Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0892.Lintack.92-01-21 \ ...... w\\ , ~ :':'\, ~ ~8\ ONTA!'IIO EMPLOYÉS DE LA cOURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ON T ARlO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT ~ REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5G lZ8 TElEPHONE !TÉlÈPHONE: (416) 326- 1388 180, RuE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO), M5G lZ8 FACSIMILEITÉLÉCOPfE: (416) 326- 1396 892/90 :IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UncSer THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GR:IEVANCB SETTLEMENT BOARD BBTWEEN OPSEU (Lintack) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of'Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) Employer BEFORE: s. stewart Vice-Chairperson P. Klym Member D.Montrose Member FOR THE R. Healey GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THB B. Christen EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & wakely Barristers & Solicitors REARING February 25, 1991 March 25, 1991 June 6, 26, 1991 -- 1 c' ~ DECISION Mr. Wayne Lintack is employed by the Ministry of Natural Resources in the Huronia District in the posit~ion - of Deer Technician. The position specification for this position is attached hereto as Appendix 1. Mr. Lintack's position is currently classifÜ'!d as Resource Technician 3. The class standard for Resource Technician 3 is attached hereto as Appendix 2. The issue before the Board is ~hether Mr. Lintack's position is properly classified. The griever seeks re-classification of his position to Rel~ource Technician 4 Conservation Officer. The class standard for Resource Technician 4 - Conservation Officer is cittached hereto as Appendix 3. In the alternative the griever seeks a ;OBerry order," an order directing the Employer to properly classify his position. It is the Employer's position that Mr. Lintack's position is properly classified. There was no real dispute with ,respect to the accuracy of the job specification in terms of thl~ duties that it describes. Howeve r , the Union's position was that the duties and responsibilities of Mr. Lintack entail enforcement duties that extend those contemplated by the Resource Technician 3 class standard and that he perfonns extension and public relations services that are not contemplated by that classification. It was the Union's , .., , ~\ q I 2 further position that Mr. Lintack performs all of the core duties of the Resource Technician 4 - Conservation Officer I classifi_cation. I I Mr. Lintack is the only Deer 'Technician in the Central Region. In his position he reports to Mr. R. Toth, Fish and , wildlife Management Officer, who in turn reports to Mr. D. Mansell, District Manager. As his position specification indicates, Mr. Lintack's duties entail the organization and . implementation of the deer management program, which involves duties such as co-ordinating the c'ollection of biological data, organizing controlled deer hunts, ~plementing surveys and preparing reports and technical data in relation to deer management. These surveys and reports deal with matters such as deer population and fawn mortality. According to Mr. Lintackts evidence, this work involves about 50% of his time. It is the position of the Union that the Resource Technician 3 class standard. does not contemplate the degree of program planning and co- ordination of field work carried out by Mr. Lintack. Mr. Lintack conducts investigations and inspections , with respect ,to matters relating to deer population, such as road kills. He carries out autopsies to determine the cause of death in the event of suspicious circumstances. He also deals with matters such as injured deer, deer in or- ( , 3 urban areas, deer causing damage to crCips, and dogs who are chasing deer. He is equipped 1;V'Ìth a semi-automatic rifle which is to be used for shooting a dog, if necessary, and for killing injured deer. 'He is also equipped with a shotgun, which is used when it would be unsafe to operate the semi-automatic rifle. As ...,ell, he is equipped with a 22 calibre rifle which is used to shoot porcupines and racoons as necessary for resource management purposes. The extension and public relation activities performed by Mr. Lintack involve attending seminars, conferences and workshops dealing with deer habitat and population management. Mr. Lintack gives presentations to Ministry staff, the general public and particular interest groups in relation to deer management. Mr. Lintack stated that the purpose of his presentations to the general public was to foster an understanding on the part· of 'the public with respect to the resource management regulations in the hopes that such knowledge would result in adherence to the regulations. Mr. Lintack also provides information to the Ontario Municipal Board in connection with matters such as the effect of proposed development on d.