HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0378.Schrader.91-03-05 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ON TA
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
~80 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2~00, TORONTO, ONTARfO. USG [Z8 TELEPHONE/TELePHONE. (4 ~6) 325- 138
TSO, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUI~EAM 2 100, TORONTO fONTARIOJ. USG 1Z8 FACS/MILE/TEL~-COI=iE . (4 ~6,~ 326- ~3~,
378/89
IN THE MATTER OF ~ ~RBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EHPLOYEEB COLLECTIVE
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN OPSEU (Schrader)
Grievor
- ~d -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE: T.H. Wilson Vice-Chairperson
I. Freedman Member
G. Milley Member
FOR THE C. Paliare
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE J. Benedict
EMPLOYER' - Manager
Staff Relations and Compensation
Ministry of Correctional services
HEARINg: September 28, 1989
December 14, 1989
2
DECISION
Robert Schrader is currently classified as an Agricultural Worker 3 (A.W.3) at the
Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton, Ontario. His position title is Groundsman. He
grieves his present classification and asks that he be reclassified as an Industrial Officer
within the Correctional category. At the hearing, Union Counsel argued in the alternative
for reclassification of the grievor as an Industrial Officer (I.O.) or for a Carol Berry Order
that he be properly classified. It was t.he Union Counsel's position that in fact this case
was already determined by this Board's decision in Townsend (Zinger and MCS) GSB
4/85 decided 26 February 1987. in order to understand better the issues in the present
case, it is best at the beginning to examine the Towns_hend decision.
Townsend was one of several grievors at the Guelph Correctional Centre. The
Board at that time heard evidence only concerning Townsend's grievance that he was
improperly classified as an Agricultural Worker 2. The Board decided that he was
improperly classified and that the most appropriate remedy for him was (a) either the
creation of a new classification within the Agncultural Worker series which would not be
dependent on supervision of employees or (b) the removal of the grievor from the
Agricultural Worker class series and placing h~m ~n ~he industrial Officer 2 c~assification,
with the recognition that the Industrial Officer class series is not limited to manufacturiqg
activities. The Employer was ordered to reclassify the grievor in a classification which
would properly and adequately reflect his lOb duties and responsibilities according to the
guidelines set out above.
The class standards in the Townsend case were the same as those before us. The
position specification, however, for Schrader ~s different from that of the Grievor
Townsend. We set out first the relevant Class Standards and then the position
specification for the grievor Schrader in Appendix "A" of this Decision. At page 24 of
Townsend Decision, Vice-Chair Brent writes that given the basic definitions of terms used
in the Agricultural Worker class standard, the Guelph Correctional Centre would have to
be considered either a "Provincial Government Building" or an "Institutional Farm". The
class definition for Agricultural Worker 2, insofar as it applied to either of those places of
work, clearly covers only "group leaders of two or more employees performing agricultural
work". There were no other employees who worked as his subordinates since the inmates
were excluded by the definition of subordinates. In addressing'the issue of whether
Townsend might fit Agricultural Worker 2, she stated that it 'appears that the progression
within the series is based upon greater responsibility in relation to the operation of a
particular unit and/or the supervision of employees. Its c)assification depends solely upon
the supervision of employees. With respect to the Agricultural Worker 3 classification,
while it contemplated that there way be no supervision of employees, it still refers when
dealing with greenhouse operations to being a "supervising g~trdener" directin9 the
operation of the greenhouse, presumably indicating the presence of subordinate
employees. Therefore, on the assumption that the Grievor Townsend was properly within
the Agricultural Worker series, and that his reponsibility in relation to the greenhouse
operatin does not meet the test of being "fully responsible" or a "supervising gardener",
it was not in her view a proper classification to place the job in such a classification., i.e.,
he was not properly classified as an Agricultural Worker 2. (See: p.25).
Vice-Chair Brent then turned to an analysis of the Industrial Officer series. She
states at p.26:
... those employed therein supervise and instruct inmates in beneficial work
designed to increase the self-sufficiency of the institution. They do not teach
inmates sphisticated job skills, but are primarily concerned with the teaching of
basic work sills and work habits. In general, they are charged with running an
enterprise to produce certain end products using the labour of inmates. In our view
this certainly could describe the greenhouse operation. The green house officer is
charged with the production of various aaaaaaaaaaasorts of seedlings for use by
the institution and by other institutions, using the labour of inmates to achieve this
end.
The Vice-Chair then examined the argument that the Industrial Office series coufd not
apply to agricultural work. The class standard for Industrial Officer 2 specifically referred
to "various industries at ... industrial farms" and the ~.O. 3 referred to the "Taylor Shop
at Rideau Industrial Farm and the I~O. 1 referred to"the processing in volume of ... food
.., at reformatories and industrial farms". She then write at pages 28-29 with respect to
this particular issue as follows:
The reat difficulty in this situation may be that there is too much of a disparity
between the non-correctional classifications, such as agricultural worker, which
require virtually the same responsibilities and comparable skills as employees in
the Industrial Officer class series, and, the correctional classifications. Based on the
evidence before us we must conclude that the grievor is a qualified, well-trained
horticultural and landscape technician who conducts an operation which, in terr~s
of work exposure for the inmates, is comparable to the work of a commercial
grower and landscape operation. There is planning, there is production and
preparation of soil, there is scheduling of production, there is monitoring and
caring for the plants. In short, there is the very operation which the inmate would
find in a work situation with a greenhouse operator and landscape service. We
cannot see that this work situation is different in kind for the inmate than for the
inmate than that which he would find in the Woolen (sic) Mill, Laundry, etc. Further,
with the exception that the enterprise is not manufacturing a product, we consider
that the same sort of planning, work scheduling, material orderiog, and production
scheduling must go in the greenhouse operation as would have to go on in the
Woolen Mill, Laundry, Textile shop, etc. Not only that, but when employees must
do the same work side by side, such as supervising work gangs on the grout, ds
doing gardening work it is inevitable that those employees who are being paid less
for the same work which other employees in different classifications do sho.~ld
begin to question their classifications.
We have seen above the Order that the Vice-Chair made in that case. It is
important to note that she indicated at page 30 that the Agricultural Worker 3
classification could be appropritate if it recognized the situation where a gardener had
complete responsibility for the greenhouse but not as a supervising gardener. With
respect to the Industrial Officer series she noted that the 2 level was an appropriate
classification for someone who is "in charge of a small industrial operation" and in that
capacity would be "responsible for estimating and procurement of materials". She found
that the greenhouse operation can fall within ~he the definition of "small industrial
operation" as opposed to "small to medium or relatively complex production operation"
which is found' ih t~e I.O. 3 class'definition.
