Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1269.Adey.91-01-04~'"~ ' ~ ~ ONTARIO EMPLOY~'$ DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ON TA RIO GRIEVANCE C.OMMISSlON DE SE'n'LEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE2100, TORONTO, ONTARfO. M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: (416) 326-1388 180. RuE DUNOAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100. TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G 1Z8 FACSIM/LE/T~L~COP~E ; (476} .325-'1396 1269/88 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE B~RGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Adey) Grievor The Crown in Right of Ontario : (Ministry of Housing) Employer BEFORE: D. Fraser vic~-Chairperson G. Nabi Member H. Roberts Member FOR THE C. Hofley GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE R.M. Parry EMPLOYER Counsel Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark Barristers & Solicitors HEARING~ April 20, 1989 May 7, 8 1990 2 This is a classification grievance, wherein the grievor, Roy Adey, claims that he is misclassified as a Services Supervisor 2 (Atypical). The nature of the grievance and the differences between the parties respecting the proper'classification of the grievor are described in a Statement of Facts. In that Statement, after the grievance is introduced, Part A gives the union position by which an improper classification is alleged. Part B is concerned with reme'dy. The union has submitted that the proper classification for the grievor is Engineering Services Officer 5, and that latter part describes the differences between union and management with respect to that submission. The Statement of Facts reads as follows: ' STATEMENT OF FACTS ' 1. The Grievor is employed as an Electrical Technologist, classified as a Services Supervisor 2 (Atypical) at Toronto, Ontario. He grieves tha~: (a) He ~iis improperly classified as Services Supervisor 2 (Atypical); (b) He ough't to be classified as Engineering Services Officer 5. A. WHETHER iMPROPERLY CLASSIFIED AS SERVICES SUPERVISOR 2 ATYPICAL ~ 2. This grievance was filed on March 22, 1988. The position specification then in effect (dated 20-09- 85) 'did not accurately or necessarily reflect the. Grievor's actual duties and responsibilities. 3. The position specification currently in effect (dated 26-10-88) accurately reflects the Grievor's actual duties and responsibilities. 4. The Grievor'slduties and responsibilities do not correspond to those described in the Services Supervisor 2 cla~s standard in-that, inte~ alia: " 3 (a) The Grievor is not responsible for the technical implementation and execution of projects concerned with the installation of maintenance of systems. The Grievor's role in the installation of systems involves the review of equipment designs, approval of final submissions, reviewing change orders with respect to design, and answers relevant design questions in the construction phase; (b) The Grievor does not operate as a regional coordinator of minor capital. The Grievor recommends on the expenditure of minor and major remedial work. The Grievor can be seen to work in the largest region of the Ministry in the sense that Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (M.T.H.A.), although not the largest geographical region, represents approximately 30% of the Ministry of Housing's non-recurring budget dollars; (c) The Grievor does not act as a regional inspector but does act as an inspector, on an ad hoc basis only, when inspecting sites to establish budget priorities; (d) The Grievor provides technical advice to District Maintenance Managers and other field staff in matters relating to policy clarification and conducts and advises on feasibility studies; as it relates to .electrical systems; (e) The Grievor is not responsible for Preventative Maintenance Program covering electrical equipment in government buildings. The Grievor's involvement in this regard is strictly with advice respecting changes to the various codes and standards (e.g. fire and building codes); (f) The Grievor does not arrange contract maintenance; (g) The Grievor does not conduct final inspection of completed work. 5. The skill and knowledge requirements of the Services Supervisor 2.class standard do not correspond to the skill and knowledge required by, and set out in, the Grievor's job specification, in that, inter alia: (a) The Grievor is required to be experienced in the preparation of designs, drawings and specifications; (b) The Grievo~ must' have thorough knowledge of the theories, principles and practices of electrical designs; (c) The Gr~evor must have good working knowledge of Architectural, Civil, Mechanical and Structural Engineering fields; (d) Twenty percent (20%) of the Grievor's position specification deals with consulting functions. B. WHETHER PROPERLY CLASSIFIED AS ENGINEERING SERVICES OFFICER 5 6.(i) Unions Position The Grievor is the only qualified electrical officer in the Head Office of the largest housing portfolio in Ontario, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (M.T.H.A.). 6.(ii) Management's Position The Grievor is one of a team of technical specialists, including four (4) electrical/mechanical inspectors, and a building systems specialist. Personal qualification is not a factor in classification determination. 7.(1) Union's Position The Grievor exercises control of consultant engineers and their staff, by approving consultants designs and sets electrical standards for M.T.H.A. 7.