<!er habitat. Mr. Lintack testified that this work involvl:!s approximately 13% . of his time. As previously noted, it is the UnÍ<:m' s position that -':-*\ ~ ~;. "'" , . . ~ . .;;r,"'" ". ,'. ' - '. ~ r " "1, 4 . , Mr. Lintack carries out enforcement duties beyond those contemplated by his position specification, which refers to "assisting Conservation officers during peak work load of illegal fall deer hunting and spring fish run" as 5% of his du ties. Mr. Lintack testified he is involved in what he described as tldirect enforcement duties" approximately 37% of his time. These duties include the observation of something that causes suspicion, I such as evidence of hun ters, which will ,cause him to investigate ,the matter I further, while he is in the course of other duties, such as \ gathering technical data. He may issue a warning or, if the circumstances indicate, he will refer the matter to a Conservation Officer., The Conservation Officer will decide whether or not charges will be laid. Mr. Lintack may be called upon to give evidence in court. Mr. Lintack is appointed as a Deputy Conservation Officer under the Game and Fish Act and is designated a provincial offences officer under that act, the Endangered Species Act, the Public Lands Act, and the Trespass to Property Act~ The Game and Fish Act extends to officers under that Act powers of arrest of persons found committing an offence, powers of search and powers to enter private property. Officers are defined under that Act as including Deputy Conservation Officers.. During the fall deer hunting season Mr. Lintack is assigned to work with one of the ..- I t 5 eight Conservation Officers who is assigned to a particular geographical area of the region. Suchan assignment 1:akes place approximately twelve days per year. The person with whom he is assigned is appoint'ed as a Conservation Officer under the Game and Fish Act. Those persons are designated as provincial offences officers under the statutes referred to above, as we 11 as under a nlJmber of other 5 tatutes. A Ministry directive states that: "All Deputy Conservation Officers will receive direction for law enforcement duties from a person appointed as a Conservation Officer". The directive goes onto state that: "Deputy Conservation Officers are not [emphasis in the original] to be considered substitute Conservation Officers". Mr. Lintack testified that when he is assigned to work with a Conservation Officer during a peak enforcement period they work together as a team. They are stationed in an area where they suspect that ill~gal deer hunting may take place, or they may check for licences at the commencement of fishing season. Mr. Lintack stated that it is not uncommon to encounter persons wh() are impaired by alcohol and who have criminal records. Mr. Lintack stated that he carries out the same duties as t:he Conservation Officer in such circumstances, except that the Conservation Officer is responsible for laying any charges and completing any paperwork in connection \l7i th the laying of , ~ ~ - -:-'\ i..~ ~ 1:"'\ '}' ;,' \, ',:' \ !F .. j 1 . 6 charge s. Mr. Lintack testified that he and the Conservation Officer would discuss the laying of charges but he acknowledged that the ultimate laying of the charge was the responsibility of the Conservation Officer. Mr. Lintack has been provided with some training in connection with matter,s such as powers of search and seizure, self defence techniques and legal issues. However, he has not received all of the training that the Conservation Officers receive. Mr. Lintack is equipped with a Deputy Conservation Officer uniform, handcu ffs, a baton and a red flashing light for use on his Ministry vehicle. He is not issued with a sidearm as the Conservation Officers are. It was acknowledged 'by the Union that Mr. Lintack does not carry out certain duties referred to in the Resource Technician 4 - Conservation Officer class standard. Specifically, Mr. Lintack does not formally lay charges, he does not inspect commercial records, he does not conduct examinations of hunters for licences and he does not prosecute cases. The Union called evidence from Mr. M. Townes who is employed by the Ministry of Natural Resources in the Huronia region. His position title is Conservation Officer/Fish and Wildlife Extension Technician. Mr. . Town es I supervisor is Mr. R. Toth. Mr~ Townes I position is classified as Resource Technician 4 - Conservation Officer. The Union called evidence with respect to his .