Subsequently, the Emptoyer recfassified the Grievor Townsend as an Agricultural
Worker 3. Townsend again grieved, this time that the original Order of the Board had not
been implemented. The Employer had made a change in the text of the A.W. 3
classification. The Board was not satisfied with the result and ordered the grievor to be
reclassified as an Industrial Officer 2. At page 3, Vice-Chair Brent writes with respect to
the Ministry's effort to comply with the Order:
... Suffice it to say that the thrust of the earlier award and the finding that was
made was that the grievor was performing work which was virtually identical to that
of employees classified as Industrial Officer 2. The'relief ordered was his
reclassification to a classification which would reflect this finding.
Quite clearly the Ministry has not done this. The only way in which it could have
complied with the award was to have reclassified the grievOr as an Industrial
Officer 2 or to have reclassified him in a classification in the Agricultura~ Series
which was comparable to and at the same level as the Industrial Officer 2. it has
done neither of those things.
The Grievor Schrader testified with respect to his duties. His title is Grounds
Keeper. He instructs and trains residents on a variety of equipment, including shovels,
rakes, axes, rotation tilters, tractors (60HP) and the use of pesticides. The products are
for both the kitchen and flower beds. Generally most of the residents who work with him
are adult women although he occasionally has male young offenders working with him.
The average length of sentence of the inmates is seven months. The area that he works
on is about 98 acres and the work is landscaping and horticulture. These inmates work
both inside and outside the perimeter fence; they are the only inmates cleared for outside
work. The Grievor has a diploma in forestry from Lakehead University in Thunder Bay and
has taken several courses at the University of Guelph in horticulture. Landscaping
involves grounds care, i.e. fertilizing, cutting and spraying. In the horticultural part, he
trains the inmates on caring for ftowerbeds and vegetables ail the way from the seeds to
the finished products including the planting and growing of trees.
When an inmate is first assigned to the Grievor, he has first to determine what
knowledge of these things she already has. He would normally start her up on sweeping
and raking to get some idea of her abilities. If she can, she then moves up to more
.. _complex things.-F~ example at the time of the hearing they were taking in plants and .-"
learning to take cuttings for planting in the greenhouse. He cannot be supervising them
at all times, so they have to learn to do things on their own. After some time, he teaches
them how to operate a lawn mower, how to mix oil and gas and clean filters. The more
capable ones, he teaches how to operate a small garden tractor (16-20 HP) and how to
service it each morning before starting up. They even learn how to open and dismantle
small motors and clean the pistons. A long term inmate may even be taught how to
6
operate the larger John Deere and Massey tractors (55-60 HP). This can puLI either a
large mower or a 100 gallon spray tank. In each season, they learn the appropris.te
steps. In the winter, there is snow removal. The inmates learn how to service the snow
removal equipment. There is too much equipment for the Grievor to take care of all by
himself so that the inmates must do that work too. Often the inmate will have no
experience on the outside with any of this: indeed, may not have even had a driver's
licence. There is work to be done in the greenhouse in the winter as well, including
watering and pinching back usually done in the morning. It usually takes about two hours
and although not done everyday a check has to be made everyday in the greenhouse.
The Grievor keeps a log of their activities and the number of hours. When an inmate logs
500-750 hours, she gets a certificate signed by the Trade Instructor (Schrader) and the
Principal of the Brampton Complex. The Grievor also has to do evaluations of the inmates
assigned to him grading the quality and quantity of work, initiative, responsibility, interest,
need for supervision, response to supervision, and ability to work with others (see Exhibit
9 form). The form is filled out every two weeks.
The Grievor testified that his Position Specification (see: Appendix :A") was not
accurate. He explained that while it outlines what grounds work was done, it does not
show the training and supervision of the inmates. He claimed that he spends a high level
of his time training inmates: 80%-100% per day as distinguished from actual physical
work on the job. The inmates are with him from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. except for the
lunch hour. He was asked by Counsel to look at the Class Standard for the Industrial
Officer 2. He felt that it described his work if you substituted plants for the products
specifically mentioned, namely shoes and print. With respect to responsibility for
"production schedules, workstandards, shop maintenance and security arrangements; in
the area", he did not know what was meant by "work standards". He felt there were
schedules whenever a job was brought in to be done. He would omit the last sentence
in the Class Definition. He felt the Qualifications applied.
In cross-examination, the Grievor agreed that in the winter the prime focus is on
snow and ice removal and maintenance of vehicles. He has fewer inmates with him in the
winter, usually four to five. He also agreed that his orders for bigger products sich asa
bulk fertilizer, sand and spray are much the same from year to year except that there is
a change with respect to the handling of the flower beds because they are now putting
in more flowers. Aisc with respect to chemicals to control noxious weeds, it varies
depending on allergies and the quantity of weeds. He stated ~hat the times are wrong in
the Position Specifications and that he spends 70-75% of his time supervising inmates.
With respect to performing general maintenance tasks, he estimated that it is below 25%,
maybe 15-20%. With respect to assisting Maintenance, he felt it was more like 5%. He
rejected the suggestion that the greenhouse took up only t0% of his time: it operates all
year except for the hot months of July and August.
Derrick Townsend also testified on behalf of the Union. He. is the same person who
was the grievor in the Townsend decision which we examined at the beginning of this
decision. He stated that having listened to the Grievor's testimony at this hearing, setting
aside the fact that at Guelph he works only with adult male inmates his duties his work
and that of the Grievor are similar.. The only difference was the paperwork towards
,certificates. He does not have to document the work. He also estimated that 80% of his
work is directly with the inmates. The remaining 20% of his time would be more
managemnt - filling out work orders and spraying (he has a structural exterminator's
licence). He normally does the spraying himself although he sometimes takes an inmate
with him for safety purposes. In cross-exam~natton, he was asked to review the Board's
Decision in his own case and advise us whether it accurately described the work he does.
He testified that it was "very, very close" but ~ st~ll maintained as he was reported to
have testified to the Brent panel at page 8 that the vast majority of his time is spent
supervising inmates (he there estimates 80-85% of his time. He also agreed with the
Board's descriptio~ there of the greenhouse work.
Jack White testified for the Ministry; he ~s the Maintenance Supervisor at the
Vanier Centre for Women and as such is t~e Grievor's immediate supervisor. He
supervises six staff. He estimated that the greenhouse takes only 10% of the Grievor's
time on average on yearly basis. It varies of course depending on the time of year. With
respect to requisitioning he explained that for items under $100 the Grievor would simply
order them through Mrs. Brumelis, the .Senior Assistant Superintendent, Services, at
8
Vanier. When a purchase costs over $100, a request for purchase has to be made out,
signed by the Grievor, this witness, Mrs. Brumelis and the office manager. The grievor
puts in an estimate for the budget for his part. And there is a separate budget for
equipment and there is a separate budget to cover emergencies. In cross-examination,
this witness admitted that in estimating the Grievor's time spent in the greenhouse, he ·
does not keep records on it and that the Grievor would be the best person to give an
estimate. Mrs. Brumelis testified on the student certificates. All the industrial service
areas, recreational area staff, teachers and cottage staff fill out the work reports (Exhibit
9). The purpose of the certificates is to assist the inmates in finding work upon release.
