Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0172.Chau et al.90-11-29 ON rAf~fO EMPL OYES DE LA C OURONNE · CF~OWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONrARiO " GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SEITLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD ~ DES GRIEFS 't8~' DU~VDA$~STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSG 1Z8 - SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/T~L~'PHONE 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M5G ') Z8 - BUFtEAU 2?00 (416) 598.06EE 172/89 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEE8 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BO/%RD BETWEEN OPSEU (Chau et al) Grievor - &~d - The Crown in' Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Employer BEFORE: M. Watters Vice-Chairperson G. Majesky Member M. F. O'Toole Member FOR THE .N. Roland GRIEVOR 'Counsel Cornish Roland Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE C. Peterson EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HEARING: February 19, 1990 April 6, 1990 July 31, 1990 This proceeding arises as a consequence o,- nl'Ee (9~ ' ~ ,~ ' ~ ~ ~'%rt,Icller~" grievances filed Dy e?,~ Sen~or' Design Drs¢~ers in ~h_ ~ O~fice of the Ministry of Tr'aasportaZ~on. Each of the ~r~ev,ors claim:ed Shat they were improperlz classified as a Crafter 3, The class stanSards in respect of the Orafter Series are appended [o this award as Schedule 'a' The Board was asked to find that the job performed by Che grievors did not fit within the assigned class standard and to, therefore, issue what has come to be known as a Berry Order. More particularly, such an oFder would com~e} the Employer to find or create a more appropriate classification. The Union did not. advance a usage argument in this case. Hr. Roy Wong was pmesented as a representati.ve grievor, This gentleman commenced employment with the Ministry in 1959 as " a Junior Draftsman. He became a Drafter 1 in 1962 and a Drafter 2 in 1967, He has worked as a Drafter 3 since 1969, The evidence of Mr, Wong was supplemented by that of Mr. Ernest O'Neill, one of the other grievors. He commenced employment with the Ministry in 1954. He similarly progressed through the several steps of the ~rafter Series and ultime%ely became a Drafter 3 in early t966. Mr, O'Neill retired in April, 1989. Mr, Chris Bassi, a professional engineer and head of the Design Section of the Structural Office since 1979, was the sole witness for the Employer. Mr. Bassi has worked in the aforementioned office since 1957. The Position Specification ~or- ~he 2ob. nar'formed by ti~e gr~evors is appended %0 th~s award ~s ~c~edu~e ~B' Both of the grievots wh& testified on behalf of the Union agr-eed (k, ab ~he purpose of ~he posi~on was accurately described ~n specification. Additionai~y, w1%h only minor excepbion, %hey believed ~hat' ~he document defined the core functions ~hich they regularly performed ~n the position. These functions ~nctude the following: (i) the preparation of preliminary drawings for various types of new complex highway structures, such as bridges and interchanges, amd for projects involving major rehabilitation of existing structures; (ii) the subsequent preparation of contract drawings and documents in respect of these same structures; (iii)~he design of simpler components of hi9hway structures such as wingwalls~ retaining walls and footings; (iv) the checking and review of drawings or documents prepared by other staff or external consultants; and (v) the performance of mathematical and complex geometric computatiohs and the calculation of s~ructural quantities required for tender documents. The grievors before the Board did not train junior staff nor did they coordinake the work of other employees in the office. At the outset of the hearing, the Union advanced four (4) grounds in support of the reclassification sought. Firstly, submitted that the use of computers had'become a material part of the job of a Brafter 3 since the last revision bo the class standards in 1963. Second]y, it was asserted that the grievors had assumed significant work formerly performed by the Quantities 2 Section in respect of the c.._~,culaN:oF, and ch~cking of concrete <~wantities, Thirdly', ~t ~s a~gued that the employees in question wePe requir'ed bo engage in an engineering func~cn ',.'~s a v~s the design of simple componenLs of comp~e~ bridges, Las~l?, it ~as subm~'tted that the Ora[ter Z's worked o~* the most. comp~e:~ of drafting prcjecks. The Board heard a substantial amount of evidence in respect of the submissions listed above. It is unnecessary ~o reproduce a~] of such evidence, which we have considered at.some length, for purposes of this award. We address below each of the grounds relied on by the Union. USE OF COMPUTERS Mr. Wong testified that he uses computer programs to assist with the drafting ,process. We were advised that ~he use of the computer permits him to determine the appropriate angles, e~evations, off-sets, coordinates, dimensions and clearances. Various programs are also employed in the calculation of concrete and reinforcing steel quantities. In both instances, the Drafter 3 must isolate the appropriate input and then analyze the resulting output. It was Mr. Wong's recollection that he started using computers in the early to mid 1970's. He stated that the computer has served to reduce the time spent in the making of necessary calculations. These were formerly undertaken on a manual basis. He further indicated that the use of the computer 3 has resulted in greater accu;acy. ~.,is g?iever ex~Jressed opi~lion that such use has i~]creased the ccm~:]ex.