifications for that position are stated to be a Masters Degree in Engineering, Commerce or a Business Administration, qualifications which neither of the grievors possess. Inher submission, however, the grievors do possess the qualifications referred to in the Industrial Development . Officer 2 class standard. Ms. Reaume notedthatthe Industrial Development Officer 2 class standard, in contrast to the Industrial Development Officer 1 class standard, refers to the performance of work under "general supervision", which, in her submission, is an appropriate characterisationof the kindof supervisionwhich is provided to the grievors. She also submitted that the reference in the class standard to employees normally receiving assignments in general terms and being expected to determine the detailed approaches and actions to be taken to attain the desired objective was particularily applicable to the work carried out by the grievors. It was the Employer's position that the duties of the 13 position of the grievors fall within the Industrial Officer 1 class standard. Mr. Knight referred to previous decisions of this Board wherein it is noted that c!lass standards are, by their nature, very general descriptions of work, which are not expected to capture the details of a particular position. Mr. Knight argued that the facts of this case support the conclusion that the grievors do perform their work under close supervision of the Area Manager in that the performance of the grievors can be assessed in the IDU meetings. As well, Mr. Knight referred to the fact that. the grievors record details of their duties and tha.t Mr. Besharah has access to this information. Mr. Knight submitted that the Industrial Development Officer 2 class standard contemplates the project analysis 'that is carried out by the Bus.iness Development Consultants but is not, as a rule, carried out by the Business Development Officers. Thepreambletothe Industrial Development Officer class series refers specifically to positions in a Ministry that is no longer in existence and contains reference to marketing kinds of activities that are not core features of the position in issue in this instance. We have some hesitation in concluding that the position of the grievors is properly classified in the Industrial Development .Officer class series. However, the essence of the duties referred to in the class series is like that of ,the position of the i /~-’ -. 14 grievors, in that the duties described involve the promotion of economic development. Given the fact that class standards are intended to be general descriptions of duties and our conclusion that the essence of the duties of the positionis encompassed in the Industrial Development Officer class series we agree with the common submission of the parties that the grievors are properly classified in the Industrial Development Officer class series. The onus to establish that a position is improperly classified rests with the Union. After a careful review of . the evidence and the submissions of counsel' it is our conclusion that the Union has met that onus in this instance. We reach'this conclusion on the basis of. the ‘"standards" argument advanced by the Union.' We acceptthatthe position of the grievors ought properlytobe classified as Industrial Development Officer 2. While the Union's .alternative argument was not specifically characterised as. such, the argument with respect to the comparative duties of the Business Development Officers and the Business Development Consultants is clearly a "usage" argument. Given our acceptance of the Union's "standards" argument we will not address the "usage" argument. There are some fundamental aspects-of the Industrial Development Officer 1 class standard that do not encompass 15 the duties of the position of the grievors. The first of these is the academic qualifications referred to in the class r standard: qualifications which the grievors do not possess and qualifications which are not required for the position. The second fundamental aspect of this class standard which does not have application to the position of the grievors is the level of supervision. It is clear that the grievors operate with a greater degree of independence than that contemplated by the Industrial Development Officer 1 class standard. The Industrial Development Officer 1 class standard is clearly intended to apply to positions in