Linda Szorady is a Senior Personnel Administrator, Classification and
Compensation Section, Ministry of Correctional Services. Her duties and responsibilities
are to evaluate job descriptions and assign appropriate classifications within the
bargaining unit, to make recommendations for changes adn for class levels within
management. When asked about the Custodial Responsibility Allowance in Appendix 8
of the Collective Agreement, she testified that it did not affect the classification level. It
was her testimony that the removal of the inmates would not have any impact on lhe
classification. In cross-examination, she testified that she did not know the Grievor and
had never assessed his particular job.
ARGUMENT
Mr. Paliare for the Union argued in the alternative for either reclassifying the Grievor
as an Industrial Officer 2 or ordering that the Ministry properly classify the Grievor, i.e. for
a Berry. order. The thrust of his argument was that the Grievor spends 80-100% of his
time instructing inmates about the practical aspects of horticulture and landscaping. With
respect to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance, it has as its purpose the supervision
but not the training and teaching of skills that may be of benefit to inmates. Since inmates
are not subordinates, they do not fit the language of the Agricultural Worker standard.
The I.O. 2 is the best fit. Townsend does work that is overwhelmingly similar.
Mr. Benedict for the Ministry reiterated the arguments which he had used in otqer
cases and in particular in Townsend. In his submission, the grievor is properly classified.
His supervision of the work of inmates is compensated through the Custodial
compensation Allowance in Appendix18 of the Collective Agreement which is always open
to renegociation. It would not be correct for the Board to intrude into the Employer's
classification system to fix up a compensation dispute relating to the custodial allowance
that should be left to the parties to negociate. The Industrial Officer series was never
intended to apply to to groundsmen, farming or agricultural type work. tn his submission,
the Grievor has the onus to bring himself within the four corners of the classification which
he seeks: see, Rounding and MOSS GSB 18f75. At page 3 of that decision, Chairman
Beatty states:
... the evidence with respect to the duties pedormed by the two groups of
employees amply supports and justifies the establishment and maintenance of
these two separate classifications.
In reaching this latter conclusion however, it is important for this Board to set out.
precisely what it conceives to' be the scope of its jurisdiction in assessing the
merits of a claim that an 'employee has been improperly classified. 'In the first place
it is readily apparent that the methods and principles by which positions are to be
classified is, as a result of the most recent set of amendments to The Crown
Employees COllective Bargainining Act. a bargainable issue between the various
employee representatives and the employer. However, by virtue of s. 17(1)(a) of
that same Act, it is manifest that having settled on a particular classification and
job evaluation system, the actual classification of positions is within the exclusive
prerogative of the employer. In the result for purposes of entertaining grievances
under s.17 (2)(a) of the Act, in which an employee alleges that he or she has been'
improperly classified, it necessarily follows that this Board must take as a given
and cannot interfere wither with the classification system agreed to and adopted
by the parties or the application of that system to the various POSitions within the
public service. Rather this Board's sole function in the resolution of grievance
alleging an improper classification, is to determine whether the employer is
conforming to the classification system as it has been established and/or agreed
to. That is and more particularly, when faced with'a claim that a position is
improperly classified, and assuming those classifications conform to the ger~eral
to the general law of this ljurisdiction, this Board is limited by the express provisions
of legislation to determining whether or not on the system employed and the
classifications struck, the employee in questio is actually performing the duties
assigned to that position or even assumin that to be the case, whether that
employee is nevertheless being required to perform virtually the identical duties
which, the class standard notwithstanding, are being included in some other more
senior classification. In short, it would, under the present statutory scheme, only
be in those or analagous instances that an employee's grievance under s. 17'(2)(a)
would be entitled to succeed.
In the result it is simply of no relevance to a determination that is being made
under s. 17(2)(a) that this Board is, or indeed the grievors are. firmly convinced
there are not sufficient differences between two classifications to warrant their
separate identities or that the difference between two classifications to warrant
their separate identities or that the difference in wages that are appended to each
~]e no[ fair ur 8.~;CUrU. L~yruthful ul~ u,,~ru,~u~., ~,, andjuu:-~ duties '~Lrl~t'
required in each. Rather, and subject to such classifications conforming to the
general taw of this jurisdiction, to repeat, the former is by viAue of s. 17(1)(a) of the
Act within the exclusive prerogative of management while the taAer is a matter
which may properly be the subject of negotiation be~een the pa~ies.
Mr. Benedict argued that the Divisional Cou~ decision in ~ did not change the
law as set out in Rounding because in his view it deals only with remedy. He also cited
the Board's decision in Parker and Ministw of the Environment 107/~ for the proposition
that the Grievance SeWement Board cannot make up its own classification system, see
... there is no authori~ in the Board to find that any class ~andard in the
Employer's classification system is obsolescent or, indeed, to invalidate it on any
ground. The Board has stated in numerous classification cases that we must take
the classification system as we find it, our jurisdiction being limited to its
interpretation and application in paWcular cases.
He fu~her referred the Board to the decision in Edwards ~nd Maloney and MinistW
of Communi~ and Social Se~ices 11/78 at page 10 with respect to the issue of
overlapping duties in which Vice-Chai( Swinton states with respect to that issue that the
necessarily mean that they are entitled to the senior classification. Then at page 11, ~he
states:
An arbitration board must therefore be pa~iculady careful in assessing
classification grievances where there is extensive overlap in job duties, so that a
decision does not intedere wi~ the overall aims of the classification system. The
onus i~ on ~e grievor to show that he falls within the higher classification, and
where there is e~ensive overiap in job duiies, he shouid show thai his job,
practice is the same as that pedormed by a person properly within the higher
Cassification.
b Mr. Benedict submission the mere fact ~hat the Grievor has supe~sJon of
inmates is not determinative of his ~tassification since as a peace oMcer he has custody
of them and is compensated for that under Ap~ndix 8 of the Collective Agreement. The
primaw focus of his work is grounds keeping. If the inmates were removed from his
custody, it would not affect his classification. His job would continue. To fit the higher
classification the Grievor must prove that the core of the duties performed by the Grievor
were those duties associated with the higher classification (see, Freeman and Ministry
of Revenue 323/81). Furthermore, the Grievor must show that his significant job duties
are beyond those assigned to his present classification and in fact constitute the
significant job duties of the higher classification which he seeks (Hilson and Ministry of
Education 535/84 page 10). In our case the Grievor's job is to plan, implement and
supervise the. grounds 'and gardening maintenance program and assist in general
maintenance and upkeep of grounds at Vanier Centre.
