HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1017.Mohammed.92-12-10 ONTARIO EMPI_OY~JS DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMgLOYEES DE h 'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE
SEi'I'LEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M,SG 1Z8-SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/TEL[PHONE
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z8~ BUREAU2100 (416) 598~0688
1017/89
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITI~TZON
Under
THE CP,.OWN EMPLOYEE8 COLLECTZVE B~RG~ZNZNG ~CT
Be£ore
THE GRZEV~%NCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between= /
OPSEU (Mohammed)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Revenue)
Employer
Before~ R.L. Verity Vice-Chairperson
M. Vorster Member
F. Collict Member
For'the Griewor: P. Chapman
Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright and Chapman
Barristers & Solicitors
For the Employer: D. Daniels
" Labour Relations Officer
Ministry of Revenue
Hearing: January 4, 1990
DEC.ISION
In a grievance dated June 20, 1989, Selma Mohammed alleges a Ministry
violation, of Article 5.1.2 of the relevant collective agreement in her assignment
to the minimum salary level of the Tax Auditor 3 classification following a
promotion in May, 1989. She seeks re-assignment to the maximum lsalary level of
the classification.
The matter proceeded by way of an agreed statement of facts, and brief
submissions.
The agreed statement of facts reads as follows:'
I. THE GRIEVOR IS CURRENTLY A SENIOR TAX AUDITOR - DESK
(CLASSIFICATION - TAX AUDITOR 3) EMPLOYED BY THE MINISTRY OF REVENUE
IN ITS CORPORATIONS TAX BRANCH.
1.(a). THE GRIEVOR WAS FIRST HIRED INTO THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE IN
MARCH, 1971, AS A TAX AUDITOR 3, AT THE LOWEST RATE OF PAY FOR THAT
'CLASSIFICATION. SHE EARNED REGULAR MERIT INCREASES DURING THE COURSE
OF HER EMPLOYMENT AS A TA3, REACHING THE MAXIMUM RATE OF PAY IN 1976.
2. ON JUNE 21, 1985 THE GRIEVOR WAS DEMOTED FOR REASONS OF HEALTH
FROM A POSITION CLASSIFIED AT THE LEVEL OF TAX AUDITOR 3 TO A POSITION
CLASSIFIED AT THE LEVEL OF TAX AUDITOR I PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5.6 {NOW
5.5) OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT THEN iN FORCE. DURING THE INITIAL
SIX MONTHS OF THIS DEMOTION THE GRtEVOR'S SALARY WAS PROTECTED
PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 5.6.
3. ON FEBRUARY 18, 1986, THE GREIVOR WAS ADVISED OF HER DEMOTION
ON A PERMANENT BASIS, EFFECTIVE MARCH l, 1986, TO A POSITION
CLASSIFIED AT THE TAX AUDITOR 1' LEVEL. THE GRIEVOR'S~TAX AUDITOR 3
SALARY CEASED TO BE PROTECTED AT THAT TIME. THE GRIEVOR'S SALARY WAS
REDUCED FROM $772.31 WEEKLY TO $547.61 WEEKLY. $547'.61 WAS THE
MAXIMUM SALARY FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF TAX AUDITOR 1 IN THE YEAR
1986.
4. THE GRIE¥OR WORKED AS A TAX AUDITOR - DESK (TAll FROM MARCH l,
I986 UNTIL MAY 29~ )989 EXCEPT FOR A SIX MONTH TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT TO
A POSITION AT THE TAX AUDITOR 3 LEVEL BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 AND
FEBRUARY 28, 1989.
5. EFFECTIVE MAY 29, 1989 THE GRIEVOR WAS PROMOTED THROUGH A JO8 .
COMPETITION TO THE POSITION OF SENIOR TAX AUDITOR ~ DESK
(CLASSIFICATION - TAX AUDITOR 3).
6. THE GREIVOR'S SALARY AT THE TIME OF HER PROMOTION WAS $653.38
WEEKLY IN HER CLASSIFICATION AS A TAX AUDITOR l. $653.38 WAS THE
MAXIMUM SALARY FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF TAX AUDITOR 1 IN THE YEAR
1989. ON PROMOTION, THE GRIEVOR WAS ASSIGNED A SALARY OF $740.85.
$740.85 WAS THE MINIMUM SALARY FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF TAX AUDITOR 3
IN 1989.
The sole issue is the Employer's interpretation, application and
administration of Article 5.1.2. The Board was referred to the following
provisions of the collective agreement:
ARTICLE 5 - PAY ADMINISTI~J~TION
5. l.1 Promotion occurs when the incumbent of a classified position is
assigned to another position in a class with a higher maximum
salary than the class of his former position.
5.1.2 An employee who is promoted shall receive that rate of pay in
the salary range of the new classification which is the next
higher to his present rate of pay, except that:
- where such ~ change results in an increase of less than
three percent (3%), he shall receive the next higher
salary rate again, which amount will be considered as a
one-ste~ increase;
- a promotional increase shall not result in the employee's
new salary rate exceeding the maximum of the new salary
range except where permitted by salary note.
5.5 Where, for reasons of health, an employee is assigned to a
position in a classification having a lower maximum salary, he
shall not receive any salary progression or salary decrease for
a period of six (6) months after his assignment, and iflat the
end of that period, he is unable to accept employment in his
former classification, he shall be assigned to a classification
consistent with his condition.
The Union argued that in exceptional circumstances following a
promotion, as in this case, the Ministry should exercise its implied discretion to
assign the maximum salary level of the classification. Ms. Chapman acknowledged
that she was unaware of any previous Board decision involving the alleged breach
of an implied discretion.
The Employer contended that Article 5.1,2 had been properly applied.
In particular, Mr. Daniels maintained that the article contained no discretion
either expressed or implied. In support of its position, one authority was cited;
namely, Re OPSEU (David Stewart Johnston). and-Ministry of Transportation and
Communications 69/83, (Weatheritl).
Under s.19(1) of The Crown Employee's Collective Bargaining Act the
Grievance Settlement Board has jurisdiction to determine any differences between
the parties "arising from the interpretation, application, administration or
alleged contravention of the agreement." Essentially, the issue in the grievance
before us is one of interpretation.
The sole provision in the collective agreement dealling with salary on
promotion is Article 5.1.2. The article provides that upon promotion, an employee
shall receive the next higher rate of pay in the new classification as compared
with his present rate of pay with two exceptions. Neither exception applies lin
the instant grievance.