which a high level of theoretical background is required -but in which the role is one of providing assis-tance and preparing work which is scrutinised on an ongoing basis.' This class standard contemplates little in the way of independent judgment. In our view it does not enc,ompass the kind of independence and judgment involved in the duties that the I grievors perform. It is appropriate at t.his point to address the matter of the project analyses. Given the circumstances and frequency with which the grievors have been assigned such dutie's we agree with Mr. Knight's submission that this duty is not a core duty of the position of the agrievors. However, considering the other, undisputed duties of the position of the grievors, in particular their role in recommending the application at the IDU meeting and their role in determining the necessity for and carrying out research such as market . t -,. 16 analysis, it is our view that the level of judgment required in this position is such that we cannot conclude that the position reasonably falls within the Industrial Development Officer 1 class standard. While, as previously noted, the written guidelines of the Employer suggest a more limited level of judgment and responsibility, it is the actual level of judgment and responsibility entailed in a position which must govern,our decision. Having'determi.ned that the position of the grievors is improperly classified, the next issue to be determined is whether the~position is properly classified as Industrial Officer 2, as the Union claims. We note, parethentically, .that in considering a "standards".argument, the .fact other positions classified in the Industrial Development Officer 2 classification perform different duties than those carried out by persons seeking that classification does not assist in the determination to be, made. The determination must be based on a comparison between the provisions of the class standard and the duties of the position in issue. In our view, the duties of the position in issue are reasonably encompassed by the Industrial Development Officer 2 class standard. The reference contained in the first paragraph of the class standard to positions of employees who "..'.under general supervision. ..carry out assigned duties in support Of... promoting the growth of industry'..." is an a.ccurate . . -,, 17 general characterisation of the duties of the position in ' issue. The grievors "normally receive aseignments in general terms II. There is latitude for decision making, in particular with respect to the research that will' be carried out in connection with a grant application, as contemplated by the Industrial Officer 2 class standard. The position in issue requires the compilation and analysis of data and liason within the terms of the Industrial Officer 2 class standard. The position also involves the making of recommendations. Notwithstanding the fact that the preparation of the project analysis is not a core duty of the positions of the grievors it is our view that the evidence establishes clearly that the role of the grievors in the,IDU meetings ,with respect to the recommendation of .projects is a .significant role. Considering the reference to "making~recozmnendations" in the context of the Industrial Development Officer 2 class standard as a whole, it is our conclusion that the duties of the Business Development Officer position in this regard are -encompassed by this reference. Unlike the Industrial Development Officer 1 class standard, the Industrial Development Officer 2 class standard does 'not require specific academic qualifications. While experience as an Industrial Officer 2 is an alternative qualification for the position, the preamble to the class series indicates that Industrial Development'officer 2 is the 18 entry level for "employees who have an acceptable level of education and business experience". The Industrial Development Officer 2 class standard is clearly intended to be the entry level classification for positions inwhich some "hands on" experience and decision *making ability is required, as opposed to positions which require only academic training. In our view, it is clear that the Industrial Officer 2 class standard is the "best fit" for the grievors in this regard. For these reasons it is our conclusion that the position of the grievors is not properly classified as Industrial Development Officer 