~ , 7 . duties in order to establish that the duties of the Resource. Technician 4 - Conservation Officer that Mr. Lintack does not perform are not performed by Mr. Townes either. It was the union's pos.ition that this evidence established that those duties are not core duties of the Resource Technician 4 - Conserv'ation Officer position. Mr. Townes testified that he spends approximately half his time in the office, performing work such as correspondence, answering telephone enquiries, dealing ,á th nuisance animals and attending to other administrative matters. He spends 8 to 10% of his time car.ring out enforcement duties in the field. The remaining approximat.Ûy 40% of his time is spent earring out site inspection for dredging and filling and providing advice to land OWllers with respect to matters such as wildlife habitat protection. As well, he is involved in providing seminars. Mr. Townes testified that his enforcement duties , consist of attending with another officE~r when he is requested to do so. He also attends on routine patrols with another Conservation Officer or Deputy Conservation Officer. He stated that "he had laid charges while on routine patrols but that it has occured rarely in the last . few years n . Mr. Townes stated that he i.s assigned to investigate matters on his own "when no one else is available" . He stated that if he is alone and comes across ---:,'w~ "'~ 0 ~' '. i{ ., 8 , a matter that requires the laying of charges he may lay the I charge and carry out the seizures. He may also investigate the matter and not lay the charge, but, rather, refer the, matter directly to the Conservation Officer whose area it is to lay the charge. Mr. Townes estimated that he has laid only three to five charges in the last ten years. Io1r. Townes stated that he has been involved in arresting people five or six times in the last thirty years but that he has , not done so in the last several years. He stated that Conservation officers are seldom required to make arrests. Mr. Townes has had occasion to prosecute charges before a Justice of the Peace in the past but that he has not done so in the last ten years. Mr. Townes has alsò inspected commercial records, however he has not carried this out for some time. Mr. Townes carries a sidearm. However, he stated that he has never used it except for target practice. In support of the position that the enforcement duties performed by Mr. Lintack are not contemplated by the Resource Technician 3 class standard, Mr. Healy referred to the fact that the Resource Technician 3 class standard does not refe~ to appointment under particular pieces of legislation. He contrasted that with the Resource . Technician 4-Conservation Officer class standard which does refer to particular pieces of legislation. It was ~ ! 9 submitted that the Resource Technician 3 class standard would hqve included such a refl:!rence if it had been intended that the enforcement duties of persons in that classification were to be covered. It was further submitted that the enforcement duties referred to in the Resource Technician 3 class st,andard simply do not contemplate the extent of the duties pe!rforrned by Mr. Lintack. In particular, it was submitt,ed that the class standard does not contemplate work such as investigating offences, participating in arrests, search and seizure, and other "police" types of duties. It.was submitted that the particular context in which these duties are carried out, in dealing with persons who are armed, and often intoxicated, there was a significant element of danger that was not contemplated by the class standard. In Mr. Healy·s submission, the reference to "enforcement II in the Resource Technician 3 class standard must take meaning from its context. Mr. Healy acknowledged that in a broad sense all resource management work can be characterized as enforcement work. He submitted, hCJ\tfeve r, that the class standard contemplates primarily technical work such as gathering and collecting data and in this context, it should not be concluded that the class standard contemplates the direct law enforcement type of work carried out by Mr. Lintack. . -"\ "\ 10 ~ In his