I have set out in some detail' the arguments put forward by Mr. Benedict. He is of
course a person with long experience in appearing before the Board. However, I must
respectfully disagree with his submission that the old line of classification cases has
remained in tact after the Divisional Court's decision in Ber~. t note that the Court in
Berry stated at page 15:
The Board's obligation under s. 19(1) is to "decide the matter". When looked at
without the confinement imposed by Article 5.1.2 "the matter" grieved was wrong
classification. If the Board concluded that the classification was wrong, its mandate
was to effect a proper classification. Its jurisdiction is unrestricted. Its mandate is
remedial ....
The impact of that decision was in my view nothing short of revolutionary. In
essence, it changed the nature of the inquiry: the Board does not now simply try to
determine as it did under the old line of cases whether the grievor fits one classificat, ion
or another, i.e his current classification or the one he may be claiming to be appropriate.
It now determines whether he is currently properly classified and if the answer is no, and
if the grievor ~loes-~ot fit a classification put in evidence before it, it directs the Employer
to find or create one. That of course with a variation, is what the Vice-Chair in Townsend
did: she invited the'Employer either to modify the Agricultural series so that the Grievor
Townsend might fit or alternatively, reclassify him as an Industrial Officer 2. When the
Employer reclassified the Grievor to a modified A.W.3 classification, modified in a
manner the Board found unacceptable, it then cut the Gordian Knot by directing a
reclassification of the Grievor Townsend to I.O.2. If, in our case, there are no substantial
12
differences between the duties of the Grievor Townsend and our Grievor, Schrader, then
f think we are directly faced by the question of the effect of a previous Board decision;
in this regard see the complications surrounding that problem described by me in Rohrer
and Ministry of Correctional Services G.SB. 0001/89 pp 7-8.
The principle issue in this grievance as I see it is the role of the Grievor's relation
to the inmates. That problem poses itself in the following form: is the relationship that the
Grievor has to the inmates that described in Appendix 8 of the Collective Agreement. If
not, then there is a major classification defect since the current classification does not
reflect that. Do they simply "direct inmates ... engaged in beneficial labour"? Beneficial
labour suggests work that is both productive and benefits the inmates, I would assume
as distinguished theoretically from some sort of punitive or make-work or busy-work
labour. At the absolute opposite, I suppose would be class room instruction. The Grievor
is not involved in either the administration of punitive or make-work labour nor in
classroom instruction. But neither is he engaged purely in the supervision of unskilled
labour. He is teaching a job which does require applied techniques. He himself has skills
that might be described as craftsman's skills. His ~nmates when assigned to him have to
be taught everything including a work ethic ~tself and the basic skills appropriate to
landscaping and horticulture. Mr. Benedict argued that the inmates could be taken away
and the Grievor's position would be unchanged, t do not find that the evidence supports
that. As I understand the program it is for tr~e benefit of the inmates. It is highly
speculative as to what would occur if for some reason the Centre decided to withdraw the
inmates from the landscaping and horticultural sector. But it is unquestionable that the
Grievor's position would be fundamentally altered. This role or function is tike that
described by.¥ice~hair Brent in Townsend at page 26 when examining the Industrial
Officer series. It fit the Grievor Townsend and ~t rrts this Grievor Schrader. Indeed, the
major area of contention about the differences between the two seem to relate to the
amount of time spent on greenhouse operations. But I do not see that issue as altering
the relationship that the Grievors have to the inmates. Whether the inmates are learning
out-of-doors horticulture\landscaping or greenhouse work, the Grievor is still instructing
them in the basic skills as well as the work-ethic. I have no reason on this evidence to
question the Grievor's estimates of his role in supervising inmates. There is also no
reason for me to disagree with Vice-Chair Brent's conclusion that this function is not
captured by the A.W. 2 or the A.W. 3 classification. It is true of course that in Townsend's
case, the greenhouse operation was much larger than it is for Schrader. However, I do
not see how that alters the basic nature of their work vis-a-vis the class standards. As
Vice-Chair Brent states at page 29 of the Townsend decision with respect to that grievor,
so with respect to the Grievor Schrader, I can accurately state: "Based on the evidence
before us we must conclude that the grievor is a qualified, well-trained horticulture and
landscape technician who conducts an operation which, in terms of work exposure for the
inmates, is comparable to a commercial grower and landscape operation."
The only serious objection in the Townsend case to the application of the Industrial
Officer series was that it was not intended to cover agricultural positions. The Board did
not entirely accept that and in the end in the second, remedy hearing reclassified the
Grievor Townsend as an t.O.2 because the Ministry had in effect rejected the earlier
opportunity to revamp the Agricultural Officer series to meet the Board's earlier problems
with that series. We are now clearly faced with the situation that Townsend's classification
is Industrial Officer 2 and he does substantially similar work to that of the Grievor.
Whatever reservations the Board may have entertained in its initial decision in placing
Townsend in the Industrial Officer series are now academic to this Board. We would now
only create more class standard distortion by ordering the Grievor to be properly classified
within the Agricultural Worker series. Clearly now his work is properly described by the
Industrial Officer series: it is now clearly a reality, if there was ever any doubt in any-
one's mind that it covers agricultural operations. Accordingly, I find that the Grievor's
14
position iS properly described by and falls within the industrial Officer 2 Class and is to
be compensated for any loss resulting from his misclassification subject to the normal 20
day rule. This panel will remain seised pending the implementation of this Decision.
DATED at Toronto this 5th day of! March 1991.
Thomas.H.. Wilson Vice-Chairperso.
G. Milley Member
CLASS STANDARDS
Commi~ian
Catego~ GENERAL Groug
LEVELS
OPERATIONAL SERVICES GO-04 AGRICULTURE SUPPORT
Series
AGRICULTURAL WORKER
Class Code Class Title
19120 Agricultural Worker 1
19122 Agricultural Worker 2
19124 Agricultural Worker 3
19126 Agricultural Worker 4
/
!
(C,,~,l CLASS STANDAROS
Comm,ss~on
Onl~r~o
Category Group
GENEI~AL PREAMBLE
OPERATIONAl, SERYT_CE~ 60-04 AGRICUI,TiiRF SUPPORT
Series Class Code
AGRICULTURAL WORKER 19120 to 19126
AGRICULTURAL WORKER CLASS SERIES
TYPE OF WORK:
This series covers positions of employees engaged in a variety of agricultural
duties required for the cultivation of crops, beautification and maintenance of
grounds and the care of livestock and poultry at provincial government buildings
and institut£onal or experimental stations and farms.