(ii) Hanaaement's Position The phrase "exercises control" is improperly used to describe the grievor's status of relations with consultant engineers. The grievor coordinates the completion of work but does not assume "'professional =esponsibility for the design and its integrity". 8.(i) Union's Position The Grievor participates directly with the authorities having jurisdiction in setting · codes, standards, etc.. The Grievor advises M.T.H.A. management and other ministries on all technical matters. 8.(ii) Management's Position There is no position responsibility or organizational requirement to "participate directly" in the formulation of codes, standards, etc. Although the Grievor may provide some input, the Ministry of Housing is responsible for establishing technical standards. 9.(i) Union's Position The Grievor liaises with Federal and Provincial'Regulatory bodies in the formulation of new codes and standards. 9.(ii) Management's Position To state that the Grievor liaises with Federal and Provincial Regulatory bodies in the formulation of new codes and standards, without more, is misleading. The Grievor is not responsible for standards formulation. 10.(i) Union's Position The Grievor is responsible for the design of all major electrical, work for M.T.H.A. 6 t0.(ii) Mana~ement's Position The Grievor is not responsible for the design of all major electrical work for M.T.H.A. The Grievor is responsible for coordinating the design activities of all major electrical work for M.T.H.A. The responsibility for "design" and approval of major electrical work rests with the Director of Technical Services/Manager, Design Services. ll.(i) Union's Position The Grievor is responsible for seven major districts and assists in setting yearly and five year budgets with respect to electrical projects. ll.(ii) Managemen~'s Position The Grievor is responsible for providing certain guidance services to seven major districts as required,, and recommending priorities, verifying budget requests in setting budgets with respect to electrical projects. In addition to the matters in that Statement, the following issues arose during the course of the hearing. First, ~ith respect to the requirement that the union initially prove an improper classification, the union has submitted that the description of the grievor's present classification as Services Supervisor 2 (Atypical) is in itself an admission by the employer that the grievor is. improperly classified, and that title constitutes primalfacie proof of such improper classification. In addition to that submission, the union is relying on the first branch of the uniformly-accepted jurisprudence of the board, that the classification is improper on the basis of a comparison of the position duties to the class standard, it does not rely on 7 the usage argument to prove such improper classification, although elements similar to such an argument appear in the request for remedy. In addition to the remedy sought in the Statement of Facts, the union has alternatively requested that if the board finds improper classification but is unable to find a sufficiently similar and appropriate class series for the work done by the grievor, it should issue an order now well-known in the board's jurisprudence as a Berry-type order, wherein the grievor's position is remitted to the Ministry to create a new and appropriate classification. In view of the use of that remedy in many previous decisions of the board, we will not review the underlying jurisprudence. Finally, in terms of remedy, the employer has proposed that should the grievor be found to be improperly classified, an appropriate classification would be Engineering Services Officer 3. In addition to the Statement of Facts, we will include as attachments to this decisiron, the most recent position specification (dated 26-10-88) for the grievor's position, which the parties agree is accurate; the class standard for Servic%s Supervisor 2; and the class standards for Engineering Services Officer 3 and 5. 8 We will now review the question of whether t~e grievor is improperly classified, and will consider first what appears to be a unique and novel submission by the union that the classification of the grievor in itself is prima facie evidence of improper classification. That submission relies on the following matters. Both parties agree that the grievor is part of the classified service as defined in the Public Service Act. That initial agreement is important, because it means that the grievor is classified in some way. He may be misclassified, but he is not unclassified. However, in the box for class allocation in his position specification, the grievor's class title is described as "Services SuperviSor 2 (Atypical)". The union has submitted that no such classification exists, therefore the grievor is misclassified (but not unclassified). That submission relies on the following matters. First, no class standard exists for Services Supervisor 2 (Atypical). There is a class standard for Services Supervisor 2, but as has been noted elsewhere, .in reference to class Standard: "These standards are absolute in the sense that the Board has no jurisdiction to alter or amend them". (Fenske, 494/85, at p.13). 