{t/ o~ the draWLing pe~Eermed as iL has {acC'] i tated the dr-aF~'in.g nE more oemple, h;r {dges. Hr-. Wong es~.~mated ~hat aoproximatel/ twe]ve percent (12%) of h:s time was spent working with In cross-ex, amJnat$o~], he conceded that he was ur)aware that oompu%ers ~ere used as early as 1959 in the drafting ~recess Mr. O'Neill did not recall seeing a computer when he commenced work as a Drafter 3 in 1966. His first exposure to the computer occurred in 1969 and it was not until.about 1975 that he first employed a program in his drafting work. Mr. Bassi testified that computer programs have been used %o assist in bridge design since 1959. He noted that specific programs relating to elevations, clearances and dimensions were utilized as early as 1961. Mr. Bassi stated that the Drafter 3's would then provide the input for each of ~he programs to a key punch clerk who would subsequently process the data through a main computer. The Drafter 3 would later be responsible for assessing the output. Mr. Bassi conceded that these early programs were "primitive" in nature. He stated, however, that more comprehensive prorrams were employed as of 1968. He agreed that the use of such a tool has served to save time and reduce mistakes. Mr. Bassi did not believe that the use of the computer necessarily meant Ghat drafting per se had become more complex. 4 way of example, he ~oted th,z,b .3omple¢. d~"~fb',,~g was pe:'for-med 1962 and 1963 in respect o¢ the Spao{na E.~pressway. T~e Boar-d has.carefully reviewed ti~e ..:lass s~andards w{th respect to the use of the computer. 'We are sat~sf4ed these s~andar~s contemplate that a Drafter 3 w~ employ a computer 4n performing the duties and responsibilities of tF~e~r pos~on. The Board notes that the description of characteristic duties of the Drafter 3 includes "the operat4on of cod4ng and decod4ng ~nformat~on for survey calculations made by e~ectron~c computer." A similar duty is isolated in respect of ~he Drafter 2. Indeed, the Orafter t may be called upon to "fill in and interpret the more standard computer data sheets perta~n~n9 to br.~dge pPograms. We have been persuaded that the use of the computer -better allows the Oraften 3 to make the "computations related to survey~n9 and basic engineering" provided for ~n the preamble to the Drafter Series, CALCULATION OF QUANTITIE~ Mr. ~ong testified that he calculated stee~ quantities prior tO the early 1970's. Me d~d not,' however, engage in a similar task in respect of concrete. Concrete quantities were determined by the Quantities Section prior ~o ~t's d~ssoTut~on ~n the early 1970's. Mr. Wong stated that the-Draf%er 3's thereafter assumed such work. He was apparently unaware that the personhe] in the Quantities Section, who had previously performed the necessary calculations, were classified as Drafter 1 and Drafter 2. 5 In our judgment, *~he calc~ataS-,c,n of quantit'ies ~s clear';? provided for in the Drafter 3 .class standard. Paragraph numbe:- f'~ve (5) thereof specifica]]y states Chat an employee wiLh ~ha?. classification may be calico upon to "estimate qu'antfcies ~d cost of materials required,..". Similar duties are also found ~n tt~e Junior Drafter, Drafter 1, and Drafter 2 class standards. DESIGN OF SIMPLE COMPC. NENT~ OF COMPLEX BRIDGES It was beyond dispute that the grievors engage in ~he design of simple components qf complex bridges. Such an activity is expressly contemplated in paragraph number four (4) of the Drafter 3 class standard which reads, in. part' "Under direction, design the simpler parts of complex br'idge structure, wing walls, retaining walls, footings, beams, bearings, finger plates." DRAFTING OF THE MOST COMPLICATED HIGHWAY STRUCTURES Mr. Won9 testified that the Drafter 3's are now drafting more complex structureS. Mr, O*Neill held a similar opinion, Zt was his evidence that bridges became more complicated and difficult to.draft as a consequence of' (i) the greater number of curves, skews, voids and "spaghetti intersections"; (ii) the increased lenDth of spans; (iii) variation in bridge width; and (iv) the use of stress cables and post tension structures. From his perspective, these developments created more detail to be reflected in the drawings produced. Mr. O'Neill was not aware if other drafters worked on bridges which incorporated these features in the early 1960's. He conceded that if they had, such bridges could be