The language of Article 5.1.2 is clear and unambiguous. Indeed, Ms.
Chapman acknowledged that fact. As a rule of construction, the clear and explicit
words of-a collective agreement must be given their ordinary and plain meaning.
The rationale for this rule was considered by Mr. Justice Gale, presiding as
Chairman lof an Arbitration Board, in Re Massey-Harris Company iLtd. (1953), 4
L.A.C. 1579 at p.1580:
.... [W]e must ascertain the meaning of what is written into Ia] clause
and to give effect to the intention of the signatories to the
Agreement as so expressed. If, on its face, the clause is logical and
unambiguous, we are required to apply its language in the apparent
sense in which it is used, notwithstanding that the result may be
obnoxious to one side or the other. In those circumstances it would
be wrong for us to guess that some effect other than that indicated by
the language therein contained was contemplated or to add words to
accomplish a different result."
Clearly, Article 5.1.2 contains no discretion in favour of management
either expressed or implied.
The Board can well understand the grievor's frustration in these
particular circumstances. Miss Mohammed has previously held the classification of
Tax Auditor 3 at the maximum salary level of that classification for some )4
years. Essentially, she is now in the same position as she was at her entry level
in 1971. However, the language of Article 5.1.2 does not distinguish between
emploYees wh6 have been previous incumbents in a classification and those who have
not.
The Board has no equitable jurisdiction to do what the grievor may
perceive to be justice or to grant a remedy in that regard. Moreover, under
s.27.16 of the collective agreement the parties have provided that the 8oard has
no jurisdiction "to alter, change, amend or enlarge any provision of the
Collective Agreement."
For the above reasons, we find that there has been no indication of
the provisions of Article 5.1.2. Accordingly, this grievance must be dismissed.
DATED AT Brantford, Ontario, this 28thday of February,A. D., 1990.
!
R. L. VEI~IFY_, Q. C. - Vice--Chairperson
~. VORSIER - Member
ONTAR/O EMPL 0¥~S DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTA RIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMlSSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2700. TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G ~Z8 TELEPHONE/T~L~PHONE.. (4~6) 326- ~358
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2;00, TORONTO (ONTARIO), MSG ;Z8 FACSIMILE/T~£~:COPIE .. (4 ;~6) 326-~396
1021/89
IN THE MATTER OF P=N ~%RB?TRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Bezo)
Grievor
- and-
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Environment)
'Employer
BEFORE: J. Roberts Vice-Chairperson
E. Seymour Member
D. Clark Member
FOR THE 'N. Wilson
UNION Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE S. Patterson
EMPLOYER Counsel
Legal Services Branch
Management Board of Cabinet
HEARING February 26, 1992
INTRODUCTION AND BTIPU~ATED EVIDENCE
This is a classification case. At the completion!l of the
evidence, it was agreed that the parties would make submissions in
writing. In those submissions, the following matters were
stipulated:
1. The grievor, Brian Bezo, grieves his classification at
the Environmental officer 4 ("EO4") level. I~'. Bezo see~:s to be
Ii
classified at the Environmental officer 5 ("EO5") le.~el or,
alternatively, seeks an Order from this Board that he be classified
appropriately within ninety days of the date of the Order of this
Board.
2. Mr. Bezo is a Technical Specialist in Water and Sewage
Treatment Plant Processes and the Co-ordinator of his Region's
Sludge Utilization Program.
(a) Back.round to Mr. Bezo's Current Position
3. Mr. Bezo is graduate of Northern College in Chemical
Technolo~r. '~
II
2
4. After graduating in 1969, Mr. Bezo worked at Microsystems
International in Ottawa for one and one-half years doing thin film
research.
5. Following his work at Microsystems, Mr. Bezo moved to
Sudbury to work at the Falconbridge Mines in the Assay Laboratory
doing chemical analysis.
6. During the latter part of his time with Falconbridge, Mr.
Bezo began to work on a part-time basis at the~ Sudbury SeWage
Treatment Plant; at that time a plant operated by the Ministry of
the Environment, doing laboratory analysis. At the time, he 'was
classified at the Chemical Technician 2 level.'
· 7. In July, 1993, Mr. Bezo began to work full-time at the
Sudbury Sewage Treatment Plant. In 1975 he was reclassified to the
Chemical Technician 3 level. During this time, he began to also be
assigned elsewhere in the Region to deal with water and sewage
treatment plant problems: in essence, trouble-shooting Drocess
problems at those plants.
8. .In 1978, the Ministry of the Environment turned the
Sudbury Sewage Treatment Plant over to the City of Sudbury and Mr.
Bezo switched positions to a job classified at the Environmental
Technician 4 level.
9. At that time, the provincial Sludge Utilization Program
began to be implemented and Mr. Bezo was the first Sludge
Utilization Co-ordinator for the North-East Region. As well as
this functio , he was also trouble-shooting in plants ..and was
taking care of the UMIS system.
10. In 1987, Mr. Bezo was reclassified to the E04 level.
11. Most recently, since November, 1991, Mr. Bezo ha~ been on
a secondment l~hereby he, another person from the Utility Operations
Branch in the South-East Region, two individuals from the Water
· II
Resources Brar~ch and one person from Environment Canada ar~' working
on a program to evaluate a program to be used to evaluate ~.ter and
sewage projects.
(b) Position that is Sub4ect to the Grievance il
12. With respect to the griever's position thatl! is the
subject of t e grievance,· the gr'ievor works in SudBury~ .in the
,,
Utility 0per tions Division of the North-East Region !! of the
Ministry of e Environment. tl.
(i), Organization and ReDortinq Structure
13. The Utilities Operations Division of the No~th-East
Region is responsible for administering and managing the o~eration
4
of .municipal water and .sewage treatment plants 'throughout· th~
NOrth-East Region. There are approximately 70 such plants~ (or
"projects") in the Region. These projects vary in size.
14. The Operations ,Utility Division is managed by Nels
Conroy. Mr. Conroy, who is also the Region's Assistant Director,
reports to the Regional Director, Ron Hore. Mr. Hore was formerly
the Manager of Utility Operations. Mr. Conroy has-three operations
managers, who are operating engineers, reporting to him, each
responsible for approximately one-third, of the seventy projects.
There is also a maintenance group reporting to Mr. Conroy and
responsible for maintaining these projects. Mr. Bezo reports
directly to Mr. Conroy.
15. Mr. Bezo is identified on the Organizational Chart for
the North-East Region as "Technical Specialist-Sewage and Water
Treatment Processes".