1 and that it ought properly . to be classified as'Industria1 Development Officer 2 and'we so declare. .The grievors are to be Fompensated accordingly. As previously noted, there was an issue between the parties with.respect.to the extent of compensation in the event of the success of the grievance.' The first matter is when the calculation of the compensation is to commence. In Baldwin & Lynq, 539184, (Mitchnick), the jurisprudence of the Grievance Settlement Board with respect to this matter is reviewed. Atop. 8 of that decision it is noted that the Board generally finds that the appropriate retroactive limitation on relief extends'to twenty days prior to the filing of the grievance, based on the provisions of Article 19 27.1 and 27.2.1 of the Collective Agreement. That decfision goes on to note that to require the Empioyer to be responsible for retroactivity beyond'this period would be to require it to be responsible for a breach of the Collective Agreement of which it was not aware.' Ho,wever, the decision also indicates that there are circumstances in which adherence to the ordinary rule would not be appropriate, for example, in instances where the complaint has been made and management is in the course of investigating that complaint. 'The Board states at p. 16 that: . . . the parties would be little ser~ved by the Board adopting a position which would force the employees concerned to "formalize" and potentially polarise the situation by grieving before management has had the opportunity .to render its decision... . In this-instance the evidence 'suggeststhatdiscussion of re- classification was initiated by a member of management. On the basis of the reasoning in the excerpt from the Baldwin & m decision set out above, it is our view that it would be inappropriate to deny the grievors retroa'ctivity back to the time the matter was first discussed. It was reasonable for the grievors to forbear from filing a grievance at this point and it would not be appropriate to penal&e them for failing to file a grievance earlier. Accordingly, we direct that the grievors be compensated retroactive to the April, 1989 meeting where this matter was first raised. The evidence.was not specific with respect to the exact date of the April meeting at which this matter was raised, however it would .: 2(3 appear unlikely that the parties would have difficulty .in determining that date. The next matter is the effect that the delay in the pursuit of this matter in the grievance procedure ought to have on the compensation to be awarded. For the reasons set out at the outset of this decision we have rejected the Employer's submission that the delay in pursuing the matter through the grievance procedure has the effect that the grievance has been deemed to be w'ithdrawn. However, ,the Collective Agreement is clear in imposing a. mandatory requinnent that grievances be pursued in accordance with its provisions. Those provisions must be given meaning. This grievance was- simply not pursued in accordance with those provisions. Whilewe are not convinced that the Employer has established any prejudice in this case we agree with Mr. Knight's submission. that it is appropriate that the compensation payable to the grievors ought to be reduced to reflect the delay in the processing of this matter. In summary, it is our conclusion that the Business Development Officer position occupied by the grievors is improperly classified as Industrial Development Officer 1 and ought properly to'be classified as Industrial Development Officer 2. The position is to be re-classified and the grietors are to- be compensated in accordance with the , 21 foregoing. The Board will remain seizt?d in the event that the parties experience any difficulties in calculating the compensation found to be owing or in any other.respect in.the implementation of this decision. Dated at Toronto this 27thday of January. 1992 S. I,. Stewart Vice-Chairperson - Member H. Roberts - Member -. : I I - I_. -.., ., . . - 2 - Position Specification & Class Aflocatfon-CSC 6150 (ym.) 3. wbr and R&e* Tasks mm.) - .ssisting N.Li”C client. in da”*loping . c0lnp1*t* .pplie.Lion 05 pIopO..I for .r,ist.nce from Branch bus1na.s andlor economic dsvslopment program. by prepsring .oo”r.te .pplic.Cion pr0pos.1. to met rpaclfied crit.ri.: - .osa.h,g, roconnanding snd proc*,*ing busin..,,, c.pit.l .nd,esomris devslopsnt propossls for ev.lu.tion by Indu.tri.1 Os”elopa=mt Con.