considered as complex, 6 Ntt. BassC stated ,that DrafHer- S's were i:~v-o*~ed in Lhe -Jraf.Cin9 of complex bridges as earl~ as 196'2. The Board was sho,~n a ser~es of drawings pertaining to the Spad'ina Expressway ~h~ch '~a~-e completed in ~arch, 1963 (exh~.b~t 1~). One :nterchange on th~s expressway had LwenLy-~hree (23) bridges. It was Mr. Bassi's opinion ~ha~ at ]eas~ one-half of such bridges were "complex" in tha~ they were long, post ~ension s~ruc~ures which included curved alignments, twisting p~ers and rounded voids. He testified ~ha~ his office had been involved with post tensioning and rectangular voids s~nce 1960. He noted further ~hab rounded voids were f~rsH used in 1963. Z~ was his opinion ~hat there was no difference, in terms of drafting complexity,' between rounded and rec~angu]ar voids. The Board was also shown drawings dated November, 1968 relating to the interchange'located at Highways 401 and 27 (exhibit 12). The bridge at that site had a curved alignment and contained rectangular and triangular voids. Mr. Bassi described such bridge as "complex" and not dissimilar in nature to. those which would be drafted,today. Lastly, we were presented with drawings dated November, 1984 and July, 1985 of an interchange at Highways 401 and 410 (exhibit 13). As in the case of exhibits 11 and ~2, the drawings had been prepared by Drafter 3's. ~r. Bassi considered that exhibit 13 was of "similar complexity" vis a vis exhibit 12. In this regard, both of the projects had similar curves and voids and were post tension structures. 'Both sets o¢ drawings had been manu~tty prepared. it is clear to the Board t~-,at the Drafter ~ s are in complex drafting. This is :'~ecessari1/ a fusction of .the '~ ' ~'ese complex natOre o~ the projects ~orked on. As Drafter ~ s. .~r~e'.,or's are assigned the most complicated, tasks. The thr~esh,~,~ question For t~e Board ~s whether th~s t~pe of ~ork ~s encompassed by the current .class standards. After reviewing. same, we find that we must answer the question 4n the affirmative. We think ~t s~gn~ficant that the class standard issue speaks of "complex draft4ng", "h4gh~y techn4ca% sub- profess~ona~ design drafting", "complex eng4neer4ng and survey plans" and "complex bridge structure". This ~anguage suggests to us that the c~ass standard contemplated that Oraftar 3's en9age in complex work of the type described above. In summary, the Board has not been persuaded that the grounds initially raised by the Union at the commencement of 'it's case support the claim for reclassification. In our judgment, the aspects of the job referred to fall squarely within the language of the class standard. In closing argument, however, counsel for the Union advanced a further, albeit somewhat related, submission. Simply put, he submitted that the class standard had to be interpreted in a temporal fashi6n. More specifically, counsel suggested that the language contained therein had to be read in the context of the highway structures and computer technology existing as of December 1963, this being the date of the last revision to the' Drafter 3 class standard. We were urged to find that the twenty-seven (27) year old 8 standard did not contemplate **- level computer technology existing ~oday. tn other asked to co~c]ude that %he standard had been "~ef% behind" bb subseque,~'b de.¢e!opmen%s. The Board was. referred ~o the .~ward in .Akchi~on, 1080./88 (De]~sie). ;n that instance, the panel remarked bh~t times had changed in the twenty.(20) year period since the preparation of the Field Worker-Homes for Special Care standard and tha~ the language of same no longer reflected the reality of the job as Performed. Reference ~as also made to Dunn~na, 1574/88 (Gorsk¥) in ~hich ~he Board reiterated a statemen~ found in ~a]d~in and Lyn.q, 539/8~ (Pa]met) to the effect %ha~ "one cannok use catch-aql phrases, interred in minor parts of a documen~ to suppor~ the case that such a document can cover any job that such a minor clause can conceivably cover." The Board in Dunnina made ~he further commen~ at page 17' "Z canno~ conclude ~hat because %he bulk of the grievor's duties and responsibilities fa]] within the class standard means ~ha~ he is properly classified, Wha~ tha~ he could be ca]~ed upon at any ~ime by %he empqoyer ~o perform the functions beyond those covered by %he class standard.' Counsel for the Employer responded with the argument, inter a?fa, that the class standard ful]y covered the dut~es-of the Drafter 3 both at the time of ~t's preparation and at present. He submitted that the grievors' ~ob had not changed in a qua]fitatJve sense so as to justify a reclassification. The Board was referred to the fo]?ow~ng a~ards in support of the Employer's position: Aird et al, t349/87 [S]one); Re Wi]son Concrete 9 Product;s Ltd. And United Cement, Li..me An..d Glpsum Worker-s, Local ~24, 3 L,A.C. (2d) 32 ('.