(ii) Description of Duties
16. Mr. Bezo's Job Specification Form also identifies him as
a "Technical Specialist~Sewage and Water Treatment Processes."
Both Mr. Conroy and Mr. Hore signed Mr. Bezo's Job Specification
Form.
17. Th purpose of Mr. Bezo's position is described' as
follows on h~s job specification:
!.
"T co-ordinate and conduct technically complex field and
la~oratory investigations for the development of
processes, technical procedures and'equipment a~$ociated
wlththe improved treatment of water and sewage treatment
facilities;, to act as co-ordinator for the sludge
uti~lization program. To provide advice and assistance to
waste water and water treatment plant operators and
laboratory technicians on matters pertaining t~ testing
probedures, process operation, equipment functions,
operations, etc."
As such, all Mr. Bezo's duties are'directly 'related to Water or
sewage treatment plants,
18. The job specification lists Mr~ ~Bezo's major
responsibilities in his job. The first major responsibility is
stated as follows:
"To conduct and report on non-routine specialized
research Studies involving 'the developmentl.i, and/or
appiication of municipal water or municipal waste water
treatment processes or techniques and provide
instructions to Plant. staff or process, as'for
The Job Specif. ication Form then provides a lengthy list of studies
the griever h $ perform,d and then goes on to describe th~ manner
in which Mr.Bezo is to conduct his work:
"ReRorts are prepared on the above-noted studies which
are !suitable for dlstrlbutlon inside and/or outside the
Mini!stry- only after general review by 'the manager. The
emplt, oyee is fully responsible for the technical ~ccuracy
and I quality of data collected or produced and
recommendations made in the reports.
The employee Works independently in organizing and
carrying out his research studies (i.e. lab. and
equipment), surveys and investigations. The manager is
periodically advised on the,progress of the'studies.
Otherwise he is usually contacted for only general
instructions on the studies and for financial and staff
support when required."
· 19. Mr. Bezo's second major responsibility is co-ordinating
the Sludge Utilization Program. This Program was identified in
oral teStimony as a recycling program whereby sludge is t~ken from·
sewage treatment plants and applied as fertilizer on agricultural
lands ....
20. The third major responsibility of Mr. Bezo concerns the
Utility Monitoring Information Systems ("UMIS"). This is a
computerized system whereby the projects under the auspices of the
NorthhEast Region provide data on water quality, processes, etc. to
the Regional Office for entry into a computer data base. Mr. Bezo
reviews this data to ensure accuracy and compliance with standards
and, in the event of non-compliance, brings this matter to the
attention of the appropriate management official in order to
correct process problems.
21. Finally, Mr. Bezo has a number of other duties as
assigned and as reflected on the Position Specification Form.
22. Despite lengthy testimony, Mr. Bezo was not cross-
examined to any great extent on his job functions and, in any
event, not to any extent in which it might be said that he Performs
other or less than that which he stated during his examination in-
chief.
23. Mr. Bezo's supervisor, Mr. Conroy, also testified and Mr.
Conroy's testimony was restricted almost exclusively to hi~ view of
Mr. Bezois qu lification as a "designated specialist" in accordance
with gui e lnes prepared unilaterally by the Ministryli of the
Environment f r the designation of EO5 positions'. I:
24. Finally, a memorandum from the Deputy. Minister, G. S.
Posen, dated March 28, 1991, was filed in evidence on.:consent
indicating that the Ministry had made a "co_m. mitment" to have the
Environment officer series made retroactive to October 1, i~986 and
that that c0m~mitment was being honoured. In accordance With the
opening stat ent made by counsel for the Employer, it is not in
J ,'
dispute that hould Mr. Bezo be reclassified at the E05 level, he
will receive -etroactive pay to that date. ii
FURTHER EVIDENCE
The only factual matter that was not stipulated relate~ to the
nature of the griever's duties with respect to co-ordinating the
sludge utilization program. As to this, the griever testified that
'8
the idea was to recycle the sludge as fertilizer for the benefit of
its nitrogen, phosphorous and organic content. In order to
qualify, however, he said, the sludge was require4 to meet certain
nitrogen to metal ratios because it was undesirable to permit
metals to accumulate in the soil.
Once the sludge was deemed acceptable, the grievor~testified,
appropriate sites for applying it as fertilizerwere selected from
among applications from farmers.. The grievor stated that he would
investigate a proposed site by checking soil samples, slopes and
soil permeability. Thereafter, the grievor said, the user would be
required to sample the soil for pH and bicarbonate extractable
phosphorous every 3 years. The grievor stated that he used this
information in centrally co-ordinating the loading with fertilizer
of every site. From this, he said, he would determine the
appropriate concentrations of nutrients to be applied.
Mr. Mel Conroy, the Utility Manager for the Region, agreed
that the grievor performed the above functions in connection with
the sludge utilization program. He testified that this was an
important programme but that the magnitude of the programme was too
insignificant to be accorded the same level as a Part VII Programme
or the more significant programmes of other districts. According
to the evidence, the grievor spent less than 30% of his time in co-
ordinating the sludge utilization.programme.
In' their written submissions, counsel for both ',,~ parties
directed the ,r arguments to the following issues:
'Whe~th the griever was properly classified as"i an E04;
(1) er
andl,
(2) If . et, whether the griever would be properly ci~assified
at the EO5 level as either a:
(a) Designated specialist; or
(b) Programme Implementation Co-ordinator.
We will address these issues seriatim hereinbelow:
(1) Whether the griever was properly classified as an EO4
For purposes of ease of reference, the class standards for ~he
Environm,ntal Officer Series are appended to this award.',~ It is
necessary to ~,efer to this series~ and in particular, the ~tandard
"
for the EO3 evel because the class standard for the EO4 level
expressly pro ides that it covers hose whose duties 'are "in
t ' t d bd
addit'ion o the responsibili ies e$cri e in the EO3 stanaard.''
It was submitted on behalf of the. griever that ,he was
improperly cl ssified as an EO4 for a number of reasons.il. These
included:
(1) The position did ~not involve any "inspection,
investigation and enforcement activities in the
environmental assessment and pollution control
field", as required by the standard;
(2) The position did not involve any "selection, operation
...[or] maintenance of specialized,, complex electronic,
chemical or mechanical air, water or waste water
monitoring equipment in field locations", as required by
the standard; and
(3) The position did not involve providing "assistance to
other Ministry staff in conducting applied research
projects or surveys"· as required by the standard.