9 Second, Schedule 3 of Regulation 881 under the Public Service Act, which appears to contain an exhaustive list of classifications in a group relevant to the grievor's position, contains the classification of Services Supervisor 2. There is no Services Supervisor 2 (Atypical) to be found either there or elsewhere in Regulation 881 or the Public Service Act. Third, Section 4(a) of the Public Service Act requires that the Civil Service Commission shall "evaluate and classify · each position in the classified service and determine the qualifications therefore". In the union's .view, the mandatory nature of that sub-section, combined with the absence of any classification in the Public Service Act, or any class standard, for Services Supervisor ~ (Atypical), leads to the conclusion that the grievor is misclassified. We call this submission unique, because neither counsel was able to provide a prior decision of the board where it was considered, nor are we aware of any. The emploYer has responded by conceding the right of the grievor to grieve his classification and prove, if possible, that it is improper, but by denying that wording "(Atypical)" is conclusive proof of improper classification. Counsel has submitted that the use of the term "atypical" is only for the' purpose of indicating that the position in question is not the nearest fit for the class standards, and that it reflects a 10 reasonable deviation in the assigned tasks, duties and responsibilities of the position. In some cases (e.g. Fenske, 494/85), the grievor's duties may in time go beyond the~scope of the class standard. In such case, those duties may not only become atypical, but may contain qualitative changes going beyond quantitative changes, to the extent that a substantial departure from the class standard is found. The resulting conclusion that the grievor is misclassified, is based on those qualitative changes and that departure, and not on the single notion of "atypical". Therefore, "atypical" does not of itself mean "improperly classified" To determine that, "the whole of one job must be compared to the whole of another" (McTamne¥, 1553/85, at p.3). This dispute relates to a real and substantial concern of the union, with respect to classification grievances. It is that if the grievor is classified as "Services Supervisor 2 (Atypical)", and there is in fact no class standard of that name, what, then, is the benchmark by which the classification can be tested? Is it the class standard of "Services Supervisor 2", or is it some other benchmark imported by the addition of the'word "atypical", to that standard? We will have to address this concern if an effective answer to the problem is to be found. Our starting point is found in the nature of class standards and position specifications. The statutory provision '11 requiring the Civil Service Commission to classify, noted earlier, produces a class standard. As was noted in Fenske, such a standard is absolute in terms of the board's jurisdiction, and cannot be varied. We cannot, for example, take the title of the class standard "Services Supervisor 2", and read that as if it said "Services Supervisor 2 (Atypical)" for some purposes. Furthermore, we are not aware of any statutory power in the Public Services Act granted to any other body in the public service'to make such an amendment or variation. On the other hand, a position specification "is not part of the Class Standard and accordingly does not bind the Board. At best, the Position Specification Form may serve as an aid to interpretation" (Fenske, at p.13). We would add to that view, which we accept, that a position specification may be' either open to interpretation to some extent, or subject to error when viewed in the light of the class standard. The class standard is authorised and mandated by the Public Service Act; the position specification is not. In this case we have noted the agreement of the parties that the grievor is properly in the classified service. He may be misclassified, but he is not unclassified. This agreement precludes any finding by us that the grievor was not properly appointed to the classified service. The grievor is therefore not in the limbo resulting from such cases as Beresford, 1429/86, and Mille¥, 197'2/.87, where the purported limited-term appointment to the "unclassified" service was found to be improper and unauthorTized. What this means is that, in colloquial terms, we have to make Mr. Adey's appointment work, or we have to~ find, in any event, that he 'isa member of the classified service. Given that~ what are the options? The notation "Services Supervisor 2 (Atypical)" on the position specification, can mean one of two things. · First, it can mean that the grievor is classified as "Services Supervisor 2 (Atypical)", but there is no such classification, and no such class standard. That result is not sanctioned by the Civil Service Commission. It would follow that the grievor is not misclassified, but unclassified. Second, the position specification may be in error, or subject to interpretation in light of the class standard and classification system. That result may be obtained by viewing the notation on the position specification as being in two parts, with "Services Supervisor 2" comprising the strict description of the actual classification, and "(atypical)", being a description added for utility or convenience without the authority of the Civil Service Commission. Thus, "atypical" may simply be an indication that the grievor has atypical duties, while in the class standard of "Services Supervisor 2~'. This reading of the position specification brings that document into accord with a~ existing standard~ an existing schedule in a regulation, and a 13 classification system sanctioned by the Public Service Act, all of which to one extent or another have