Work assignments for positions in this series are made in one or a combination
of the following functional areas:-
Landscaping:
Plant, cultivate and maintain flower gardens, lawns, shrubs and ornamental
plants; seed,, fertilize, water, mow, roll and rake lawns; prune and trim trees
and shrubs; prepare plants and flowers for floral decorations; mix and apply
insecticides, fungicides and herbicides.
Vegetable Gardens:
Cultivate and harvest vegetable gardens; prepare the ground, plant seed or
transplant greenhouse plants; apply fertilizers and insecticides; pack and
maintain vegetables in root-houses; pick over and supply vegetables to kitchens.
Greenhouses:
Mix, sterilize and prepare soil for the planting of flowers and vegetables in
greenhouses; seed, pot, water, transplant and score plants, prepare and care for
hot-beds and cold frames; apply insecticides and fertilizers; regulate
temperatures and ventilation in planting areas.
Orchards and Vineyards:
Maintai~ o~'chards and vineyards by mulching, spraying, fertilizing, pruning,
pollinating and grafting; plant and transplant seedlings; pick, pack and store
fruit.
Field Crops:
Operate tractors, sprayers and other farm machinery to plow, plant, cultivate
and harvest grain crops; apply fertilizer and insecticides; measure and stake
plots; weigh, bag, grind and store grain.
JEffective Date Issued J Page
Com~mssion
Onlar~
C, ategor~ G~oup
GENERAL ~",. ' PREAMBLE
OPERATIONAL SERVICES OO-O~ AGRICULTURE SUPPORT
Series Class Code
AGRICULTURAL WORKER 19120 to 19126
Animal Husbandry:
Feed, water and tend poultry and ~arm animals such as cattle, horses, sheep and
swine; clean and disinfect cages,'barns, drinking and feeding facilities;
provide clean bedding and dispose of waste; breed, tattoo, vaccinate, dehorn and
shoe animals; tend brooding and hatching equipment; milk cattle, strain,
separate, and pasteurize milk., clean and sterilize milking equipment; regulate
the grazing of herds; cull flocks and collect eggs; inspect herds and flocks for
evidence of illness, treat common ailments and refer complex probiems to
veterinarians; slaughter and dress poultry and farm animals.
Maintenance:
Perform general maintenance to buildings, fences, etc.; sharpen, adjust or make
minor repairs ~o farm and garden equipment; clear snow; make and maintain sport
areas and skating rinks; cut trees and clear debris in woodlots; drive motor
vehicles to collect and dispose of garbage, etc.
GF.,NERAL:
In an institutional setting, the incumbents of positions at every level in this
series may instruct and supervise wards, patients or inmates engaged in similar
agricultural duties. Wards, patients or inmates are not considered subordinates
for the purpose of this series. Employees in these positions may be assigned to
perform duties on relief or shift work basis. In all work areas, at every level,,
employees in these positions maintain population, production and supply records
for the information of their Supervisors.
The entry level for this series requires employees who have acquired Journeyman
agricultural skills. At an' experimental station or farm, however, the full
working level is Agricultural Worker 2 and employees at such stations or farms
are required to serve for a period.of at least two years at the Agricultural
Worker 1 level under the direction of professional or technical staff. Having
acquired-th~ necessary, skills,, positions at an experimental station or farm, ,.:;
where acreages are smaller are considered to equate with the extensive
operations at institutional farms due to the demanding nature of research work.
Definition of Terms:
Provincial Government Buildings:-
This refers to government buildings situated throughout the Province which are
surrounded by less than 1OO acres of property. At these buildings, agricultural
workers undertake landscaping and gardening activities.
/Page 3 of 6
Effective
Date
issued
~mmtember I. 19R4 Fekruarv 26, 1988
[
(~ .... CLASS SI'ANDARFOS
SOr~C~
Comrn~sslon
Category GENERAL Group
O?ERATIONAL SERVICES 00-04 AGRICULTURE SUP?ORT PREAMBLE
Series Class Code
AORICUf.,'ru~b~.L WORKER lgl20 rD 19t26
Institutional Farms:-
These are maintained by the Department of Health at Ontario Hospitals or by the
Department of Reform Institutions at Reformatories and Training Schools to
provide food~for'the institution'and rehabilitative occupation for the patients,
inmates or wards. Institutional farms of less than IO0 acres are considered to
equate with the definition for Provincial Government Buildin§s.
Experimental Farms and Stations:-
These are maintained by the Department of Agriculture and Food and are presently
situated at Vineland, Kemptville, Ridgetown, Simcoe and New Lfskeard. They
provide practical test areas for scientific theories in the development of new
species in fruit, vegetables and crops, treatment programs and the management of
animals and poultry.
Satellite Farms:-
These may be either institutiona! or'experimenta! stations or farms physically
separated from the main institution which is responsible for the administration
of their program. An agricultural supervisor is assigned to implement this
program at the individual institution, and direct the work of subordinate staff,
wards, patients or inmates.
Extensive Work Programs:-
Those functional areas of work which are so [arge as to require a tine.
supervisor directing four or more subordinate Agricultural Workers.
Assigned Section or Unit of Agricultural Work:-
- This refers to the function or group of functions which an employee is required
to direct. Thus an employee may be in charge of the landscaping function or the
landscaping.and vegetable garden function or a very large greenhouse operation;
OR in ch~-rg~ of a poultry flock, or a herd of swine, or cattle or sheep or
horses or of all these flocks and herds together, dependent on the size of the
operation.
Group Leader:-
Supervision as defined in the Position Analysis Guide.
Effective Date Issued ]Page
( ~ C,,.,~ CLASS STANOAROS
Ca~ego~ OENERA~ Group
PREAMBLE
OPE~TIONAL SERVICES 00-04 AGRICULTURE SUPPORT
Series Class Code
AGRICULTU~L WORKER 19120 to 19126
Exclusions:-
1. Positions in direct support of professional staff at experimental farms
which require the .application 9f laboratory techniques. Such positions are
allocated to the Agricultural Technician Series.
2. Positions of farm labourers are allocated to the Manual Worker class.
3. Positions where the driving, maintenance and repair of mechanized equipment
is the major function, Such positions are allocated to a more specialized
series e.g, mechanic.
QUALIFICATIONS:
The basic requirements for all levels are indicated below, Additional experience
and skill requ£rements are specified in each class level.
Basic - Levels I - 4 - Grade 8 education; preferably Grade 10; or an
equivalent, Good working knowledge of practical gardening or farming
operations related to the field of assignment.