submissions, Mr. Christen emphasized the fact that there is a specific reference to enforcement duties in the Resoµrce Technician 3 class standard. Mr. Christen . also emphasized the fact that the Resource Technician 4- Conservation Officer claS5'standard referrs to "significant enforcement of natural resources related legislation". It I was his submission that ,enforcement is the hallmark of the Resource Technician 4-Conservation Officer class standard and that à further hallmark of that class standard is the appointment of a Conservation Officer pursuant to the Game and Fish Act. Mr. Christen argued that this was not merely a matter of form, as the appointment of a Conservation Officer involves significant duties and responsibilities. As in many of these cases, the Board was extremely impressed with the skill and dedication of the grievor' in the performance-of his duties. However, the issue is not the level of his performance, but rather, wheth~r the duties of his position fit within the Resource Technician 3 c~ass standard in which he is currently classified. As is noted in many decisions of this Board, the class standard is not intended to be a job description, but, rather, ~s , intended to generally capture the nature of the duties of a position. It is important to examine the issue of whether Mr. - l- 11 Lintack I s position is properly classifÜ~d in the contl~xt of the class series. We note that the preamble to the Resource~Technician series states: UPositions will be allocated to a specific level in this class series only when all [emphasis in the original] the requirements of that level have been fulfilled." We will first deal with thE! Union I s submission that the Resource Technician 3 class standard does not contemplate the degree of program planning and co-ordination of field work that is carried out by the grievor., We cannot agree with this submission. The Resource Technician 3 class standard refers to llmore complex, demanding and responsible technical duties containing considerable latitude for decision making ...11. An example of thE! kind of work performed by positions in this class'ification is IIgathering, assembling and compiling technical or scientific data, preparing technical re:¡;:orts and/or plans II. The Resource Technician 3 class standard also refers to the organization and scheduling of the work of other employees. In our view, the Resource Technician 3 class standard clearly contemplates the program planning and co- ordination of field work carried out; by Mr. Lintack. . We turn next to the issue of Mr. Lintack's extension work. While the Resource Technician 3 class standard does . ~ \' . 12 not refer specifically to:the extension and education work that is done by Mr. Lintack, it is our view that some of it, in particular the provision of technical expertise concerning deer management and all the liason work in , connection with deer management, reasonably falls within the reference to "preparing technical rep::>rts and/or plansll or "assessing technical needs of management or scientific projects and submitting technical recommendations II. The work he performs in presenting seminars for outside groups reasonably falls within the ambit of enforcement work that is specifically referred to in the Resource Technician 3 class standard. In our view, the internal in-service that Mr. Lintack provides with respect to deer management issues is encompassed within the second paragraph of the Resource Technician 3 class standard where it indicates that he may train regular employees. We turn now to the ,issue of whether the direct law enforcement duties carried out by Mr. Lintack fall outside the duties contemplated by the Resource Technician class standard. After a careful review of the evidence and the submissions of counsel it is our conclusion that we must reject the Union' s submission in this regard.. We cannot agree with Mr. Healy's submission that the duties performed by Mr. Lintack are not contemplated by the _. l 13 Resource Technician 3 class standard because it does not refer to appointment under part.icular pieces of legislation. Class standards are intended to be general descriptions of duties. While the Resource Techniciall 4 - Conservation Officer class'standard does refer specifically to particular pieces of legislation, th,!:! lack of such a reference in the Resource Technician 3 class standard does not lead us to conclude that the enforclement duties carried out by Mr. Lintack are not con1:emplated by that class standard. As