It also was submitted'that the additional duties set forth in
the EO4 standard did not bring the grievor within its ambit. The
grievor did not, it was submitted, work as a group leader or in the
-advanced investigative and enforcement function as specified in the
EO4 standard. As to the application of the EO4 standard to senior
Environmental officers who function independently and assume
significant responsibility, it was pointed out that the grievor,
whiie a senior officer, did not exercise responsibilities across a
range of several areas as required in connection with this
coverage.
Counsel for the Ministry Submitted that the position of the
grievor fit within the~Preamble to the EO series, in terms of its
application to responsibility for "data collection·, inspectional
investigational ... preliminary evaluative and interpretive work on
matters relating to ... pollution control in .the natural
environment." As ~o the submissions of counsel for the Union
regarding the inapplicability0f the E03 standard, it was submitted
that' it was ~ossible to characterize certain of the duties and
responsibilities of the grievor as falling within the broad scope
of the Standa[rds at the EO3 level. The Board was provided with a
chart,-not r~produced herein, suggesting how this co-ordination
might be made Similarly, a further chart was provided, again not
reproduced h~rein, in an attempt to co-ordinate the further
standards for a position at the EO4 level with the duties performed
by the grievor. It also was submitted that while the EO4 ~tandard
did not refer to the research performed by the grievor, itel wording
could'be manipulated in light of the wording of the EO3 st~'ndard to
conclude that it did anticipate the performance of research which
was t'o some extent independent..
Hawing dqly considered these submissions, it is our cohclusion
that the griewor is improperly classified at the EO4 level. Our
reasons for r aching this conclusion are that the class ~tandard
for the EOB, hich must be read in conjunction with that I: for the
EO4, does not ,appear to contemplate the vast majority of .the duties
and responsibilities of the grievor. It was acknowledged by the
Ministry at the hearing that the grievor's job was unique. Mr.
Conroy testified that no other region had a process technician..
The functions assigned to the grievor's job were, ,instead,
performed by operations engineers, the ' head office group
responsible for them, or consultants hired to iron out problems in
plants that th~ey probably built,
12
We agree with the submissions on behalf of the grievor that
substantial portions of his duties and responsibilities fail
outside the scope of those at the core of the EO3 standard. The
latter duties and responsibilities appear to contemplate an
employee involved in a monitoring or overseeing role. The position
of the grievor is more in the nature of a process position. Apart
from co-ordinating the sludge, utilization programme, the grievor is
involved in the development of processes'forimproved treatment of
water and sewage and assisting operators and laboratory technicians
in improving the operation of their prOjects or plan~s. The nature
of his work does not appear to be contemplated within the EO3 and
EO4 class standards.
(2) (a) ' Whether the Grievor would be Properly Classified at the EO5 Level as a Designated Specialist
It was Submitted on behalf of the grievor that even though the
latter had not been "designated" as a specialist by the Ministry,
it was open to the Board to recognize that the grievor was a de
facto specialist within the meaning of the EO5 standard. In this
regard, we were' referred to Re Hiltz and MiniStry of the
Environment (1990), G.S.B. ~i376/88 (Ratushney), in which it was
acknowledged that it was within the jurisdiction of the board to do
so. See id. at p. 3.
It was submitted that in the circumstances of the present
case, the Board should exercise this jurisdiction. The grievor, it
was pointed out, was recognized in his position specification as a
Technical Specialist .and it was conceded by Mr. Conroy ~hat the
griever did', in fact, function in this capacity. It was~ further
stressed that the griever conducted field and laboratory
investigatio and performed specialized research studies in the
speciality area of municipal water and sewage treatment~i plants.
These functio s, it was submitted, fit well within the retirements
of a designated specialist..in the EO5 standard. !.
It was submitted on behalf of' the Ministry, however, that the
i,
E05 Standard Contemplated a much higher level of expertiise than
that possessed by the griever for purposes of classlflcat~lon as a
.la
designated sp ci list. ~It was for this reason, it was su, bmitted,..
that there were no environmental officers classified as designated
specialists nder the EO5 standard. Most persons who Would so
qualify, it w~s submitted, operated at a sufficiently, high i'level to
be classified in other series pertaining to scientists, engineers
or other professional categories. In short, it was submitted, the
expertise of a designated specialist had to be high enough to
provide him or her with recognized status among professionals in
the area.
The griever's duties, it was submitted, did not require more
than a modera .e level of expertise. The projects or plants that he
dealt with, i~ was submitted, were small with only simple treatment
processes.. A to the research studies conducted by the griever, it
14
was submitted that theY were no more than simple literature surveys
or the application of standard and uncomplicated laboratory tests
and theories to individual problems as they arose.
Having considered the foregoing submissions, we accept the
submission of the Ministry that status as a designated specialist
Within the meaning of the E05 standard requires professional
recognition as an expert in a specialty area. We, note that the
class standard makes designated specialists "fully accountable'' for
"decisions made with respect to matters involving areas of
expertise/preparation and review of reports .... " The class
standard goes on to warn that "inadequate technical findings or
incomplete documentation of evidence could result in considerable
financial losses to the ministry and to other parties and loss of
the ministry's credibility and prestige." These factors .are
consistent with the submission of the Ministry regarding the level
of expertise required of a designated specialist.
We also accept the submission on behalf of the Ministry
regarding the level of expertise required in the grievor's
position. There does not appear to be sufficient evidence to
enable us to' conclude that the grievor performs at such a high
level of expertise as to satisfy the requirements of a designated
specialist in the EO5 class standard.
(2) (b) Whether the Grievor would b~ Property Classified
at the ECS Level as a Programme Implementation Co-
ordinator
This. issue may be shortly dealt with. The evidence indicated
that the grievor dOes. not spend any more 'than 30% of his time in
co-ordinating the sludge utilization programme. We accept 'the
submission .of the Ministry that these duties do not 'attract
classification as an E05 co-ordinator because they do not form a
significant enough part of the core of the grievor's duties and'
responsibilities4
IV. CONCLUSION
In the result, then, it would appear that this is an
appropriate case for the issuance of a Berr~ order directing the
Ministry to "find or create" a proper classification for the
grievor. The Union submitted that in the event that the Board ..
decided to issue a Berry.Order, the Employer should be given no
more than 90 days to find or create an appropriate classification
and reclassify the grievor therein. This seems to us to' be an
appropriate length of time for purposes of accomplishing the
reclassification; however, the circumstances of this case do not
appear to justify making an order in this regard. We will retain
jurisdiction pending implementation of the terms of our award,
however, and will be available to make a ruling should
circumstances indicate that imposition of a time limit might be
necessary. Finally, it is noted that in their written submissions
both parties agreed that the remedy of reclassification should be
made retroactive to a point in time 20 days prior to the date of
the ~rievance. The grievor, of course, will be en%itled to receive
interest upon this retroactive payment in accordance with the
Hallowell House formula.