~eatheri~i, ~ori: 1373); Re Kirkland Board Of EdUcation And Canadian'Union <Jr Public Employees, Local 1671, 2.'3 L.A.C. (Sd) 252 (Wilson, June lg57); Re SJmerry [nc. And United Automobile Workers, Local 641, 20 L.A.C. (Sd) 385 (Hinnegan, October 1985); Bofi~eau, 72A/88 (Kirkwood); Cho-Chu, 66/82 (Teplibsky); O'Neill, t526/87 (Dissanayake); Nulli.qan, 1675/87 (Samuels); Brick et at., 564/80 (Samuels). The Board has considered the ~atter argument;presented by the Union. Ultimately, we have no~ been persuaded in this finstance that the longevity of the c~ass standards should militate agains~ giving the words contained therein their plain and ordinary meaning. As previously stated, it is our judgment that the class standa'rds expressly contemplate that Drafters 3 w~ll perform complex work anU ~hat a certain amount of same will be accomplished through the use of the computer. This case is therefore distinguishable from Atchison. While we agree with the comments found in-Dunninq, we find they are inapplicable in this instance. Firstly, our decision is premised on an abundance of clear language contained within the standards. The Board has not sought to rest it's reasoning on catch~alq words and phrases. Secondly, it has not been demonstcated ~o our satisfaction that these grievors have performed work falling outside of' the classification. Simply put, these standards contemplate that %he Drafter 3's will engage in complex, projects and that they may be assisted by the computer in their tasks. While there may have Peen an increase in the r, umber of such projects, and while computer technology may have s~gn~f~can~I/ advanced since 1962~ we are unable to say, with any degree of confidence, that there has been a q,~a]itative change ~n the job performed Dy these gr~evors. As is riot uncommon in cases of this nature, the Board was impressed w]th the expertise and commitment of these grievors. Our role has' been to determine whether the job they perform fits neatly within the applicable class standards. For~ ~he reasons set out above, we have found that' a~l of the core functions of their job fall squarely within the language of Schedule 'A' In the context of this case, we are not at liberty to determine whether the content of their job has been undervalued when compared with other positions in the public or private sector. The. grievances must therefore be dismissed. Dated at Windsor, Ontario this 29ch day of November ,1990. M.V. Walters, Vice-Chai'rperson "I DISSF~" (Dissent to follow) G. Maiesky, Member N, F. O'Toole, 11 '? 12400 DRAFTER SERIES KIND OF .WORK COVEP, ED' In i~eneral, emp]oyee workassignrnents inthis Series require the exercise of manual skill in the rnanipulation of drafting tools, and the utilization of knowledge of technical procedures, engineering practices and. mathematics in order to complete clear accurate plans. Such work involves the preparation of various engineering and survey plans, plani- metric maps, engineering des ign drawings, ~om_~utations _related to surveying ~ and basic enl~ineering, illustrative drafting for publication and office u~e,-'a-~nd ['Ee supervises,, of. dr%ftin$ functions. EXCLUSIONS FROM THE DRAFTING SEI~IES: 1. Positions in which the primary emphasis is on the calculation of quantities from engineering plans should be considered for allocation to the Engineer Assistant Series. ., 2. Positions with considerable illustrative work of a graphic and artistic nature may be more properly classified in the Commercial Artist Series.. :! 3. Positions which consist of predominately clerical duties, but which require !'i:- some minor and incidental drafting, should be carefully, analyzed for pos° sible allocation to the Clerical Series. ALLOCATION FACTORS IN THE DRAFTER SFRIES The allocat ion factor s pertinent to the .dr*f'er ser;e~ may var. y considerabl~ from position to position. Howe~er, the following are the more common and im- ports nt factor s: 1. Ability to do mathematics, with the knowledge required ranging from ele- mentary algebra and geometry to elements of C~rade 1~ mathemat{cs. It is i!i important to know the scope and variety of mathematics required, and the · i availability of specific ~uidelines !: 2. The drafting skill level' required in a position. Three grades of drafting skill exist, trainee, com__~pete~nt and a,~._C~_Dlishe_d, Above Draftsman skill level is normally significant only in combination with other factorS. ~. Specialized knowledge of pertinent legislation, survey practice, basic e~gi- nesting principles, and knowledge of departmental standards, proced~gres and policies. It is important to analyze carefully the essential nature and extent of these requirements be[ore their significance can be assessed. 4. The nature and extent of supervisory control exercised over the positi~on· by a higher authority, although in the field of drafting the normal pattern is. for all completed work to b~ reviewed for accuracy regardless of the level at ~vhich it was l>erforrned. 