legislative priority over the position specification. Furthermore, it does not .result in the conclusion that the grievor is uDctassified. We choose the latter interpretation for all th~ reasons given. We find that the grievor's classification is "Services Supervisor 2" We note that his position has been described as "atypical", but that-description has no legal authority in terms of the classification system authorised by'the Act, by which the Civil Service Commission has produced the class standard noted. Whether the position specification-is in error in that respect, or whether it is simply read to conform to the system provided by legislation is immaterial; the result is the same. What are the consequences of this finding? In the classification grievance before us, the benchmark is the class standard of Services Supervisor 2. As noted in Fenske (at p.13), the class standard must be treated "in light of the current circumstances as though drafted with the grievor's position in mind". The notion of "atypical", whether used by a board to describe changes in a grievor's duties (see, for example, Fenske, at p.14), or .used in a position specification, is not a standard or criterion by which improper classification can be determined. That is assessed by other standards used consistently by this board, such as whether qualitative changes have occurred, in the 14 context of the entire job (see references above), or whether "significant new duties and responsibilities" have evolved that go beyond the clasS standard (McIntyre et al., 12B0/86, at p.13). These various standards' are.broadly similar, and there is little dispute about their use in such cases. The converse of these consequences is that a notation of "atypical", attached to a class standard, does not affect the criteria nofmally Used by the board in classification cases. Just as the board has no mandate to read a class standard generated under the authority by the Civil Service Commission, as "atypical" neither does a position specification, or its : authors, have authority to vary a class standard set by the Commission. We will now consider whether Mr. Adey is improperly classified. The first paragraph of the class standard for Services SupervisOr 2 describes the class in general terms, with more detail in later paragraphs. The duties and responsibilities in that paragraph are concerned with the "technical implementation and execution-of projects concerned with the installation, maintenance and improvement' of either electrical or mechanical systems :"and equipment ...". To perform those duties, the employee acts as either a regional coordinator "of 6nion capital, maintenance, and improvement projects", or as a "regional inspector of major capital projects". 15 When acting as regional coordinator, the incumbent provides technical advice to district electrical or mechanical supervisors and staff. That is done by way of preparing instructions, estimates and'contract documents, and by doing inspections and investigations, with consequent advice and guidance to staff. When acting as regional inspector, the incumbent ensures that electrical or mechanical systems and eguipment'are installed in accordance with designs and specifications. That involves other duties such as inspecting work in progress, reporting on deficiencies, instructing contractors, and making estimates. In essence, then, the job of Service Supervisor 2 is to make sure projects relating to mechanical or electrical systems, are properly done. That can involve installation, maintenance, or improvement of the systems. The grievor's basic duties and responsibilities do not bear much of a resemblance to this job. As his evidence and position specification indicate, he spends 75% of his time providing effective designs for remedial work, relating primari'ly to electrical systems in Housing-Authority owned buildings. He provides tho~e designs primarily by coordinating the work of outside consultants hired by the Ministry. These principal 16 duties are qualit'atively different from the class standard, which is centred around the installation and upkeep of systems. As is shown'~on page 2 of the position specification, and supported by Mr. Agey's evidence, he spends some 20% of his time as an electrical consultant for other' areas in the Ministry, primarily Construction Services and Operational Maintenance Sections. There is more similarly between this function and the work of a regional coordinator, as found in the class standard. The regional coordination provides technical advice to district electrical or mechanical supervisors, and staff. There is also some similarity between the inspection work done by the grievor, and the duties of a regional inspection in the class standard. The regional inspector examines installations to ensure that they are in accordance with designs and specifications. As the Statement of Facts indicates, Mr. Adey acts as an inspector "on an ad-hoc basis only, when inspecting sites to establish budget priorities". His work is budget-related only, whereas the regional inspector's work covers a larger area. We conclude from this that although there are reasonable similarities in some areas of duties and responsibilities between the grievor's work and the class standard, his principaI duty, of coordinating consultants and producing design work, is simply not 17 found in any significant way as a principal duty in the class standard. That is a major difference, to the extent that it cannot be concluded that Mr. Adey's work is