-DATED at London, Ontario, this 10th day of December,
1992 ·
R. ~. i~ts, Vice-Chairperson
E. Seymour, Union Member
D. Clark, Employer Member
This class covers positions of employees vho, under the administrative direction
I
of a'progran manager, function as designated divisional or nin/stry
.. implenentation c.o-ordinators of major ministry protrmis ~hich are c~.~lex, in
' nature and nay h~ve an inter-div~St-onal or ni6istry..vi~e.i_npact~ They are the
p'r-~=~ncipal liaison officer-~'~'nd spo'~'~[~-persons responsibl%for the.development,
. i~plementation, m~onitoring and evaluation of prograus designed to. address unique
" e~viron~e, ntal prOblems/issues; O__~tbey act as group lead'rs in
and enforcement function; O..~R they coordinate inter-regional and/or.~
· tnter-Jurfsdic~gnal special investiga~ions. The compensable factors
level are typically reflected as follovs:
I. I~ovledge:
~or~ requ~ges an advanced ~novledge o~ ministry orga~lgation~I Acts and
£egulation~ ad~inistrative and technical policies~ dl~ectives~
guidel~nes~ procedures and practices, ~o~ Ils0 requires dem°nstzated
Program development and management sklllso ~n some pos~tlo~s~ proven
analyttcal~ leadership and investigative abilities ire requl~ed, as are
de~onstrat&d human resource s~na~ement skills. In ~he investigations and
enforce~en~ group leader positions, a thorough knovledge of approptia~e
legislatio~, legal practices, procedures and precedents is essen~ial.
2. Judgement: -
York is performed under very general direction. Judgement lsi=e~ployed in:
establishing prtorl~les/reco,-Bendlng procedural changes to ~.'.
prograns/d~fining p~oJec~s/organtzin$ and co-ordinating
inves~igations.Judgement is also used in determining the i~pact of program
tnit/attve~ and changes.on, smnicipali~les and/or
3. AccountabiliCy:
These positions are fully accountable for: developing
strategies/soundness of recoo~endattons for progra~ initiatives, and
changes/de'eloping and co-ordinating complex, proJects/the accuracy of
findings a~d reports/the effective utilization of hunch, ~aterial and
financial resources/co-ordinating and revievtng the development of
'' prosecu~lo~ packages.
I Poor project management or inadequate te~hnical ~indings or ~ncomple~e
[ docu~entation of evidence~ could result in considerable financial tosses
i to the minigtry and ocher parties and loss of ninlstry's credibility and
t prestige. ·
SeoKe~ber 1, 1987 Jul~ 5, 1988 ~ 11 o! 12
ENVI ~tOKI~F~TAL OFFICEit
Class Code Class Title
61500 Env~rot.~en~$10fftcer
" 61202 Environ~en~l Officer
$~5C)~ £uvSror~en~al Officer
61506 Environ~encal Officer
61510' Env~ro~ncal Officer
"0
Date I~o~O P~oe
September 1, 1987 July 5, 1988 1 of 1~
/
T%ClO~ICA.L $~RVlC. TS-O? ~ESOUJ~CI:S
~I~~
This series co,ers positions responsible for data'collection, lnspecttonal,
lnvestilationa~, euforcenent, and prelim/nary evaluative 'and interpretive york
on uatters relltlnl to euvtronMntal assessueut and pollution control in the
natural enviromnent. ,:
~XCLUSIONS:
~xcluded iron the series are~
'
i. 'Position requlrin& the au, lysts and testtnl of sables conducted
priMrtly tn a laborato~ settins. ..
.
2. Position requlrin8 full professional status for the applications of
scientific and enitneertn[ principles found tn su~ disciplines
engiaeerln~ blolo&y or cbents~.
~TI~ OF ~$ITIONS:
~ere are six levels In this series and tbs assi~nt of ~sitiops to tbs
appropriate la{els'will ~ based on consideration of ~b tbs
description an~ the ~our c~ensable factors: kn~ledge, ~ud&emen~,
accouncabiltty~ and conckcts;
~e knovled&e factor describes ~th the kno~ledse e~d skills
required to perfo~ the responsibilities ef tbs position. ~e knovledse
. ele~at ~efers to the kno~ledse ef legislation, principles
precedents. ~e skills ele~et of this factor refers to
practice~ and techniques, eomll7 ~ained through experience, vhich are
required to adequately perfo~ the duties. "
2. ~e Jud~e~nt fac:or refers to the discretion required and ,the freed~
fat ~t~8 decisions vithie variable para~ters. ~e ~ cons'tdered are
su~ ~tters as tbs nature ef supe~istoa received, the availability
sufda~e~froe such sources as statutes, legislation, technical
~taadardi, specifications, and previously established procedures and
precede~[s, the requtreaeet far ae~ and innovative approach'es and cbe
variety ~f alte~ocive choices of action.
2.~e accountability factor refers co the scope' of responsibility,
decisioni ~de and tbs result of errors.
~e contacts factor refers to tbs significance and extent Of relation-
ships vhicb are a necessar~ part of the york. ~e t~o elen~:nts are (a)
I '
cbs nature and pu~ose of ~he contact, and (b) the level agd' authority
I
of the p~rson contacted. '
1
EU~ ~to ] 1~ pm~
September I, 1967 July 5, i988 2 of 12
I -
I
,~ ' ' CaM~xy Groop :
~rv~i~Oi~.~?AL~ OFFICF.~ 61500
~o~lcfons ~ll~ced to ch~ c18si involve bisic duties pFluc~p~ll~ related 'Co
~ct Collec~fou oF inspection In ~be field of ,uviro~ncol 8ssessMnc and
~llu~lou con~rol. ~e coupensebl~ fac~ors~8~ tb~s level ire
re,letted'is follovs:
Suffiefen~ blsiC knov2edse of m~r, land, In~ racer ~llu~tou
s~sceus end equlp~n~, and e~YtrO~ncol ~ssessMnc Ce~nolos7 Co
perfo~ basic inspections and collect euviro~ncal
2. JudKeMuC:
Vock ~$ perfo~d under close s~e~isLou and ts liniCed ~o mcce~s
hsytnt veil esc~blLshed precedents Iud pr~educes. All unus~l
ice referred to senior scoff, bsfc te~ulc81 reports, us~ll7 vicbouc
reco~n~cLouJ, ore preplred S~nerill7 Is cables o~ ~Ci iud/or
s~andard fo~s.