5. Supervisory responsibility includin8 the eco~. complexity and importince ~ thedr~ting function supervised, the numar and ~eve[ of those eu~rv, iaed, the 'desree o~ responsibility assumed for completed work'and Eot, the training of Junior at,ff. It must ~ emphasized that the aide of the dr~ting group supervised ia meaningful only tn combi~tion ~ith the tion'-s overall duties and responsibilities. In some areas, the a~cialized nature a~ complexity ~ the work eu~rvised is a more ei&n~icant factor than the el~e Of the groups. TRACER CL~S: This class is limited' to positions where the primary duty is skilled tracing work'. Simple plotting and computing may be a.subsldiary function. Differing from similar work performed at the Junior Draftsman level, the tracing work of this class is of' a higher quality, and is carried out under less supe:r~is.ion. GENERAL NOTE: 1. The Characteristic Dutie.s outlined in these specifications mainly reflect the drafting functions of the Departments of FIigh',.'~ays,' Lands and forests and Public Works. A general reference to the drafting activities in other Departments has been made, both in the Class Definition and Characteristic Duties. Z. It is very important when submitting Nominations for Promotion in'this Series to support such recommendations by outlining clearly the changes in the p~sitionts duties and responsibi.lities. Revised. March, 1961:. DRAFTSMAN, JUNIOR IZ400 CLASS DE FLNIT~ON: Thio is entry level trainee drafting work. In some instances, this class may be the pre-entry level for euti~ting, commercial art 'and photo~r~mmetry.. The work ~rformed is of ~ ele~ry ~d routine nature, inVolving.plotting, tracinS, colourihg, drafter, and calc~ting, &nd~comes pro~ressive'ly more tec~ic81 &nd varied as ~e- trainee tcq~res ex~rience. ~e workdone subject to close s~r~sion ~d chec~ng by senior drifting ~rso~e~. C~RACTERISTIC DUT~S: Under close ou~rvision, compile, plot 8nd draft ~e more simple plan8 and nimetric ~ps rehting to aerial, gro~d and legal ~d surveys, engineering, comm~ity pla~inS, forestry, soil research or conservation, plot.simple contours, profiles, cross-oectio~8 ~nd site phns. ~ ' From rough notes or de~iled instr~tions, prepare simple c~rts, graphs and Stems, some of which rely ~ ~ed to illustrate de~rtment~l pub~cation8 and reports. After ~oi~ tra~i ina drafting office, u8~ trigono~try, mens~ation, geometry, ~e e~men~ry c~lc~ti~s: determ~ing ~r~s from ~gles, trigo- nometric solu~on of feo~tric figures, F~ding miss~g dis~nces and ~lr~s, deter~gerror of closes, computing areas, elevations, ve~ic~l and hori- ~on~l c~s, c~lc~ing atr~t~e q~ntities ~d minor bridge ~eometrics. Use such mechanicaleq~pment ~s ~lot~mg ~ch~e, pl~imcter, electric c~lc~tor, proportio~.di~de rs and ~tograph. Trace or uc~ f~alcopies from rough de~iled p~ns ~nd driwings,, using free,nd or mec~nical ~ette~ng. According to de~iled instr~ti~s, dr~ft revisions to existing p~s. drawings and mapo; enhrge or reduce dr&wings to appropriate scale using pantograph or proportional divide rs. Occ~8io~y col°ur phns ~ dr~winSs with crayon, ~k or ~mts. Perform o~er related work 3s assigned. QUALI~CATIONS: 1. A minim~ of Grade 10 sec~dary eduction, preferably Grade 13 rustics and technical, or high school training in dr~ftins. Z. Demonstrated ability to produce neat accurate drawings; some ~e~aticai ability; ability to ~derstlnd and follow instructions; ~ertness. July. 1961 · - DRAFTER 1 · 12402 J CI.,ASS DElq:I~TION: This class covers moderately complex drafting work performed by cOmpetent and experienced draftsmen. These employees are involved in the prep~ratior~' and checking ofpLtns, drawings and planimetric rn~ps related to aerial, gro~md ~nd legal Ltnd surveys, architecture, engineering, comm~mity planning, forestry, soil research or conservation. Theyrnayalso perform drafting work involving · minor design elements oflL. nited scope and complexity. In some positions, they rr~y do illustrative drafting work for publications or reports. Supervision is general on repetitive tasks, while new assignments are received with'more detailed instructions. Work &ssignments are reviewed on completion. C HAR~CTERI~TIC DUTIES: Under general supervision, compile, plot, draft and check moderttelycomplex. Sur'vey plans, pL~nimetric maps, land use maps, profiles, contours, cross-sections a~d site plans from field notes, topographical rr~ps, ~nd other reference ma- terial. Dr~ft lJase p!m~s;~ pl~t ~nd check survey details such as ~eographic&l distances, angles, bearings, ties, surveyand right-of-w~ylirnits, reservations ~d s~l~owtnces, lot ~nd concession lj_~es, structures, ro~ds, mintns claims; compute mode rately complex a urve y calc u~ttons; interpret ~nd re solv~ minor · survey co~__~ictions which &re clearly within established procedures. Under close SUl~Sion, check field survey plans in accordance 'with. Del~tment specifications ~nd pertinent lesislation prior tO re'sist~tion in Registry Office. Under close supervision, l~rticipate in moderately complex design drafting in the preparation ofprelimin.