just a more specialized version of. work found in the standard. To put it in simple form, his Job is largely to produce the design work that a Services Supervisor 2 could later use in the implementation and execution of a project. His duties, and the class standard, are two essentially different jobs. A comparison of the skills and knowledge required, also supports this conclusion. The class standard, would require in Mr. Adey's case, skill in an appropriate electrical trade. In addition,_supervisory, instructionaI, and administrative skills are required, as well as ability to cost estimate and prepare work assignments, and a knowledge of relevant legislation. The positio~n specification goes substantially beyond these matters. It includes, for example, several years experience in design, ~and a thorough knowledge of the underlying theories, principles and practices. In view of all these matters, we find that the grievor i~ misclassified as "Services Supervisor 2" (atypical). The question of remedy remains to be considered. The grievor wishes to be reclassified as an Engineering Services Officer 5. The employer maintained that he was not misclassified, but'if it were found that he properly fit into the Engineering ServiCes Officer Series, the best fit would be at the Engineering Services Officer 3 level. On that matter, Mr. Kishor Desai, Director of Technical Services, and also Director of the branch Mr. Adey is employed in, gave evidence for the employer. He found'no similarity between Mr. Adey's duties, responsibilities and qualifications, and those found in the class standards for the Engineering Services Officer Series, but if forced to choose a level in that series, he would choose the best fit noted above. We essentially agree with Mr. Desai's views. The class definition of Engineer 3 in that series requires the employee to "perform resPonsii~ble and difficult professional engineering work in connection with investigation, location, construction and maintenance projects in the field". The characteristic duties involve a wide variety of engineering duties, such as "performs difficult laboratory tests on construction and maintenance materials". The 'qualifications include "An Engineering degree from a university of recognized standing with at least four years' subsequent'experience and training. Registration with the Professional Engineers' Association". The class def'inition of Engineer 5 entails "the responsibility for administrative and technical supervision of engineering projects in a major district or Head Office 19 subdivision". It includes "as a rule" direction' of a large staff of technical, clerical, artisan and unskilled employees" It may also involve "acting as a consultant, giving highly technicai advice on difficult engineering problems, and may participate in the determination of policy". In addition, both the character£stic duties, and qualifications involve the exercise of broad engineering skills in respect to a wide variety of projects involving such things as buildings, dams, docks, and highway intersections, and required professional standing and experience as an engineer. Now Mr. Adey is highly skilled, but as an Electrical Technologist, not an engineer. The evidence indicates that he is responsible, as electrical officer, for the integrity of electrical design work in the head office of the Ministry, and that is undoubtedly a very responsible position. However, he does not perform a wide range of engineering duties at the professional engineer level, as is found in both class standards reviewed in the Engineering Services Officer series. Some of his duties may well be at a similar level of difficulty to that performed, for example, by an Engineer ~3. It may be, for one instance, that his electrical design work is as complex a matter as performing "difficult laboratory tests on construction and maintenance materials", as found in the characteristic duties of that standard. 2O His consultant work. may also bear some simflarity in level of difficulty to that of an Engineer 5 consultant, who gives "highly technical advice on difficul~ engineering problems" However, the Engineer consultant also "may participate in the determination of policy". Mr. Adey does not. Furthermore Mr. ~dey only consults .for 20% of his time. We can only conclude that there may be some similarities in level of difficulty in the consulting function., for a job that Mr. Adey does for a limited part of his time.~. Had Mr. Adey been a consultant, with professional standing as an engineer, for the major part of his duties, there may~have been grounds for finding a reasonable fit. However, on this aspect, we do not find that to be the case on the evidence. In view of the different and broader scope of the class definitions in the Engineering Services Officer Series, the notably wider range'iof characteristic duties in an essen.tially different field, and the requirement of professional standing and experience as an engineer, we do not find either class standard reviewed in that series to'be a reasonable fit in view of the grievor's duties, !.responsibilities and qualifications. We would give new meaning to, the word "atypical" if we were to do so, and we accordingly conclude that we are unable to reclassify the grievor on the evidence before us. 21 This case is therefore an appropriate one for a Berry-type remedy. We direct the employer t~o find.or create a classification for the grievor within 90 days of the date of this decision. The grievor shall be compensated in accordance with that class standard from the date of filing the grievance'herein. We remain seized in the event there is any difficulty with the implementation of this award. Dated at Ottawa this 4th day of Jauuary 19~1.