3, Acccouncabil i~y:
~ese positions ire eccounCoble for e~erence ~o es~abl~shed sufdelines
end insertions in cbc collection o~ da~a and for the accufit7 of
resul~fu~ fufomciou. Errors should hive ua sl~nf~i~nc ~oc~ beTond
~he efforts uecesslW Co obtain correct
&. Contacts:
Contacts ire ltntced.pr/nc/pall! to householders, suall contractors,'
technical support s'caff vichin their ovu mtnis~rT, or project operac.ion~
staff for the purpose of obciinins lnfomacion.
Zffecclve Dsce Issued ~
September 1, 1987 July ~. 1988 3 Of 12
'C'~egcx'~' i Gro,Jp
I
' TtCI*I~ICAI. Stt¥ICE.. TS-O?
~vlRO~T~ OF~IC~I 6~2
1
This class cove~s positions involving data collection and limited analysis or
routine inspection york tn rbe field of environmental assessMnt and pollution
1'
control. This i~ a Junior vorking level position or a position tn Vhich
erployees gain ~raining~ and experience. The coupensable factors atthis, level
are typically reflected as
~novledge
Vork requitres sufficient technical knovledge to.undersc,nd the
Principles and practices of industrial and uunictpal environmental :
control, ~ollur~on abace~nt, and land use practices. ~ostci~os
involve knovled8e of: industrial processes/~nicipfl vicar supply
Syscens/se**a8e d~sposal s~scems/asr~culcur81 activities/vesta
mnese~nc/Sround and surface vicar technolo~y/enviro~encal..~nicorfns
equipment. SaM kno~ledse of enviro~eucal legislation, utniscw
policies, )tactless and a~in~stracive procedures ts also required.
2. Judgenenc:
gork ts penford under direct supe~tsion vtch so~ discretion to Mke
~echnical ~ectstons uichiu established practices end precedence and Co
~ke m~nor on-site recoMndaCions. Hatters chac involve deviation from
escabllsbe~ pracclc~, hoverer, are referred co senior scaff..Judsemenc
is exercised tn assembltn~ data, prepartn~ technical reporCs~end
· I
reco~ndaC~ons, usually tn consultation rich senior staff.
3. AccouncabilicT:
~ese post ions ~re accountable for cbs ,ccuric7 of the dica~nd
'~n~o~clo~ collected and for the technical quality ag reports and
reco~endi~tons. ~e t~acc ag decisions a~d reco~endaclons, bogeyer,
ts ltutced as obey are sub,eec Co rev~ev.
Vo~k involves re~vlaF COn~OC~S vtCh the $eneF8I*publSc, con~rac~ocs
project operations Ind technical support staff and munic/p~l~~ /nduscrt41
and ocher agent7 e~loyees at the technical level for the purpose
exchansin8 infomcion and
September ~, 1~87 July ~. ~988 '
TbLs cl4ss covers positions involvin& inspection, LnvestL&atLons and
enforcement &ctivigies in the environ~entsl assessment ind pollution control
field. In soa~ positions obey vould conduct tnvesclSSCLons to identify,
~oniCor and repor~ on sources of pollution of air, lind, or
noise, ~nd plan, organize ~nd cond~ ~ssessBenc su~eIs lng ~nl~orini o( ~e
ne~ural enviro~n~, giCh respec~ ~o ~llu~lon control ~currences, ~hel could
· lso efIec~ corrective ~c~lon b~ ~kin& reco~n~cions.(or i~l~encicfou o(
· ppropr/e~e ~b~ce~n~ mesures, and /n/~li~e vbere necess~ ippropr/ace
enforcemen~ ~c~iv/~I ~o ensure compliance vi~h euviro~n~el legislation. ~el
ml ~lso be res~nsible /or,prov/d~u~ ~r~enc~ response ~o spill cousin&eno7
situations end pl~n~ process upsets, ~o ~ui~or ~nd provide reco~en~ions
and/or re~dial ~isures. ~eI ~ reviev end pr~ess applications ~nd prepare
~rct~tcices of Approval.
~ts class ~lso covers ~siciOnS vhich are responsible E~r the selec~ion~
operation ~nd ~tncenance of specialized~ co~lex~ eleccronic~ chemical ,or
~cb~nicel elf, wa~er or vasce~acer .~nicorin8 equip~nC In 'field l~actous
resulcin~ In ~be producrlon o[ valtdareff ~re for use In enviro~ncal
assess~nc prosra~. ~ey ~ also provide assistance ro other slnis~
in conduccinE applied researcb.pro~ec~s or supers ~o evaluate new ~echnolo~l~
~chods~ and assess ~he natural enviro~n~. ~e compensable ~accors
level are ~lcally re[lec~ed as follows:
A Vorkl~ kn~leg~e o~ rbe principles ~nd practices o[ industrial
~nicip~l envtro~ncal control, pollution ab~ce~n~ l~nd use and
cou~intencl response practices. Positions ~l involve kn~led~e
industrial processes/~ntcipel va~er supply slscems/se~a~e disposal
sIsce~s/alriculcural ~cc!vtcies/v~sce ~n~emenc/ground and surlace
w~er techuolog~/envtro~ncal ~nirorin~ equip~nc/courr procedures
re~ardiu[ enforce~nc activities. ~ovled~e of enviro~ncal ~nd related
le~isl~clon, regulacions, ~intsc~ poltcles~ practices and ~lniscr~cive
pr~edures Is ~lso required. Good oral and written co~nicacive skills
·nd ~ac~ ere ~ndacorl.
2. Judgement:
· '. goc~ t~ penford u~deg general supervision v~b so~ ~ndependence
~be plantin8 and execuc~o~ DE E~e~d ~nspecclons and su~e~s~
~nvesc~SaCtons and en[orce~enc acolytes. Ju~seme~c ~s also'exegcZsed
the preparation of co~rebens~ve cecbntcal reports, ~ncegpre~a~on DE
~nZo~rton and data, the deve]opment DE read,al reco~endac~o~s and
.. when representing ~he ministry ac public and municipal ~eCinSs, and
beEore cbc courts and o~her'quast Judicial bogies.