~, ry and final intersection and channelizatiou drawings, establishin~preliminary and final road ~rades, ~ud preparing detail drawinss of bridge components. This work ie covered by specific guidelines such topographical and statistical data, design criteria, rough design sketches .and notes, en$ineering specificationk and standards. Work will be thoro~hly viewed by senior ~rafting or engineerin~ staff. For example, under the c'loee sul~rvieion of a senior' draftsman or professional engineer, prepare brid~e ,drawings from engineer's notes, sketches and ino structions. Prepare key and site plane, several layout drawings, detail draw- ings of piles, abutments, piers, deck features, winf~ ~alls, retaining walls, end and guard rails; make standard computations in regard to elevations, ~rades, skew angles,, vertical curves. Take afl ~-,~,~f,~t-ci,~q steel fr.om .~letail drawin~_~ .preD,~'e ~'--4,~fc~rei~g ~ gchs-t,,~s ~t,l~'t,l~tin~[ all dimensions weights required, fill in and_'mterpret th, mote s,-,~f~-r~ compu~ter ~ata 'sheets pertam~n$ to b~idge pro_~rarn~s. ~.. Under the close supervisi~ u of a designer or professional engineer, prepare or re- vise fi,¶~iworkingdrawings and plans related to electrical, mechanical, struc'? tural, architectural or sanitaryengineering. Most of the desism details, ~ener'al layOUt and dimensions Wilt be clearly outlined in engines ring note However, minor designworkof limited scope and complexity may be involved. Drawinss will be thoroushly reviewed on completion. For ex~mple, in the electricalen~ineering field, prepare'electricaldrawings from design notes and ,, sketches. ]vlaypat~lcipatein the design of minor electrical l~youts in locating switches, receptacles, outlets, fixtures, condait rems; calculating intensities,' wire sizes, ~d arranging electric~l condors; OR in ~e ~rchi- tect~ drafting field pre.re contour drtwings, site p~ns, ~oor ~youta, elev~ti~ drawings, detail draw~gs ~d sched~s of w~ sections, windows, [ doors, stairs, roofs, footings ~d fo~dationa, etc. From rough sketches or accord~g to general instructions, pre.re various't~s of charts, graphs ~d diagrams. '~ke revisions ~o grade l~es on receipt of soil ~or~tio~; prep~re re~si~s to high~y~ co~ty~ city ~d o~er ~ps; ~ke '~s cons~r~ted' ~meadments to linen drawings; ~y out ~d dr~w high~y si~s ~nd ~ve~e~t ~r~gs; reduce and check ~eld ~otes ~g prepared for electronic computers. tuft1 stee 1. stee 1 ping s, excavation ~d fi11~ ~d s ~dry co~str~t~ ~te from bridge draw~gs. ~xchaage work ~ o~ers. ~o recheck Us~ trigonometry, meas~tioa~dgeometry~ ~rform~dchecks~hcomp~ti~e · s de~er~g error of clos~e by dou~le ~ri~ d~s~ces~ trigonometric sol~o~ ~ geometric ~g~es, ~d~g ~ss~g dis~ces ~d ~r~gs~ com- pu~g areas, elev~ti~s~ venice1 ~d hori~oa~l curves. Search deposal1 records fo~ title ~d s~t~ of ~d. ~s work ~ ~ rechecked for accuracy. .. On occasion, ~y s~r~se ~e' work of j~ior.draft~g Perform o~er re~ed work as assigned. ~ · 1. Grade 12 secondary ed~cati~* preferably Grade 13 ~a~e~tics, or'an ~::. eq~lent comb~a~i~ of ed~ation ~d e~rience. Z, Fo~ ~ars~ re.ted e~rience, or ~o ~ar~* e~rience ~d successf~ completion of e~~ti~s approved b~ ~e*Ci~ Set.ce Co~ssi~. ~ecti~a where e~m~flons are ~ed ~ey m~t ~ ~eaed. 3. G~ ~owledge.of dr~t~g tec~iques ~d work procedures; nip,,I-~on of draft~g ~str~ents; where applicable, ~ome ~owledge elemen~ry photogram~t~, com~tency ~ ~the~tics, go~ ~o~ledge of s~vey practice~ general ~owledge of ~r~ent pro~nc~al ~d ~ederal s~t~es ~d de~rtmen~l s~cifications; ability to ~ders~d ~d foUow detailed ~str~tions. July, 1961 DRAFTER 2 1 ?.,404 CLASS DEFINITION: This class covers complex drafting work, involving plans with intricate.details, dif- ficult rr~therrmtical calcu.~tions, extensive survey ~erpretation, basic .engi~ neer~g ~nd ~r~hitect~ral principles and · variety of re~erence d~t~. Ia some positions, ~der ~ prolession~l engineer or designer, ~ey.~rform dr~fting wor~ involv~ considerable m~or desi~. These employes a s~ll group of draItsmen ~{forming m~er~tely complex drafting work. Theywork ~de r ~e' sene ral su~ r~sion of senio~ .draff~g s~ wi~ cons id~ r* · able ~tit~e for initiative regard~ the.dra~g t~c~iques ~d. ~y are exacted to complete work ~ssi~ments wi~ a ~im~ of r~ew. C~CTER~TIC DUTIES: Compile, plot~d draft ~e more di/fic~t ~d impor~t survey p~s, draw~s ~d p~imetric ~ps. CorreCts ~d ~te rpret ~ried reference p~s ~d ~terial; plot ~d check de~tled s~vey 'p~ from field notes; Check azim~ calcu- ~tione; Cslc'~te diffic~t com~d ~d revs rse c ~ve s; formate ~ derived from s~y ~e~notes to ~ calc~ted on electronic computer for :. .p~ose ofdetermi~description ties, metes ~d ~da, ~d ~en req~red~ check o~ership of pro~rty by reference to ~d Titles, Re~st~, Cr~ ~ds, Patents ~d M~ici~l offices, ~terpret s~y c~c~ons, resoling ~or discrep~cies ~d outing ~e na~e of ~jor c~ctions to su~riors. ~ake a ~orou~h and [nde~ndent check of di~c~t ~accord~ce ~ de~rtment~l s~cifications ~d ~ent le8iahti~ prior to registration ~ ~d Titles or Regie~y O~ce'e, ~ia chec~g f~ctton renewed solely ~ terms of resets. ~ay~ req~red to ~str~t o~ers ~ ~e .plott~g~ computing ~d chec~ p~ns. Working ~der ~e g~ner~ su~sion Of a professional ~ng~e'er or more senior ~r~ts~. pre.re Final brid~e desi~ drawings from eng~eering sketches. ~d ~etr~tlona.