GF_.~EP, AL OUTLINE OF SERIES:
First Level:'
Institutional and Provincial Government Buildings:-
The working level for experienced agricultural workers.
Experimental:-
The training level for experienced agricultural workers. The terminal level for
employees_performing, routine agricultural work unrelated to the controlled ~...
conditibns ~equired in'research projects,
Second Level:-
Institutional and Provincial Government Buildings:-
This is the level for group leaders who organize and direct the activities of
subordinate agricultural workers.
Experimental:-
The working level for employees fully trained in the agricultural skills
demanded at an experimental station or farm.
c,v,~ CLASS STANDARDS
Corem,ss,on
Ontar~a
Category GF..NERAL Group
PREAMBLE
O?ERA?IONAL SERVTCE$ GO-D4 AGRICULTURE SUPPORT
Series Class Code
AGR~CULTU~L
~9~20 ~o ~9126
Third Level:
Institutional and Provincial Government Buildings:-
Positions at this level either direct the gardening operation at a Provincial
Government building o__r are in charge of an assigned function on an institutional
farm.
Experimental:-
This is the level for group leaders who organize and direct the activities of
subordinate agricultural workers.
Fourth Level:
Institutional and Provincial Government Buildings:-
Positions at chis level are either those of assistant managers of a medium-sized
farm; i.e., from 100 - 400 acres under cultivation (farm, landscape and garden
acreage), and less than 100 herd of cattle (mainly dairy) OR kine supervisors in
charge of large scale agricultural sections requiring ~ or more subordinates OR
supervisors of a satellite farm.
Experimental:-
This is the level of etcher line supervisors in charge of an assigned function
requiring the supervision of subordinate staff Or supervisors of a satellite
farm.
Effective Date Issued I Page
C.__L. :\ .q .% l)}'].TqI KJ. TJO!',":
This class covers po:si~kr,~,y; of cp,,p]e, yees assigned dutJ. es :in
one op sevepal o£ the function..'t! a~'eas of agricu]tlUra], work.
. At a p~-ovincial gover~;2ent buildi~g cz' institutional' farln~ these
emp]'.oyees wo~'k under' the genez-~,l st, pmn'ision of and ~¢ithJn the z'eutines
established by se:lio~' agricultural staff. They usually z-ece':.¥e
detai'].ed instruction on].y ~n ~musual situa'tions,
At an ex~e~-imental station or farm~ this is the entry leYel fop
employees hein{4 trained in thc special, techniques required to perform
agpicultural duties in support of research projects. They work
under the close supelwisJon of senior agricul~ral op technical
" stMf and are required to fei.].ow the ex~'[icJ.t ~structJ.ons of
their supepiors. This is the termJ.na] class for employees
at an experimental station or farm who perform routine agricultural
work m~re!atcd to the controllted condiziens 2~equired in research projects.
EDUCATION: Suckessful completion of 8 years, preferably !0 years, of
progressive education O~ a:: equivalent in education and experience.
~ERIENCE: ~od working knowledge of fa~ing or gardening operations related
~' to the field of the ag~igtkment.
Refer to the pre,hie for the classification standard for this
~eries.
PERSONAL . ~ ....
SUITABtLI~: ~od phy~fcal condition; ability to follo~.~ oral and written
infractions.
i'ui]d.J,q,' ,'F jn~tJl'utional farm, o:' i~o~;Jt'.icns of fu].lv t-rai~cJ
emi'loyce~, at an expet'imenta] station or f.,r;:~. The ~,',,'~'4 is
?erformed undec the genera] superv_ision of a profe.~sioca[
or agricu'Ltural supervisor and according to c~tablished methods
and m'ecedures,
.ks 7roup ]ea.iers~ they organJ:c a~;d ,i_irt, ct the
a:'.~a. They dele.mine priorities, c'xpl,~J~ ne.' proje,".~,,
in:qtruc~.:,on in the use of equipment an.i ,'keck thc accut'acy and
c..,mp]ctc, ness of the work. They tj-;t:lsmit tl~.'.ins.rruct[ens of t'"CJr
supervisor to subordinates in the ,sst~ned ~cctiotl. They recz..;:.':enJ
manpower and equSpment requSrements and changes in work methed>.
for JJn~]'oved effJcXency. They caution rt:,'Jt' ~ubor~Jnatcs bur n,,r::~'.~
refer ~/scSplXna~3' problems to thczr
At an ex~erin'.enta] sgatJon o1' Iai'::. C~l~,: ClaSS co,.m's
fu'lly trained employees perfomi:m ac~'~cttl t, ~-;ll work under' c:;-:'.'o1
ccndir:ions. They are engaged in thc ,-.~}ti,.,ttic~ of
the n~oSntenance of an~na}s requ~r,;d :ct cx;,:rJmentaZ
addition these employees arc assic:;,'d st,,'~; ,iutJ. es as '.,'eJsbit~e.
obsem'i~s and recording data pertain,mt ~,, r,,.;earch
~UA Li i- i C AT I. ON S:
R,~fcr to Preamb'ie.
.1,1 tie .,, '-' .' ' <. ',' .
( Civil CLASS STANDARDS
Service
Commission
Onlar~o
Category GENERAL Group
OPERATIONAL SERVICES CO-04 AGRICULTURE SUPPORT
Series C~ass Code
AGRICULTURAL WORKER
19124 ·
AGR:6~LTImAL WORKER 3
CLASS DEFINITION,:
This class covers positions of employees who are held fully responsible for the
complet'e operation of an assigned section of agricultural work at a provincial
government building or institutional farm. They may supervise up to three
subordinate agricultural workers.
At an experimental station or farm, employees at this level are group leaders of
two or more agra.cultural subordinates. The work is performed under the general
directiop of a professional, admihistrative or agricultural supervisor.
In some positions, these employees plan and direct th'e landscaping and gardening
operation at'a provincial government building. They select varieties of trees,
shrubs, flowers and vegetables. They requisition quantities of seeds,
fertili~er, chemicals and implements. They train, supervise and discipline any'
assigned subordinates. In most of the positions in this work area, they direct
the operation of a greenhouse and hot and cold frames, supervising temperature,
hum£dtty and ventilation controls and providing flowers for institutional use.
In other positions, which may be non-supervisory, these employees are
responsible for a unit of agricultural work at an institutional farm such as the
landscaping and/or gardening operation and/or operation of a greenhouse of an
area of approximately 900 square metres or the management of poultry and/or
livestock.
As supervisors in charge of livestock or poultry, at an institutional farm, they
plan and schedule 'the feeding, cleaning and tending of their herds and flocks.
In these positions, they conduct ~he breeding program, cull poor producers,
select'brood stock and direct the slaughtering of poultry and farm animals. They
diagnose ailments, administer medications or refer problems to a veterinarian.