EHec~lve Dale Issued Page
5 o! 12
September 1, 1987 July 5. 1988
,
18 Io~ posf~Lous jud&~enC is exerc/sed'vben: evaluacLu&
~l~brac~ e~d s~ict~S tussauds e~ equ~uc/~usu~ Ippropria~e
clef'nup icCSo~ lc op~lls/fnLCfiC~n~ snd/or rec~ndiuf appfopr/e~e
bye:been d~s~overed. Persuasivene~s fnd Mcure Jud~eMnc ire requfre~
o[[~c~als on contentious fssues.
3. lccouutlblltt :
~e Xuc~benc ~s d~reccl7 eccouu~ible for: collec~L~ c~le~e e~d ,
occurace ce~nfcfl iefo~c~ou/lnce~recin~ ind u~flizl~
~acbered co ~leMnc correc~fve p~edures/lufClatfu& euforc~hc
ac~XvXCT/mLu~il~in~ 8ud operl~/~ c~l~ equXpMn~ Ln a~or~n~e rich
le&lsli~lou or established iluXs~ pract$ce and precedents.
m~nis~ or o~ers ind In loss of ~e ~Inisc~'s credibility
pres~lse.
~u~cipal of[LC'~iIs, consul~in~s develo;ers, concFlc~ors, heal~?
o/[fcii~s, ~r&e~y response personnel, o~heF ~roviucLil and Federal'
f&e~es and elbc~ed~ offlcLels. ~ncoccs ire for cbc pu~ses
ezc~pgin~ Lnfo~Cion, f~vin~ te~ulc~l odvice, m~n~ rec~n~cions, ,
respoudtnz ~o cou~lnsencies, ~eyeloptnA orders, and enfoFcLu~ prov/nci81
le~sloc~ou. ~ fnc~b~nc of f refill7 represeucs cbc uXuXsC~ in ~11
[ contacts aud.M~ be required ~o appear as a mtnts~ vicness at' hearXn~s
and in courts ~f lev ~nd to provide lnfo~ton ac publfc Metings.
[
September 1,. 1987 July 5, 1988 6 of 12
1'bLs class covers positions of. employees vho, ts eddi~lqn to the
responsibilities described in the tnvironnental Officer 3 standard, exercise
advanced responsibilities ·cross a range of several"~reas Ln the environmental
~nd. pollutio~ control field.." ~
Tbey'my function as group leaders p~oviding technical direction,
co-ordinating and revieving the staff activities, e~stgning and evaluating
technical york, and instructing in technical tFainin~programs. Also, in a
group leader role, ~hey nay participate as a technical advisor au selec~i6n
board· and in the performance management pz~ess by.perfo~in~ such duties as
advising on trlin/ng and cer~/ffco~iou courses and York objectives, and my be
responsible ~o: recomendins ~he purchase o~ speciilized ~uitoriug eqvipMn~
iud the selection o~ appropriate sites; ~he7 MI be recognized'sen/or
enviro~n~81 officers vho hive the ibiliw lnd vide varieW of experience to
guuc~/on independently end Co ess~ sfgnfgicauC responsibilicT. ~e7 viii
exercise Jud~e~nC and Initiative to iden~if~ and resolve co, lex and
contentious p~oble~; OR In ~be advanced ~nvesciSa~lon and en(oFceMn~
function the7 m~ per/o~ lc an en~ l~vel Ln vhich ~he7 gain training and
~erience in bo~b fields. ~e co~ensab'le factors a~ this level are Wpl~lly
reflected es foll~s:
1. Enovledae:
York requires the technical expertise, flexibl~Lt! ·nd depth of
background to deml independently vith · vide variety of unpredictable
enviroa~en~al problens, vbere the individual*s knovledge my be the omit
i~nedt·te guide reaction.' Demonstrated leadership, conx~unication s~tlls
and a good knowledge of I vide voriec7 Of enviro~nc~l and reii~ed
legislicion iud regvla~/ons ire essential, in s~ positions vhich deal
-' vl~' ~nscr~ntation a proven t~hnicil prof~c~euc~ Is required.
2. Jud~nc: ..
Vork'is per[o~d un,er miniml supe~ls~on. JudgeMnc is em~lo~ed co
co~rdino~e the necessar~ h~n, Mcerill ·nd/or info--Clan resources
and co orEanize s~udies, su~eys, lnvescSSocions of co~leincs or
tnspeccSons independencl~, referrin~ CO svpe~sors gal7 tn event of.
very unvsvll cfrc~sca~ces, and Co advise on prosr'ess.
Judge~nc is exercised i~ app17ing general ~ech~Jca] principles to ney'
problems ~hich do nec respond ~o preceden~ or established practice and
~en representing the miniscr2 at public ~ec~ngs., hearings or Ln
dealings rich ~d~o. In so~ positions ~udgement is ~Iso required rhea:
race--riding appropria~e clean-up action a~ spills/consider~,s
reco~mda~ions for legal oc'~lon/Incerpre~t~i ie~fslf~lon/reviewing
reports amd reco~nda~fons of o~her ~echnical $~iff.
Date l~sue~ I Page J
September 1. 1987 July ~, 1988 ? of 12
, TECIO(Icai $£RYZCE$I ~ TS- O~/ uP'$OU~,CE:$ Str~POZT
KI~I ~Oh'HF.~ TAL OFFIC£~ 61506 "
J ,,
Officer & ;'
Accountability:
These positions are fully accountable for independent completion of
c~iex york, for the technical guidance and coordination of actions of
ocher assigned ~caff, for the.~echnical accuracy and quality of dace
collected or produced and for:~conprehens/ve technical reports vitht!
recom~ndations as a result, of their decision on necessary infomation,
for fo'ru~c and content of reports and mppropriateness of reco~neud~
scions; and tn so~ posiclons:-for cbc purchase, installation and
MLntenance of complez ~nitortns equLpmnt. Re~r[s ire suitable for
distribution outside the einisc~ after only 8enerll reviev b7 ~e"
supe~isor., Inappropriate technicians, could result tn s~
loss ~o ~be mtnl. s~W or others tnd in loss of the mLuls~*s credibility
8nd pres~ise.
~. ~ncaccs:
York involves a ~fde vir~e~ of con~iuuins COn,ac'Cs rich sove~ncal
and industrial officials aC ~e operational0 cechul~l,professfo~l and
Mna~eMnc level , elected officials, seneral public, cbe
consultants, de~ lopers, con~raccors, health officials, technical,'
scientific and ~tneer~n$ of Iiciils of Cbt uinisCU, ocher provincial
ministries, the ~ve~nC of ~nada tnd lnce~actonal asencies.