~ D. Fraser, Vice-Chai~erson ~. Nabi, ' Member H. Robertst Member Th:Ls c.L&ss cove~'po.,Lt:Lon~ o~ emp],oyees ~ho &~e J~lspo~sible ~o~ ' ensuring CAe technic&t l~.pZemencaC~on and execuc£on 0£ p~oJe¢cs concerned mech&ni¢&L systems &nd ~quipuenC in GoverrdNnCoovned buildings in in assigned regLoa o£ cae Hiniscry o[ Goqlrrm~nc Services. These e~loyeel opec&ti either am regional co-ordln&co~s o~ IlAQ~ CSptC4~ liLn~inanc~, This class Ltso covets CAe posiCLAns o£ the senior elecl~cic~ o~ mechanical inspectors in districts in CAe Cin~.c8~ Regioa where C~e ~aflager position is cl&ssi~le~ &C CAe BuildLAgs ~ana~e~ $ level. &s regioMl '~flspecCorsi 'they &:e responsible ~o: ensuc~ng chaC elec- trical QC mec~l~l ~s~s and ~l~enC ~or ~o~ capL~ p~3eccs ~e' ~k ~ pr~ess, ~e~rC~g on ~y di[~cienc~es, lncec~e~eflce, s~cl pcoble~ and p~oc~es a~ ~p~ace v~ ~ ~fl Ee~lv~ problems. ~ey esC~ace ~ ~ ~te~ial ~s~s ~ ensue ~ validity o~ p~resi b~ll~gs and ch~ge o~e~s . Ski~ Lfl aA appropriate elecC~c~ or mechafl~cal trade; su~ervisor~, insCrucCioflal ~nd ad~lflisCzaCive &bl. lity~ ~b~,llty Co estimate costs and prep~ce work &ssign~encs ~ou plans 4nd .specl£tca~lonst thorough knowledge o~ statutes, ~ngul&Cione &nd bY-laws governiaq eleccric&l or installations. Revised January 1, L981 4 ~ng~.neer~n~ Sez'v£ces Off~ce~ For Con~en~ of C~$s Refe~ ~o ~2044 ~n~.nee~ 3 For ~echn£cal Con,eh: Only. Posi=ions which =e.ou~re regi$~a=ion Associa~ion of P=ofessional ~g~eers of ~d/or mee= ~e '~. ~ c~. ~he Cro~ ~.tu_~ees. Cc!lec=!ve ~a=ca~hnc. .... shall not ~ all,aced co ~s cla~s. E~DINEER 3 12044 CLASS DEFINITION: Employees in this .cl'ass perform responsible and d/fficult professi~ml engineering work in connection with investigation, location, construction and ~ai~enance projects in the field, draughting or design work in an office, or scientific experimental work in & laboratory. Assi~ments usually define ~he scope of the projects (leaving the employee to plan the de~ails~ to approve variations from plans, and to make technical decisions m the work in progress. The employee may be s "Res/dent" Engineer supe~w~s~ng several contracts or charge of one major ..and difficult project requiring constant supervision. Or he may be in 'charge of the design and specifications for construction projects of moderate c~plex~y. Or he may supervise the allocation of grants to cipal authorities in a d~strict of relatively m~nor importance. He ~ll usually 'play an ~nportant par~ in the training progr~ for Junior Engineers, assigning projects and reviewing results. His vork is subject to f~nal rev~e~ by an engineering superior. CHARACT~I STI¢ DUTIES i' Conducts or supervises the conduct of field survey par~ies for obtaining techni- cal information; supervises and lays out the work of t~o or more survey par~£es. As "Resident" Engineer, super~ses the construction of a major project or t~eo or more ntinor projects, d~recting the work of subord£nate £nspec~ional and construc* tion staff. Performs difficult laboratory/ tests on construction and maintenance materials~ and super~-qes a n~nber of junior engineers and technicians engaged thereon. Designs a variety of engineering projects and supervises office employees in preparation of completed plans including quantities, costs, and spec~f4cations. Takes charge of engineering administration ~n a small distr~ct or cc~uuni~y under direction of the Diwision l~g~neer, or carries out aq$igned'[ia~son duties w~h respec~ to municipal engineering off id&is, making reports and recommenda- tions ~n connection ~ith provincial grants to municipalities. Perform o~her engineering work of a $~m~_lar level as assigned. ~ .UAL~FICAT[ON $: 1. An Engineering degree from a university of recognized standing with at lea~t four years* subsequent experience and ~aining. Registration with the Professional Engineers* Association. 2. At least four yearsj acceptable experience of a progressively responsible nature in engineering work. 3. Supervisory ability; skill in calculation and design of d~fficult engineer- lng projects; ability to conduct eng£neering research and to write technical ~eports; initiative; ~ntegrity; good judgment; good physical condition. December, 1952. Zngineezing Services Off£cer For Content of CZass Standard Refer to 12048 Zag/neer $ For technical Content Positions which require registration with the Association of Professional F.n~lneers of and/or meet the criteria for exclusion fro~ the bargaining unit as laid down under Section 1(1) of the Crown ~m~loyees Collective Bargaining Act, shall no~ be allocated to th:J.s class. ~arch 1, 1980 12048 CLASS DEFINITION: Positions in this 'class entail the responsibility for administrative and technical supervision of engineering projects in a major district or Head Office sub-division. The official exercises executive control over his unit and makes final technical decisions. on engineering problems of local significance. As a rule, these positions involve the direction of a large staff of technical, clerical, artisan and unskilled employees. In some cases, however, the official may be acting as a consultant, giving highly technical advice on difficult engineering problems and may participate in the determination of policy. Some Engineers in this class, in assigned regions of the Province, direct and co-ordinate