In some positions, they also direct the separating, bottling, storage and
distriSution of milk. In all these positions, they plan and estimate production
requirements and requisition supplies subject to the approval of their
supervisor. They schedule the activities of their subordinates and direct them
in the care and maintenance of the assigned area.
At an experimental station or farm, these employees provide group leader
direction to two or more agricultural subordinates. They organize and direct [he
activities of these employees in the cultivation of crops and care of livestock
for experimental purpose. They provide technical advice and check the
completeness and accuracy of the work. They caution their staff but disciplinary
problems are normally referred to their supervisor.
Effective Date Issued IPaqe
(~ c.... CLASS STANDARDS
Category Group
GENg~b
OPF~A~ONA[, fiERVTCES qO-O~ ACRT~ULTI~E.glJPPORT
Series Class Code
AGRICULTU~L ~ORKER 19t2A
QUALIFICATIONS:
Basic: Refer to preamble.
CLASS LEVEL REQUIREMENTS:
For positions at an experimemtal station or farm - at least two
experience at the Agricultural Worker 2 level, and ab£1ity to direct and
review the work of other employees. For positions at institutional farms or
provincial government buildings - supervLsory ability, willingness to accept
responsibility.
j Effective Date issued I ParTe I
,' iX.'q.' l"l.]:'i
,,r cx'Fcrimcntal .statio,s or tiaras or provi~qk'ia] ~overnrncnt buildi~cs.
cit'hcr assist the ~.ha..c~ of a medi~-si:cd
sl:[)ordi hate a~rScultural un:ir requi ring four or more subor,ti~.t~,: ,t::ric:.:] t::r,t!
.,~a~ ,: or~ atna:~e a satelzl~c farm; phys.ica.i.lv scNtratcd f'ror)~ ;'}~e y~ iu o~r.':
mcat. ,:cneral direction is provided by a professional, ad;~Snistrative or
,;pr'i,,'.,; r'.~r~i supervisor.
a,iml~:~:,,'rltlio, of tl~e entire faa proara~mc. They rccon=aend work
,~ssi.cr~n:,',t cf staf[~ sequence of operations an'! a pro?ar.~e of equi[~.ent
n~i~t~,~:aace. They review zhe work .ff subordinate supecvisors., ,.~ore
i:, p~-,.',~-i,,m ,treas. In ~ddit:ion, these employees are usually res¥onsib]o
.~e~ ,tssi..:ned unit of thc farm work where ~hc.,' plan and ~plement thc act.ivi:ics
o; su:..u'dinatc s~t~ff and requisition the required supplies. E=ployccs in ~hcs.
~-' positions ape ex?ecte~ to asset full ccspansibili%, for the compietc
' proar.~:~:5:e 5.n thc absence of the 51anagcr.
~s superviser of a large scale agr.iculi:ural unit~ they p]an~ c.~-ordinate
,i~,,] ..5..:..In vhe wopk of four or more subordinateS, give technical
Ol'ti]'.;.~,' lqork '~' ~e~ · . .
, pt.,Io~,,.~., and mintain discipline, in soae posi:io:~s,
arc s~:!'cvvisors oF an e:~.cnsive landscaping and gardenin: opepa~i~m. !n
~ posi.t,<,na, the~ ...... ~-
. ~ ........ c a large daim- opcrat.i, on h~volvi.n< the breediu~:,
feedJa.' anti ~.rcnera] care of a claim- herd,,-'", more than 1OO cattZe. ~, alt
;',.,si~..,,:s, they estimate and requisitio, supplies and are i-espo~:si.ble f,~r r.l~e
d'isci'p." ~e of s~e. ff ami maintenance of cquir,ment in ~heir assigned., uni. r .
:ks ~:,a,.:,'~'s at' an institutional sate!lite faro, they ~r~ responsible
thc ,,~: ;n:ar'i~E and m'derin< of all operational supplies, they plan work
schcd~.:i:.s~ instr, c~ and dLsci.pline staff and are responsible for al!
,~1 t}~ ,,perarion of the .uni.t.
A ~' ,tn oxperi;r, enta], s~,~t:i on or fa~b these cnployc~s co-or~ir, atc the
,.,sr'i,:,:l~:araJ activities of thc assigned area. They ~rain, sup~'rvisc anti
(.. .ii scip.l inc sub,>rdi,:atc staff, detc~ine priorities and cstL'~te arid requisitic.,
supplti,-; for the unit. Tisch, direct their staff in the soil 'preNration,
plan~4,,. ~'o~t~.,ting~ fertilization and spraying of ve~etabie, ~ra[~: and ":"
fruit' cr. op~ for experimental purposes. In the mnagement of expcrS.mental
1 ivcsv,,,'l-: and po, ltD' they direct their subordinates in rbe pre~ra~5on of
spcc'i,i ,iSets, and the maintenance of fecdi,:,.~,., breedin<., and cirth records.
,,'li vh,.:~c pos-itions, they ensur~ tlnat t}~c dS;ections of the sci. cntSfic s~aff
.~l-c f~.ilowcd ,~ecuratc]v it~ such apci~s ils i'c;':',pcrature t:o;;trot, ~:pp]Jcatio:~ .,f
l'.',l'+';;::ers an8 insecticides, prun:iu<, cuitivating and harvestinz.
,.!'A [,t ~ ,'..X 1 t o'4:~:
CLASS DEleI]~ITIO~
Empl~yee~ ia posi~ions ~ated Co
~ assi~ed grip of ~ces
pr~ccs~ fo~ ~o~g ~d ~c~ce ~pp~es ac ~fo~c~es
~sc~ offlce~
~ce helpers,
de--so.ce m~s,
me~f pr~uc~
· - ' for ch~o ~ r~ne or f~ ~o~p~ ac~. Th~ ~ ~e
. proper use of eq~p~
~ ~s~ posings
, ~U ALITICAT~0NS:
1. 6rade 8 education, preferably Grade 10; prac~ca~ knowledge of
' sk~Lls related co ~e ~ ~ ~ pe~o~do
~ ~ of sa~sfacto~ ~ed ~e~ence, p~ of ~ My
to b ~o~; abi~ ~o de~ effec~ ~ ~ces; a~
lu~Jst. 1963
~SS DEFINTTTON~
Employees tn positions LUocaced co this class are enp~ed tn the
super~tston of work.and tnscruction of trmacea tn various ~nduscrtes ac
reformatories arid tndustr~al farms. In sane positions, they are tn
charie of a small tnduscrlal operation such aa the Shoe Shop ac ~L~tco
or the Braille Prtnc Shop ac KilZbrooko Zu these positions the,/ are
'responsible for escinic/ni and procurement of mterZ&ls. ,Tn ocher
positions, they assist IA the maAatement of a production operation not
requlr/flg skills of any of the designated trades such az the ~ool/en Y~ll
at Guelph or the )4arker Plant at ~brook. ~n many of these positions,
· ' ' they require special/zed processing knowledges and skills and are
responsible to the manager for l~r~!cular controls or ak/].led operac/mis.