“lL.ntf - c.rrying our ,peci.l pro,act. under the direction of the dre. m”.g.r 6nd guid.ncs of the senior oon.“IL.nC> - .tt..ndl”g,p.~ticip.ting In lot., ,xogr.m .nd Lr.lning e”*“t. .“ch .l .emh.ra. *OT*.kopl. 2. pevelop, .nd m.int.,na on-going comunic.iion. .nd uorklng ralatlonship. “‘Ch rele”.nt dni.tri*., Other 1O”.I, Of go”*rnm.?nc, .gensiss .“d the priv.te sector involvsd in econonis .nd b”rfna.. dev*,lopment by: El- initi.ting .nd mintalning . comunis.tion. netuork with other min‘rtciaa. fadar.l/municlp.l g~ve~nrent., .gencis., departments .nd the priv.ts ,ector to proexe infomatlon sharing, N.tirc .CCC.. to program. .nd .ervicso, and to .void overlap snd dupl,c.tion of .erv‘.ser on II pre,cct b..i.: - providing Native cl‘ent, .nd Br.nch connult.nts with FYrrent businr!.. .nd econoude pr.2qr.m .“d .*.“ic* ‘nfor.!4tion from other .dni.cri*a, goremnant .gencie., ocganlr.tionr .nd the pri”.te .ecto.; - monitoring proceduzca .nd .L.ndrrd. af service dallv*ry .uch . . l sa‘ating +isnt. to receive gr.nt inrt.llm.nt p.yment. by li.l.Ing with .pprop.i.ts p.rrie, .nd,or mnit.,.ing atsgar of program dcl‘vary by ens”ring .II cr‘teri. i, lrari - contributing to the Idsntiflc.tlon Of .tr.tegies to improve the effsetiveness, efflcfcnoy .nd aconoti of ,X*jsct dev*lopmsnt .nd progr.” .,p-.r.tion. to enh.nce 1I.Civ. b”.ine.* .nd econornle davelorment: 3. TO upd.te, rscord and report inform.tion,d.L. in .ecord.nce with “lni:rtry, . management. progran .nd geogr.phlC.1 need.: -I1ox(- .aalrt‘i-q .re. nmnager by compiling d.t. in the de”elowent .nd updating of project and program data collection syatcms: - mainrainIng area project record% and dat.. mon(toring project reaulr~, folloring up on projects and reporting requirerent.; preparikg apprOpri.L* report.. utiliring “O?d proceaaor, . . requ‘red: 4. Performs other related dutieo that support major job respon.ibilltie. and vary during the y*.c, such ..: - provldlng lnpvr and recomrend.tions for policy and,.,< program de”elc>pm*nt related to Native b”*inesa, econonic or capita1 inltiatl”e, ., we,, a, budget go.,. and program C?.,h flow target,: - rev‘ering reporr.. documenta, cd,.. studies. proposal,, budget,. flnimcial staCeme”to and records .“bmiLted by Native cllenta. cO”,“lt.“t, and o~l?er relevant ,O”ECel: - rcPren*nLing ministry .t 0ffiCI.I f”nct*ono. ., requested: - other .~ti”lCies that may be Identified from time to time by ~.nag*n,*~t Of the B?.“Ctl. .n.lytlc.l, problem-solving, decision making, c~““wn,c.Liona and people akill,. P?0”4” cona”lt.ti”e abiuty to vorl; “iCh encreprsne”r,, coml”niLy groupa and gO”er”me”t offlclal~. Knorledqe ~,f related ~ovarnment pollcier .nd program, and experience working with Native people mdlor sblllty to rp*.k . Nativ. language an as*ec. Ability co organi** .“d set priorities. work independently O? “ith . Le.t”i valid Ontario driver’, licence. kbility to “rilira ward P?O~*.,O?l~lO?“-~O~purert. : .. Gi+OuP : AO-01 General Mmin SERIES: Indcstrial Sev~lc;.~enz O:ficor crJs.s COOS: 12120 - 12124 Y5J nDL’STRL4L DEVELOP%YT JFFICER SERIFS Industrial Development Officers are employed in the Trade and Industry Division of the Department of Trade and Development. They are employed in promoting the industrial growth of Ontario, and the export uf Ontario xanufac cured prcduc ts. These objectives are achieved by encouraging the development of new industry, productivity improvement, replacement of imports by domestic products, formation of joint industrial ventures in the prov.ince, arrangement fw licensing agreements for foreign products to be .nade in Ontario or for Ontario products to be made abroad, and the export of Ontario products. . TYPE OF '&IRK CWRIFI) OUT: These employees coll~act data on industrial and .markati.ng conditions, t:th in Ontario and abroad,’ undertake stodias. to determine i-dustrial and .-arke*jng potential, and advise interested .’ .