~ Assist in ~e desi~ of simp~e~ parts o( complex bridge struct~es. Prepare a~ necessary detail dra~nss; p~ce re~orc~g steel ~ accordance ~ engineer~g inst'r~tions; pre.re steel sched~es qm~esti~tes~ ~re~re ~ interpret ~-Dut ~a~ for electronic como~t~r~ ~y ~ re~ed to ins~ m~e ~ior ~ta~f mem~rs. Under~e general s~r~si~ of a designer or professio~l engineer, pr~re Wor~ dra~ngs ~d p~s re.ted to electrical, mec~nical, structural, architectural or sani~ry engineer~g. At ~is level. ~e draftsmen h~dle a complete drafting project ~th a minim~ of direction, and are responsible for considerable minordesiEu. Workis reviewed on completion. ~ay ~ req~r~d to instr~t j~ior drafting staff. For e~mpl~, ~ ~e electrical eng~eer~ field, prepare complex electrical ~yout drawings ~ rtainiu~ to electrical va~ts, power houses~ and outdoor sub-stations. Under direction, desi~ or re~s~ electrical Iayouts on small projects; OR in ~e architectural draftin~ fie~d, prepare sectional views, detail, elevation and f~ished wor~ drawings for institutional, res~dential, or,icc and industrial t~s of b~ldin~s. 12404 ,R'e sponsible for indicating requirements and preparin£ detail drawintlm on minor s t r uc t ura 1 components such a s expans ion joint s, coping de tails, fittinss, drains, washroom facilities, mirrors, shelves, cupboards, cabinets, windows, doors ~-~d s~,irwmys. In minor Sul~rv~sory positioas, correlate and compile reterence rr~teri~l; assign work ~nd outline instructions; supply technical guidance; contact eaiiaeering and departmen~l officials for inlorrr~tion and clarification; rn~ke a detailed check of .completed drafting work ~ud calcuLmtions prior to a general review by a senior staff member. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade IZ Secondary Education, preferably Grade 13 MathematiC?, or an equivalent combination of education and experience. ~ · 2. Five years as Draltsman 1, or three ~ars and successf~ completion of exam~ations approved by~e Civil Service Commission. ~ SectiOns where e~m~ations are ~ed ~ey m~t ~ ~ssed. ./ .= ~. ~oro~h~owledge of drying tec~iq~s ~d work proced~es; where ~p- placable, sold knowledge of ~e~tics, broad ~derst~ding of 8~vey practice, ~o~ ~ledse of ~rt~ent pro~ncial ~d federal s~t~es ~d de~rtmen~ s~cifica~ons; some su~r~sow ~biht~ ~itiitive. $ u.ty, 1961 '"' i -. 12406 -DRAFTER 3_. . ' ~ CLASS DEFINITION: Tbi, is normally responsible supervisory-drafting Work. The~e · ~-~ responsible for thc ~ccur~cy u~d compl~te~s~ of ~l~c dr~fting their work unit, T~cy supervise ~ mcdium-si~ed group of draftsmen ~rforming complex dry,ting or design dr~ft~g, being directly ~espon~ible to ~ senior' . engineer, forester, survey st~ff of[icial, or to ~ senior dr~ftsm~. ~his c~ss ~so cover~ ~i[i~s ~ employees engaged ~ hi~hly ~chic~l sub-piofessional desi.~ d~fting unde~ ~ direction ~[ ~n eag~eer~ ~rchttect or designer, where ~upervisory respoa.~ibili~i~s ~e l~ited or Also, included' ~te positions wh~e ~upervisory responsibilities to highly technical survey dr~f~g performed for senio~ survey of[icialsb . CHARACTER~TIc DUTY: ~nder senior eagia.eeri~g s~[, ~urvey~r~ or ~enior dr~[tsmen, supervise.. -'roe.allure-sized groups of draftsmen e~g~ged ~ ~lott~ c~utin~, tr~c~ ~d checking complex eag~ee~ ~surve~l~s~ ~w~Ks. m~. ~te~pret ~nd ci~r~y'field notes, ~e~ch d~, design crite~i~ mo. e~- g~'e~'~g spec~ic~tio~s; oufl~e or compile re~e~eace m~terial~ ~ssi~ duties and specify ~equi~eme~ts~ 'supply tec~ic~l guidance; m~ke a 4e~iled 'check completed work; cons~t ~ field ~d engineering st~ on technical m~tters; direct ~he operation oi c~g ~d dec~ing inform~tio~ ~or survey c~lcul~tioa~ m~de by ele~t~.onic computer. h ~-~o[~io~l ~e~i~ work, ~e ~ic de~i~ p~ciple~ ~o ~e forces ~ct~g on structural components, ~me~ts -of ~erti~, ~ssi~g duties ~d m~k~g ~ renew of completed work. . ~rep~re d~w~. d~~_~_d s~c~ications as ~ssi~ed fo~o~UC~O~ · ~t~es ~d cost of ~r~s required u~der sup~r~On ~u ui~cti~. Per~.r_~=C~=l ~n.~zsti~t!.~l work [~..~eni~[ su?~.g stM~.o~.~q~ As supervisors, they ~re responsible for ~e training of dra{t~g st~ff, maki'~g recommendations on pcrso~el matters, ~d acting ~ ~structors on 8epa~tmental draft~g course~. -). Grade ]Z secondary e~iuc~tion, prefer'ably Grade 13 mathematics, or ~n equivalent combination of education a~d experienci, 2. At least seve~years~ ~elated expe~ie~ce an~ · minimum of'two yea~s D~eftsman 2 or equivalent duties, 3. Expert ~ow]edge of dr~ting techniques ~d work procedores; Where appltcabie, thorough kn~ledge of mathematics, tho~oug~ ~owledg~ of survey practice, pert~ent prov~cial ~d federal s~tutes ~d departmental specifications, supervisory ~btlity; ~iti~tive; tact: good ~udg~ent. .. Revised December 1963 Structural Design ~:hnfcian ~ 06-4261-14 ~after 3 ~: ~nior ~sign ~after ~ ~261-14 Min~ ~~t i~ Highway em~.