well, we cannot agree with Mr. HE~aly' s submission that the nature of the enforcement dutÌE~s carried out by Mr. Lintacl< go beyond those contemplated by the class standard. We agree with Mr. Christen I s submission that some significance must be attached to the fact that the Resource Technician 3 class standard specifically refers to enforcement work. In the context of. thE! class standard it is our view that the reference to enforc:ement contemplates enforcement duties both in the broad sense of providing educational information to promote compliance and the more direct sense of law enforcement. As pre!viously noted, it wa s Mr. Healy·s submission that the one reference to enforcement in the Resource Technician 3 class standard does not contemplate the full nature of the enforcement duties that Mr. Lintack is engaged in, including matters " ...."1 ... " 14 , such as arrest and seizure. This type of argument was accepted by this Board in Ministry of Natural Resources & OP5EU (Anderson et al), (Roberts) , 497/85, where it was concluded that Conservation Officers were not properly I classified as Resource Technician 3, notwithstanding the specific reference to enforcement work, because of the fact I that virtually all of the work the Conservation Officers performed was enforcement work. At pp. 6-7 of that decision the Board comments as follows: In an able argument, counsel for the Ministry submdtted that the Board should not become involved in measuring matters of degree- - or, as counsel put it - - attempting to determine whether a difference in quantity became equivalent to a difference in quality. t¡, So long as the Class Standard contained words which described the work being performed by the grievors, he submitted, they should be I found to be properly classified therein. It was not necessary, he submitted, for the Ministry, to show that the grievor performed all or some percentage of the duties described in the Class Standard. Try as the Board might, however t it does not seem possible to avoid being drawn into a quantitative assessment in the circumstances of the present case. These circumstances represent an extreme. Generally, the proposition put forward by counsel for the Ministry seems acceptable; an employee may be properly classified even though he or she does not perform all or a majority of the duties described in the Class Standard. We accept that Class Standards must, by nature, be general in scope, and there will be significant variations in the concentration of duties of empl9yees who are classified thereunder. ... l- IS But here, virtually the only duties that the grievors perform - - enforcement work - - are given little significance in the description of the Class Standard. They are overwhelmed by technical and management: duties. We believe that in a non-atypical classification such as the one at hand. the Class Standard must contain a more significant reference to the work being done before it can be said to embrace virtually the I totality of a job. Accordingly, it is the conclusion of the Board that, the grievors are improperly classified in the classification of Resource Technician 3. The facts of the case at hand are ç'learly unlike the facts of the case before the Board that resulted in the Anderson decision. In that case the Board noted that virtually the only duties engaged in by the grievors were enforcement duties. That is not the case here. A significant portion of Mr. Lintack I s dut.ies involve the technical work that is specifically referred to in the Resource Technician 3 class standard. 1\s previously noted, the work that Mr. Lintack performs in the course of his extension work duties may generally ,be characterized as enforcement. There is also an enforcemEmt aspect to his technical duties relating to deer managE!ment. As well, Mr. Lintack is involved in direct law enforcement activities during peak periods and when he comes across an incident in the course of his other duties. Howeve r, given the amount of time he is involved in those enforcement activities and his limited role in those activities, in relation to the ...~! 