administration and inspection of a variety of engineering projects being carried out by municipal authorities. In all cases, the work is reviewed in a general sense for accomplishment and adherence to departmental standards. OMARACTERISTIC DUTIES: Acts as an engineering and administrative head of a major district office of a Government Department; directs assigned engineering programmes, organizing and super¥ising the activities of all personnel in the district; consults with Head Office officials and receives direction on technical and administrative matters; supervises the preparation of progress reports on engineering projects under way in the district; directs' the preparation of financial reports and budgets for the district. Acts as regional engineer'.' in directing the activities of district municipal or sanitary engineers who confer with municipal officials regarding engineering projects sponsored by the Province in the municipalities. As section head in a branch of a department, supervises and/or executes the design of major construction, reconstruction or extension projects such as public buildings, structures, dams, docks and canal locks, bridges, or controlled access highway intersections; assumes responsibility for all related mechanical or electrical surveys, designs, specifications, and cost .estimates; designs and directs the installation of services and approved contractorst payment estimates and invoices; administers The Provincial Aid to Drainage Act and other drainage grants; investigates requests and advises regarding government grants town?ds flood protection, remedial works, etc. Acts as supervising engineer for a Head Office sub-division, and effects the co- ordination and standardization of Departmental activities in the districts; organizes, supervises and .co-ordinates the work of district engineers on soil investigation projects throughout the Province, or on similar scientific engineering studies; and.performs other related 'work as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. R~cognized professional standing as an Engineer with the specialized knowledge acquired in the partiCUlar work of the Department concerned. 2. At l'east 10 years~ progressively responsible engineering experienc~e including three years~ supervising important engineering projects or technical research. 3. Administrative and executive abili~ty; ability to carry through to com. pl. et. ion difficult research, construction, maintenance a.nd other engineering administra- tion projects; initiative, integrity and good 3ud_~ment. (.Note: "Division Engineers" for the metropolitan areas Toronto and Hamilton my proceed t.o a salary.- $500 beyond the established ma.~imu~. ) ~ POSITION S~E¢IFICATION ANO C~ ALLOCATION FORM · " usa om.Y ~=,*,t~ c~,~,~r,~ o~;m,~ ~ u~ol u~o*~ ~.~ ,~ 5 Electrical Technologist ~lectrical Te~n~logi~ ~Serv~ces Supervisor 2 - ~ WOOLS .,~ger. Techno~Pgi~al Services Te~hn~ca~ ;-rv;~-q .D"~;g" ~=. ~90 Ypnge_S%rept To provide cos~ ef[ective designs for ma~or and minor remedial work with a , design budge= of %300,000 ~o $400,000, and a construction budge~ of ~4,000,000 ;5,000,.000 ' per ann~, encompassing some 30,000 housing units. To expert a~vice =o other professional di~ciplines, fiel~ staff and management. Liaise with other Go~ernmen= bodies, industry an~ r~ula~ng ~di~_ 3. SUMMARY OF O~TIE$ ANO RESPONSIBILITIES ..o~; ~;~ ~ ~u; ~ ~ ~. s~;~ ;~ COD = ~ d ) i. Provides cost effective designs for ma~or and minor remedial work by hiring of consultants or in house Drepara=ion 75% (Management and a~roval of ~rojec=s d~signed and contract doc~en=s pr.e~are~ by consultant}. b reviewing consultant's ~esign estimate by determining fee estimate (accounting for costs as associated with delivery of services as ~er APEO guidelines } ~ ~ 9=eparing ~he consultant's agreement, noting such particulars as terms of =e~tenc~ (~ar~m~ers); de~i~n criteria, sco~e of work, es=imaged ~ime schedule, authority for ail changes when ~esign reviewed, level of. technology appropriate =o budge~ limi=ations~ ~ nego=iate/liaise with Municipal authorities re design criteria on a . .~ continued basis; directing, guiding, and approving consultant' s designs by maintaining continual con,aC= ~u=ing design phase, discussing ~rogress and - eva~uac:ng ~:o~oae~ mate:~a~ o: ~es~gn a~te:n~t~ves o~ 90t  ~ocumenCation)~o~a:~ing this :o fiel~ and Construction staff~ discussing design submission wi~h consultant, reviewing reco~enda=ions, and incorporating in~o design if merited~ ~ i~ necessitated, Jus~ifying ~jor redesign of project, keeping in mind ~ =eco~endations of consul=ant/oCher staff, and bu~ge= res~rictions~ nego=ia~ing any changes/ex=fas to con=tact and reco~ending ~o Manager,  Design Services for approval; reviewing the design progress regularly and providing consul~an= wi~h direction and guidance =o ensure ~ha= projects are being completed on schedule ~ { con~ ' d) 4. SK~L~ ANO KNOWLEDGE REQUtRED TO PERFORM THE ~flK m&~ I~T~ ~N,~ ~em~K! ' aeg~s~tabion by OACgTT as BlecCrical/glec:ro~ic Technologist, Sere:al years experience in 9:e~aratton o: designs, dra~s an~ s~eciflcations. Thorough knowledge o~ the ch~.ies, pgtnciples a~ p~actlces of elect:ica1 constr~ion 1nc~1n~.qood working kno~le~e of Federal, ~ovlnclal ...cont $. SiGNATURES//~ / /~/ ~ I / C LA,~ ALLOCATION II The incumbent is the resident technical expert in electrical systems oE Kousing Authority-owned bu~d~nga, providing technical exper~ advice and solutions :o p=oblems as well as con&uc:~ng design fe~sibility