‘Uiditionally, they may plan, groups or tindiGiduals accordingly. orgsnice and direct various activities designed to support overall objectives such as: sales prcmution and industrial !ewlapment furcms; sales and trade fissions; the FreFaration of displays &d exhibits at fairs and ehibitions, both at home and abroad; the cperaticn zi such incentive plans as the Dcsin .4vard Program; and the preparation and Zisxibutisn of special srddies, >ullcttis, directives and booklets. Thuse azplcyees are required to be familiar with the acts and regulations, both federal and provincial, i’nich provide for assistance to the industrial iuvelspment of Ontario, in order to ensure. that correct ad-lice is given to industry and municipal governments, and to ensure that respecrive jurisdictions are recognixd. These employees murk ci-her ,1 departmental sffices in Toronto or ti Yrade znd Indust. Branch ,Offices abrcad. Addiciunally, they do field murk in suppurr af var~cus prumucional activirias in hich t.ey are ?n;a<ed. i"5e establishing of contacts at senior levels of gwernment and industry, the .xintenance of liaissn bec.ceen +.ese g-cups and the department, xd the providing of related~ data, statistics and speciali:ed infurma~isn to these groups;are factors of particular significance tc the overall function of Industrial DeveluFment Officers. : ,** . . CATEGORY: AdmFnisuat1ve serviqs GROUP: AD-01 General Admin SERIES: Industrial Development c)fficc: CLASS COOE: 12120 INDUSIRLU DKvE.LOPxE~T OPFICER 1 CLASS DEFNITION: Ihis class covers the positions of those employees I&O, under the close supervision or technical directionof a senior Industrial Development Officer, carry out assigned duties designed to assist in the promotion and expansion of industrial and commercial activity in Onrario. Their work covers all aspects of industrial and commercial development: assoc’iated with the objac::i.;es of the ~vernment of Ontario in this field. trainin,o level in the series. Ihi.s is the junior entry level and The training and work ai t!!ese caployees ~cludcs fam.iliari:ation wic!l departnental objectives, techniques and procedures; tie gathering, assembling and azialysis of data; and the study of data to determine the practicality of specific projects such as: plant location, product production and c.pansic::, and the mrketin~ of specific products. Ihev accompany Senior Industrial Development Officers on field trips, and as&t in the tasks of nakin: con:aots and promoting Industrial Development through intervitvs, fomns, field trips, conferences, and seminars. Contacts ray be,either Canadian or forcig bushess officials, or other gave.rnnent officials. Ihey may,assis: in s.~ild:?ts arising at of mese concaccs, analy:e &ta obtained, and preparc rel~vanr infsmatisn for the persons or groups Ssncercei. This inismatim :zay be ;resenced in written, tabular, or statistical fern, and is chg.gi hy a ~cr.:.:r Industrial Developmenr Officer fix- acctrracy ~f ?rcsencacion and Ear interpretation of facts. These eaplwees also assist in t..e presentation sf displays of manufactured gods ac traie fairs and exhibitions, 30th at hcnc a& abroad. . ,, - . . . :, .- ;. . CATEGORY : Administrative Services GROUP : AU-01 General .&&in SERIES : Industrial Oevelopment Officer CLASS CODE: 1212 2 IYDUSTRIAL DIIVELQ~EXT OFFICER 2 CUSS DEFIYITION This class covers the positions of those employees xho, under the general supervision or technical direction of a senior Industrial Developmen: Officer, carp out assigned duties in support of the Ontario ;svernmrn:‘s program of promoting the grcwth of industry throughout the Pa-evince. These employees nollnally receive assigments in general terms and are expected to detenine the detailed apprcaches and actions :o be taken co attain the desired objecrive. This involves decision on ‘the dccth and scope of the research to be undertaken; the compilation and analysis oi data, the establishment af contacts and the maintenance of effective liaiscn xi::: industry and/or municipal and other government officials; the preparation of related reports, and the makin: of recom.zendati:nj. &mtaits .T;rde arc usually with reiatirelp senior offitidls at industq--and ~ov-err-s.o::~c, eichcr at home or abroad,’ and are made eit.her by correspondonce or persxal i.cntacz These snplbyees arc axpeited. to learn departmental przs’c..iures 3x! -y:y<ti\-ej; . and the various promotional mechods,‘proce&ues, and activities ,~+:rh apply : to .tSe job. This is the recruizent level for these l mpioyecs +I j:a<:e ;ai: business experience which would be of value in :his r;ork, and :!~e:: are assigned progressiv eiy nore respisible taski as their ?cofi;iec:y :zc:e~dcs. .l. See the Preamble to ‘the series. .l _. A number ai wars’ experience in business or industr; Jf a type :;hi:h could be us.z>ullv app&d :o the tasks to be ;eriJmed; 3t a; ?eas: rwo years as an induscriai Cevelapenc 9fSiser 1. ,