~e coat'cs are. for ~be purpose of exchen~lns infomcfon,
advice, publishtuS interpretative dace, Mkin~ rec~ndaCtons, plannin$
co~pe~a~ive s~v~les, oF en~orcins regulations. ~eyuy be
Siva evidence on technical ~ccers oF Co appear as an expert vicneSs
before a~nis~Factve, tribunals such as the EnvlFo~ncal AssessMuc
Board
s court~ of l~v. ~ey ~y ~ reqvfred to ~k~ presen~a~fons
.. pub,.lc'Me,lugs pr represent the mtntsCW on citizens* liaison
c~tccees. Iu MI concocts, ~he e~ioyee officially represents ~he
ministry.
!
El'fectlve Dale lssue<l J Page
Of
12
8
T~C~LtlICAL $£~¥1C~$ TS-O? E~SOU~C~$ SUPPORT
~ ,
Cla~ Code
Series E.~V~Oh'~.I~TA~ OFTIC~ 61~8
~I~~ O~ ~
~is class covers posttion~ of e~loyees vbo, actin~ at a ~ l~ve~ a~
p~n i~leuencf~ion co~rdfnntoFs, have direct responsibility for
c~rdlna~inK~aCtivf~s of bri~h and/or regional personnel as they relate
~o ~he approp~ia~ program area ~acc as ~.si~ni~ed specialis~s for br~ OF
r~s (bach pro~ram implementation co~rdinator~ and desi~na~ed specl~
fu~n iu · sped~al~y area vtchin ~nlci~ll or iudus~rtl'l solid vis,e/liquid
vis,e/emission cofi~rol/conplex assessuen~ su~eys) Ol ac~ as officers in ~he
~iga~ion and:enforcement function vbo ~s~ Mk~dectstons independently,
v~ln& on~y {heir knbvled~e~ skills and experience as guides in such Miters aS
collecC~n~ and 8n~lyztn~ evidence such as financial records/company books/
veybtlls, gathering intelligence on violators and preparini and assisting
ministry lawers rich prosecutions. ~e co~ensable factors ac Chis level are
C~lcally reflected as follovs:
I.' ~ovledgec
In sane positions, employees vould have proven leadership, orsanizaclonal,
co~nlcaclve'and project MuageMnt abilities. In ocher positions,
~Ioyees vail bt required co have extensive knovled~e of envfro~encal
~nvescl~aclon an~ enforceMnc procedures oF proven technical knovledge
such that the e~lo~te,.is recognized as an expert fn'a specific field. A
thorough knovled$e of i vide range of euviro~encal lesislaciou,
regulations, and policies as yell as a yacking knovledge of related
legislation and regulations Is also Mndaco~.
2. Jud'~eMnc:
Vork ts'Perfo~d under 'general direction. Judgeuen~ and tact are
essential to co~rdinace the necessaw h~n and/oF lufomCion resources
and co design and organiz~ brsuch/re~fonal studies, su~eys,
investigations vfch nintm~ ~nPUC frae supe~tsors. Perfo~fng as a
specialist, a ver~ h~gh level of ~ud~eeenc is necessaw s~nce Cbc person
My be the prime uinfscw representative dealins rich lnduscw,
~nicipalitSes or consultants and ~y develop options independently and
present cheo co a client Stoup.
A~ enviro~encal investigators, Jud~e~nc Is required co
appropriate legal action. Jud8eMuC Is also required vhen collecting
evidence/Caking scarenencs/obse~tng rules of evide~e/preparln~ and
se~ln8 legal docu~ncs.
~s E.qVIIoN~F..NTAL OF~ICE~ C~8ss Co~0
3. Account~b/ll~y:] :"
Iu positions el~loceced ~o ~his level, e~lozees 8re full7 iccouncoble for:
co~rd/nition o~ prosr,o end stiff/decisions Mde vitb respect to
involvin& ireis~of expertise/prepirotion iud reviev~f reports/prepirstiou
end execution o~ prosecution pockeses, lneppropriite~reco~nde~iOus/
inadequate techhic81 findin&s or Luconple~e doc~en~ion of evidence
could result la considerable fininciel losses to th~ uinis~ end.to ocher
p. rties end loss of cbe uintstW's credibil/c7 end ~restise.
~e vork lnvolvts · vide varlet7 of coutinutnS concocts vlch $oveF~en~..l
end lndustrill ~fficials/ec cbe operational, technical, professional end
unaleMu~ levees/court and other enforcement e~enclts/elected
~be senerel public, the medif, consultants, developers, contractors/health
officials end t~chnic, l, scientific and ensineerin~ officials of the
uluis~r7, other provl~l,l ministries, the ~ve~ut of ~nodl
international fsencies. '
~e contacts ar for the purposes of ezcbanstns lnfomclon, prov~dins
advice and direction, discussins Co, lex technical ~ccers vicb experts
publishinS interpretive data, MkinS recomendacions, plannin~
co-opera,ire sc~dfes such os resetrcb pro~ec~s funded b~ ~he minis:~rZ
en;orcin~ regulations. ~~be coiled to ~evidence on technical
~ters or co ~ear os 8n exper~ vl~ness before o~~rotive tribunals
Such aS tb~ Eg~ir°~ntal AssessMnt Boa~d or a court of lay. Tbe~ My be
required to make presentations sC public matings. In all concocts, the --
e~loyee officially represents the
Contacts:
1'be york involves I vide variety of couCinvin$ contacts vfth governmental
and industrial officials at the operational, technical, professional and
management l~vels/elected officials, the seneral public, the media,
consultants, developers, contractors/health officials and technical,
scientific and engtneerint officials of chis minfstz'y, other provincial
ministries, ~be GoVernment 'of Canada and international asencies. The.
contacts are for the purpose of exchanging information, givins advice,
discuss~ng complez technical matters vftb experts from outsfde agencies,
publishing .ln~erpre~acive data, making reconnendations, planning
co-operative studies such aa research pro~ects'f~nded by thcs
-enforcing regulations. They s~y be called to give evidence on technical
mat~ers or to appear as an expert vitness before actminfstrative trfbunal~
such as the ~nv~ron~ental Assessment Board or s court of lay. They nay be
--required to make presentations at public meetings. In all contacts, the
employee officially represents the minis~ry.
· <=live Date I~sue<l Page
S ~tember 1., 1987 Jul~ S, ~988