s:udies, preparing cost-efEective designs ~or major and minor :emedial and pro~ec:s. The incumbent app:oves consultants' 6esigns aha ensures plans speci~ications adhere :o codes, atanaards and requirements.' The posi=Aon is a~yp~cai as duties a:e ~ore specialized than ~he a:andard, however, :he duties, res~onsibili:ies and quali~tcations are considered ~ a:a comparable level, electrical Technologist/55-7281-07 - 2 - ~ Purpose of Position (oont'd) new or revised codes and standards. Summary of Duties & ResDonsibilities (cont'd) -~ monitoring expenditures: ensuring that work-in-progress billings are equivalent to: work completed (i.e. gauging % completion), reviewing consultant's invoices, recommending for payment; ~ approving consultant's final design for co~= effectiveness and complete- If ness in accordance with design criteria report objectives; ~ produce written report on consultants performance; preparing final documents for the purpose of construction tendering; ~ other du:ies as required; (Management of projects designed and contract documents prepared in-house) ~.I reviewing existing drawings/missing building plans, and visiting site to determine drawing veracity; as required, formulating new floor site plans= ~" preparing designs, drawings, specifications and contract documents of all electrical work; endorsing after completion for building permit purposes; ~ providing expert technical advice to District Maintenance Managers in preparation, of short form tender calls; providing estimates of construction ; costs; 'f supervising the preparation of contract drawings by co-op students, providing assistance in the form of details, sketches and notes, and some - training; '2 other dutieS, as required; 2.Provides specified services to Construction Services and Operational Maintenance Sections by: (Construction 'Services ) ~ reviewing shop drawings provided by hired, construction contractor for ~ompliance with Design Section recommendations as to equipment to be ~ used~ approving same; - approving material and design changes initiated by Construction Services/ contractor during =he construction phase; conducting site visits and recommending construction method changes, reporting discrepancies to ~ .~he Contract Administrators; ' - advising on and approving design changes necessitated by unforeseen job conditions (e.g. Fire Department request for additional work to be done); ~{' (Operational Maintenance) -~ investigating projects experiencing high maintenance costs; ? using technical expertise to recommend solutions to recurring maintenance problems (e~g. suggesting replacement, upgrade, energy conservation measures, equipment efficiency improvements)  recommending on maintenance procedures under the Scheduled Maintenance Program, for equipment not covered under existing schedules; ~ other duties as required; 3. yrovtdes ~echntcai advice to othe~ disciplines, fieid s~aff and ~0%~ management by:1 . -~ at=ending Tender Awards Committee (as del'egated by Manager), and providing echn~cal.:~advice as asked; ~ providing representation o~ the Consul=an= selection Commi==ee; recommending hiring of Design consultants; ~- on the request of site staff, investigating unusual events and suggesting potential solutions; ~'~' providing expert advice to Architectural, Landscaping, Mechanical and Structural. disciplines; co-ordinating design a~d construction ~chedule with these disciplines to minimize work disruption; -~ producing preliminary reports to determine proJec~ costs and to'  solve electrical system problems; using available computer technology, 'designing computer-monitored ~lfe safety systems (e.g. in,agra=ed fire alarm systems); monitoring progress to establish operating guidelines; -~ providing expert to MTHA management; demonstrating expertise advice and guidance in =he developmen~ and updating of policies, standards and manuals as =hey relate to electrical systems; ........ con~ ' d/ ~lec~ri~a~ ?echnolog£st/$5-?281-O? - ) - -~' conducting feasibility studies wit~ cost estimates for ~oard presentation or staff request; ~ researching new products and methods on the market to keep updated for ' future design use~ _ providing other guidance as required liaising with Federal and Provincial regulatory bodies to advise on testing of proposed changes to Codes and standaras. (e.g. relocation of pull stations from building corridors to units); 4. Participates in-the formulation of $ year non-recurring budget planning reviewing district submissions for $ year plan; visiting site with Construction Manager/field staff and other designers to determine validity of request, to recommen~ on priority of i~em, to verify amount requested, and to recommend if work can be facilitated by in-house staff ~ or consultant. - evaluating existing electrical, emergency life and safety support systems; recommending when remedial work ~'s required and should be added to the S-year non-recurring budget'plan. Skills and Knowledge (cont'd) building codes, CSA, ~LC standards, codes and regulations relating'to electrical, emergency life and safety support systems. Good analytical, consultative and organizational skills. Ability to communicate clearly and tactfully with government officials, senior staff and other authorities. Proven ability to perform i~dependen~ly and in teams. Good working knowledge of Architectural, Civil, Mechanical and Structural engineering fields to ensure integration in the total project design. Knowledge in computer technology as applied to engineering and design processes.