1 '" " . . I.., 16 Conservation Officer, as prescribed by the directives referred to above, we cannot conclude that enforcement activities are "virtually the totality" of the jOb, as the Board found in the Anderson case. We now turn to Mr. Townes' evidence and the position of the Union that his evidence' supports the conclusion ~hat the enforcement duties that Mr. Lintack does not perform are not core duties of that position~ We cannot agree with the Union's position in this regard. Mr. Lintack does not have the responsibility of laying charges. In our view the laying of charges is cleariy a significant responsiblility in terms of enforcement duties. While Mr. Townes' evidence was that he is not engaged in laying charges frequently, it is clear from his evidence'that this matter falls within his responsibilities. He may be called upon to perform these duties and has done so in the past. We cannot accept Mr. Healy's submission that this evidence establishes that the laying of ,charges is not a core duty of the Resource Technician 4 - Conservation Officer class standard. On this basis alone we are compelled to reject Mr. Healy's submission with respect to the effect to be given to Mr. Townes' evidence. It is our conclusion that the duties of Mr. Lintack' s position are duties that a!e reasonably contemplated by the ... I 17 . Resource Technician 3 class standard and, accordingly, that Mr. Lintack's position falls wi.thin this classification. Therefore, the grievance is hereby dismissed. Dated at Toronto, this21stday of 'J;MIuary. lQl}2. .Q l _.J. )-r~ J... ;K. S. L. Stewart - Vice Chairperson III Dissent" (dissent attached) P. Klym - Member \ - ¿- -.:-~~.l-~ -- D. C. MOntroSe - Member . I ~ i \ ~ I . Decision 892/90 OP~EU (Lintack) and Min~stry of Natural Resources DISSENT OF UNION NOMINEE With respect to the conclusions reached by the majority, - I find I must dissent from their decision. I do not agree that the Resource Technician 3 class standard properly reflects the duties performed by the grievor. I believe that the core duties the grievor performs with respect to enforcement and his responsibilities as an appointed I Deputy Conservation Officer are not covered by the RT3 class I standard and are sufficiently important and of such a magnitude I to result in taking him out of this RT3 classification. I It is instructive to review the evidence regarding the grievor's enforcement duties. He is appointed a Deputy Conservation Officer under the - Game and Fish Act and is designated a provincial Enforcement Officer under that Act, the Endangered Species Act, The Public Lands Act and the Trespass to Property Act. He' has powers of arrest of persons committing offences under the Game and Fish Act, powers of search and powers to enter private property. He is assigned a Dca uniform, handcuffs and baton, and a flashing light for his Ministry vehicle. He investigates offences, participates in arrests, search and seizure and prepares reports for court. He has received approximately six weeks of enforcement train- ing at the Police College in Aylmer and has received other train- ing on the Charter 6f Rights, the Young Offenders Act and in baton and handcuff techniques. His enforcement duties are not minor, passive enforcements but are police type enforcement of serióus and dangerous offences. He carries out these police-type enforcement duties in two ways: . 1. When he is assigned to work as a partner with a Conserva- tion Officer during the peak enforcement periOdS such as during fish runs ör during the hunting season. The grievor stated that he spends an average of 12 days ~. - 2 -. a year on such assignments and Mr. r' Tim Boyd, the Enforcement Coordinator for the Huronia District, agreed with this figure. This equates to 5.6% of the grievor's annual work time. 2. During his routine patrols. - The evidence was that during these routine patrols, the grievor is regularly performing enforcement duties. These include, among other things, checking on hunters and their vehicles, out of season hunting, night hunting and dogs running deer. At least 10 court charges have resulted from these enforcement activities. The grievor's evidence was that:he spends an average of one day a week or 43 days annually on this routine patrol and enforcement. Mr. Tim Boyd testified that he had not assigned these enforcement duties to the grievor and was not aware these duties extended to 43 days annually" However, Mr. Boyd was not the grievor's direct supervisor and does not, regularly assign work to the grievor. In cross-examination, he testified that he really only knows what the grievor actually does when he is assigned to pair up with ,a CO during the ,12 peak enforcement days. He is not aware and can't assess what the grievor, actually does on his patrols. From the evidence, we surely must accept that these patrols and enforcement duties are authorized and are a regular part of his job. These 43 days equate to 20.1% of the grievor's annual work time. Thus, the evidence shows that the grievor spends a total of 55 days annually on enforcement, involving serious offenses. This equates to 25.7% of his annual work time. These enforcement duties are a significant core duty of the grievor's job, þoth qu~lit~tively and_quanti~~tively, and in my opinion their extent is not contemplated by the RT3 class standard. I would have granted a Berry type order requiring the employer to reclassify the grievor to a suitable classification. p:?!:ym ~~ ""'1 APPENDIX 1 -- '.'