They Cratn tmnateo tn the requ/red processes to ~bi~h ~hey are
assigned, allocate duties and check quaLtcy And quantity of production.
They are responsible for the servic~g, proper use arid adherence co safety
precautions in the operation of the equipmence They have responsibi~icy
" for production schedules, work st&ndards, shop m~4~enance and security
arrafl~ements in their area. They may perform the more complex ~ork as
required or any of the work in order to demonstrate procedure or co
expedite .production as needed.
~,, C~ade 8 educa~/m~ p~fe~bl7 G~ 10; ~ed p~c~c~ ~ovledge of
2~ ~o ~ars of sa~sf&c~ ~~e ~ ~ ~s~ ~Lcer 1 Ln the
' approp~ace ~e ~ .~v~enC.
WO~
3. Abi~ to deal effectively ~ t~es; abi~ co assess sc~d~s
of ~n~tes~ ~ndus~ ~d c~c~; abi~t~ co esti~te req~ments, to
es~bl/sh pr~uctZon ~~ ~ to control pr~uc~ ~ ~Zty as
- '. ' ~Z~d.
Au~us~. 1963
CLASS
~loyees in post Ct~s allocaced co ~Zs
~di~ or ~lit/vely cmpl~ ~vcti~ operatZ~ ~ch ~ ~e T~lor Shop
-at ~deau ln~sc~ Fie; ~e T~lor ~op a~ ~llbro~; o~ ~e ~pholste~
Shop a~ ~elph, or ~e T~lor Shop a~ ~sho
rant of the ~ter or ~ compl~ p~c~on o~ra~s ~ as ~e ~ick
~d Tile ~ at ~co, ~e h~ae Shop, or
~ ~a~rs, ~ey a~ ~sp~sible for est~inE ~d pr~Mn~ of
mterials, for dis~ssin~ costs ~ supe~o~s ~d for ~l ~co~endacions
off new pr~ucts ~o be processed, ~ey eke ~co~en~ons ~o a superior
~ s~ff pers~el m~ers,
and oualt~ ~f pr~ue~an ~d far ~ecuri~ af ~tei. ~ey ~ersfln~llv
pekoe ,o~ ~q~riflg tec~i~l 3~H, e~eaence nd ~led~ core.able
to Jou~e~ s~ng in a trade.
These empl~ees cron grips of i~ces
technical sk~s, c~crol the qual~ o~ pr~uc~
various casks ~ ~cco~ce ~ch ~etr capabi~es; ~ey p~pa~ daily
~n the price, on roucZfle Zfl o~er co investigate ~d co--ct c~pZ~Zncs
~eferably Or~e ~0 educate; ~sfac~o~ co~le~m of app~nc~ces~p
tn ~e trade ~q~d ~ ~e ~es to ~ pe~o~d ~ or ~ acceptable
equiv~enc c~~ of ~~ ~d ~e~ce,
/' 20 Ab~c five years of acceptable e~ence at ~e Jmm~ level ia
. ~e ~hted t~de or
3. Supe~;iso~ ~d ~sc~ccA~al abi~; a~ co sketch or e~Z~n Zn
. ~c~ i way as. co ~ ~dersco~ ~ ~s~l~ed worth; abil~ to assess
sC~s of t~ces* in~sc~ ~d c~cc; a~B~ co de~ effec~Zvely
eva~ua~e nee prices for process~G,
~ ~e~ the e~ivalenc applies, ~e pers~ ~1 be ~qui~d to successf~ily
c~plete a Civil Se~ Trades Test ~e~ one e~sts,
~S "~,~'~k'~ ~'~
..... --:.'- .'.-..,. i ._ '- . I I .
/ ~~ce ~pe~r [
~e~on
~nt~~
/ nil ~1 [nil , ~' ~
g~Pos~ o~ ~O~ITION ~v ~ ~l~t~ JJ~ lt~l ~ ~ ~ ~
7~er ~ntre ~r ~ ~ to p~de ~aher~ ~te~ce se~ces ~ the ~kecp of the
UMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIglI. I'[IES u#oc~?t I)EINCE#TJ, Gi OF I'IMJ
,GIC&Ii SCO4'I. EOKJIPIdJMV. Wq~qlKING CO~OdtlCledl ~dNUIUAi) PlJiT~4~ll [iCJ
. 65% - PI. aris and. su~ervise~ ~roun~$/~ardenln~ maintenance* services b~r:
plannlng and implementing, in consultat[o~ with ~aintenance Supervisor, a crcunds and
cardentng maintenance am/ ~mp;r~vement prograet
~upervisifl~ resident work parties assigned to grmm~s' maintenance by -~cattng duties,
chec~Lug work, etc; .
supervising the plantings, selection ~d care cf plants, vegetables, grass cutting,.
,~eedLng, cult~vattAg, leveLtng, ~w and ~ca resin,alt etcl
m~c~ng and maintaining, sport areas and skating rinks.
!. ."$%- Performs ~eneral ma/ntenance tasks reletin~ to
repoxing a~d matntaiA~,, incl,,~,~ e~l~g, greasing etc., tractors, lawn mowers, blowers,
rotary power hand mower, ploughs, weed sprayer, sickle ba~ Bower, etc;
p~tnt~ng crounds', maintenance of ~stitution vehicles (e.~, tractors, plnu~hs, ~etc.),
includtn~ ~ubrication and minor repairs and recommend/Ag to supervisor when major
cverhaulg and repairs are necessary;
ma/ntalntng and ordering Around maintenanca equlpmeflt and ensur~ their proper
storage and safety!
~._
seintair~ suppl~ of ~as m~d oils ~c~ grounds' eq~ipum~ a~A trmt~tutioz~l vehicles.
;. ~0~ - Provides ~e~eraL hand~ena~ ~atnt~anCe Aqrvtces For
Other maintenance staff ~n their duties by.
&saAb. lng %radem~en OF uaintermn~eeec~ani~a a~ req~Lred~*
performing, aemi-s~llled hand,tan duties in tho maintenance o£ t~o Centre's
using hand and power tools and ensu~ their maintenance and security.
~ ,KFLLS AND KNOWLEDGE R~DUIRED TO PERFORM THE WORK4t~TI IO~C~T~DN.
~icceasM co~t~n of 8 ~8~ p~ferab~ 10
f ma~te~ce ~ ~eraticn of ~$ e~ent.
;IGNATURE~