-o~ L~,~ 3~i ~fferi~ St~t~ ~fi~ ~sign ~ti~ ~view, ~t. ~K 1N6 I ~ fill ~ntract ~avi~s, ~r ~ s~isi~, for v~i~ t~s of nev ~lex highvay bri~es, other tr~r~ti~ st~ct~es ~ ~jor re~lli~ti~ to existi~ .t~ct~al ~tities r~r~ for ~r ~~. ~ ~sign oZ at~ct~es ~d to ch~ ~e ~ta ~ ~-vi~s pre~ ~ a. Un~r ~ni~ su~isi~ pre. es preli~ ~avi~s tot v~i~ t~s of n~ ~lex st~ct~es ~ ~jor 'reh~ili~ti~ ~oj~s ~: 1 I - st~i~, inte~ceti~ or ~efe~i~ to ~ a~l~ ~si;n Reacts, s~ey ~ bri~e site pl~ ~d profile, ~o1~, ~d $t~ct~ C~diti~ S~ey re~ ~ s~i~'s sketches; 2 -~e~i~ ~e ualidity ~d a~ra~ of info~tl~ provi~ 3 - pre~i~ ~rki~ ~etches for Su~i~r's ~r~: .4 - ~te~ni~ r~ir~ g~tric la.ut for ~i~ ~te~tives t~i~ into a~t such ~actors ~ alig~nts, slo~s, t~r~y, ~-~tf~ ~d o~er ~trolli~ 15% ~sign rear.es; 6 - dete~ni~ revi~ gr~e r~ir~nts ~en provi~ gra~ resul~ t~ i~uffici~t or excessiwe cl~ ~ refe~i~ th~ to ~e ~cti~ ~teri~s ~ o~er ~trolli~ ~igs f~t~. b.~e~es ~tcaet ~awi~s ~ ~nts tot new ~lex r~bilitacion ~=oJ~ .. (~t'd. ~ Page 2) ~ over O. ~-~i (~slg. ~in~rJ R.A. ~on, ~ger - St~cC~ ~fice D~y ~nth Y~r A. 16a10.107~ [R~w, loll .t, :o Inetmctlon. fo+ completing foml C$C~150 l~structlon8 For Coding PomJUon IdenUfler Ine~uct~ona for ~dl~] S~onal Wo~ Period Fula4m~ 1 and a~l~lr ~letion of High ~h~l or ~ity Collie wi~ ~ ~is ~ ~afti~ ~ ~tic ~ ~ver~ ~s of pc~re~ively ces~sible ex~rience in ~ign ~ti~ ~ o~r a~ivities relat~ to bri~es ~ other ~r~ti~ ~rk r~ires a ~co~h ~l~e of at~t~al ~sign ~afti~ to devel~ t~i~s ~ latest ~vel~n~ in the field of of ~terial's relat~ to s~ct~es. A ~r~ ~l~e of ~tc st~ ~ign to ~lve ~lex bri~e alig~n~. 5. Duties and Related Tasks I continued ,b. 2 - developir~ accurate and .comPlete structural details and preparing highly technical nc~-standard structura/ drawir~t~ conforming to the Mlnistry'a latest procedures, standards, specifications and policies using the most appropriate scale, layout, presentsticxq and details to ensure clarity and ease of interpretatic~ according to c;wn experience and Judgement: · 3 - selecting and cc~npleting appropriate etandard dra~ - 4 - calculating or checking structural c~mntities, manually or by using computers, compiling or checking reinforcing steel schedules, recording g~an:lties on structural 55% ~ceaxclc~n sheets, preparing marked up structure/ clrawings used for calculating quantities and preparing ~ata for Tender Analysis and Payment System (TAPS); 5 - ensuring accuracy and completeness of computations and detailing to avoid errors that could cause difficulties and delays during construction and possibly resulting in claims causing significant financial loss and embarrassment to the Ministry; 6 - assisting the Supervisor in assessing the practicality, economics and adeguacies of new concepts: 7 - revising and updating completed design details, dra~ings, documents and file copies according to subsequent changes in the design Or procedure~. c. Designs simpler components of structures by: 1 - using hand calculations, ccm~utec programs, charts, grap~$, design aids and other available data: 5%. 2 - assessing val'idity and acceptability of results obtained and revising the design if necessary. d. Participat~in decision making process by assisting the Super~isor in constructional, aesthetical and functional design aspects of ccx%olex structures by: 1 - prouiding solutions to the problems affecti~g [~racticality, ease and e~o~c~%, of % cormtruction, stagings and other structural ~-oncerns; 5%~2 - determining structural configurations and proportions not previously established; 3 - employing .new methodology and procedures; 4 - devalol~ing' arrangmment, size an~ shape of comLxnents to [;a'ovide pl .easing aL:~earance. e.I Checks and reviews drawings and ckx3~ments, prepared in-hcm~se or by consultants, by: ,, 1 - checking and/or reviewing drawings and doctm~nts for accuracy, omissions, adequacy .'t .~ and clarity of details, co~structional feasibility and conformance to the Ministry's ,.' ~ policy, procedures, Standarcls and Specificatio~s; 15% 2 - discussing reviewed and checked drawings and ck~uments with the Supervisor, other staff or Consulting Engineers' representstiwes to ensure t~tat correctio~s and revisions are implemented & reccrx.~ndingprocedures that .wot~ld improve the drawings and documents and/or providing apgropriate alternatives. f. Performs other related .duties by: 1 - providing technical guidance, training and advice to ju~Lor draft'i~g staff; 2 - coordinating ~ork to ensure consistency, uniformity and a~reemen1: of all details on a project; 3 - expediting work to ensure that ccmpleticx% schedules are '4 - accompanying Supervisor to structure sites to assist in a~sessment and e~aluation 5% of field conditions, inspection of existing structural ozq~Fonents requiring repairs, mDdifications and/or widenings and identifying mintenance and co~struction problems which will affect designs; 5 - assisting Supervisor in the review of shop ctrawi~gs for rle~ bridges and rehabilitation projects: 6 - preparing OSIS data shee~s and other documents for Supervisor; 7 - undertaking other activities as aSsigne~.