-- ",M ...,~...,-,,,,.- I ,T ;:'e::l-72_-~371 G "".::1 I I .". 1'00'110. ,..... "Ication' CI... AUocetlon-CSC 6150 ~ ,...... r' (~ ., to ÞtIC. 01 'orm Iof comø..tlOn ,nSln/cllonl) I I .., I:~ 1 o".,.~: . .._-"'"- ! ,n".,_: HU.on title l"IJ'...a^ Coot , 'r1.Þtl'li;l.n 16l11'thl.'" IS.. ....."", I . entnll Reolon O..r TlÞCl'Inlelen 09-7112·20 I ....,.. ""0'- j ll,' r, '0,". O"'I~J JCI.......l ~ - ...,.,....- - .... --, ',I c_¡;¡ 1'-"0"" coeM I . '1-- [] --. 0 -- 0 .. uj I I I , I lJDli 'I~ t.~., 'Ø'tHIOI"I Coø. tl." ,.,... ..... c:.. ~ ~-, Oee,. T~hnlcllln . j 09~71IZ~IB Resouree TechnicIan 3 "104 l . "'r 'I),...."" 'I eturet Resource. Central R.glon ' e/O ."eI *1'01' Lac.ttQfl ,G."", l.oe c"". j vroni. DistrIct/Central RegIon Huronia OJstrict. Mld~urst. Onterio I 57507 ! I }i pWCI'I ¡....0'I''IlQM 9PØ'tIO tQOIr""01:O: ¡li"t1t"'_I.~' S"øt,..,...,f¡ tin. I' $....C.l""ltltcl'·' ØOIH:Orl COC!· ~ , NO, 01 lIot.IIO... No 0' ' ont I F i IIh & W II d I ¡ f. Menegement : , ) Coordinator 09-7100-14 UtpoM of pOtjtioP r....~ 8_ 1""-_.,_ ....,pt . To o't¡luia. IlIlS i.phll.nt technlcll ..p.e tI of, tbe d.ar ..u,nlllt prOIU. In I Cltlcrd a..loA, II1th puUcul"r ..phaail .Oft KlIroøl. Dhtrlct. I \ . )\ltIq 4cwt f.~" ~ 1.....1 '. _IO~" 'ltI:Iu,rl<l fel CIl>, IIo......d wf'yl ~d".U1 l1li«:'"'. 0' tv... ciMm ClI' ....... OUlyl I Under the ¡IDlfal lup.rvl.loQ ot the 'llh In4 Vlldllf. H.Da....ot Coordlnltor. orClnl... IDd l.plament. tlchaicll ~.n&&...ut dutle. tel.tlue to d.er bY1 . . ~ .coor41a.dlll coll.cUoD at b1010,le.1 dlt.t by 1Hnrht .uff, h. UX, II "'. eou4LtloG flctorl, bat~'&~ data, ~.er lnfo~ltIØft. ate.. '.ð..oll.crlt.1ft, tedmlquu ot .!aU eoU.c.tlOG to !tel4 ,taU ..4 llIdntdnla.- q¡¡a1lt.y . ""\Å'\0iv control or data, I 1";.. ·plan. lad l.pl'.'dU ".~ '11"""_ 1. H.~. Dt.trlct 1M len.. the t.,l..-, uel0l I 1'''\ currlut t.cholqu.., 11. Iltlll c.la'IU. hablue lQy..tory. popu1.ciOCl \ 'It.lœlt.I'. coll.ctloa of ,ocial infoTaatloa. blTye,t. iufo~.tlaD. etc. to prodde data 10 Ippropr1au .auual hvntlq ....ou. .IY be "tabU.hed. n ...¡iDI deU Ja". coUec.t.. t;hrou.hollc the lIatoo by ullac "..r ,cl... .. e.clu1iqu.. to ..c.ruld ll1DlUl> I" .ulIctvn of d..~ popuLaU.oa,; -coLllt... .t&tlltle.lt, .~l1Ie. I~d r.portl oa Dl.trlct de.r II' I dhtrlbutloll1 4ecenlalq baneat h.,hl ' III ~pl.a. lad ~pl'.'Qc.. la cooper.tlon "tth COD..rv.tlon ottie.r. Ind . . Foule K'n&C"'llt ,roCr... d."t' ~'a.e un&&e..ac OD t~Vll .ud pI,Jbl1c l.ud. (Katch.da.b) T~.hlp. Ku.kok. TOVla,hip.. Tiny and ~,. K.rsh'l, I 1 Copllud Fou.t. IltauU& S.III,. the tld.rat l,ad. ot lu. Iorden. He.) ! I " -u511t1 Ce.cral "Iloa dhtrictl ta det,ralllllla .pproprlue tlellnLc.al ¡ ~ I.nforut101l to M coUeet.d lad ....I'udl ' I .pro~td,. le..erlht, 1. i.'L....tattOD of Mcroal. .anu.~ conCToll.d d..r I hunt" Cop,l.ud rore.t bllck powd.r huat. .rch.ry....on. lad nOD- , I con.u.pU.' II" or 4.,1' n,Ollle,a; I (contlnu.d) , . .. . ) Sic;!" ..., lul_1ecltI 'Ml""- to lMrl_ joO 'l lull workint r...I, IIl1di..... m.n"IO'~ ",teI...t"" O' lIç.~_, " _11.:.0..' ! I rlchalcaL Ik1111 ..d ~a~l.d'l at the Ily.1 11'11111, ".ocl_t.d vttn thl 'loIcee.,fol I co.pUtloa Ind ,rlduaUon frøc . rel.tad two Y'lr couru ot Hudy in ruololJ:u ¡ , , l.a.....ac .t. I co~nl tf cOUI.e: ----l $...,.". ''''mild;''. '-- 0... ''''......''' Olllcl" (..."..l'l"".d) Oall ' ~'~.;-M l;~ I ~;'~ ¡v;; , ~ a t;;' 1 ;~; !f; ) I ,1>'15_"'1_'........ 'T.-¡~~o.I.1_'zt 1 Ri<:!\ard Tottl ~~ Dlln Man!!el I. Olstrlct Mllnaq_1" ¡ I CI,.. .1I0CIIl10ft . el_ 1011. leI." ~Q'" OClCwlMl_" 1"0". ~.._r Ell..".. 'JII' 0.... '40'" t" v- .fl' Ilelouree Technician ] 41104 15-07 01 06 r 90 - .'11'. 1;1"-S"H.d \"11 'CrQ1.u1rDf' "" ..C~. ..U'lI 1'hr, C.-nl S .........c. to':T'lm.....'" Cl'lll.ttlhon ""'d.lrd' lo.. th.. taUo;,l '" r..........: - PO'itlon of .n 'mployee perfo~in. more eompllx. d.m~nd{ll.. and r'lpon'lbl. t.chnleal dutll' I conCILnln, coaI14.cabi. 1.C1t~. fo~ 4.~111Oft ..\tG... (\., ~.~~,\ns O~; ðeec ~.n·I·~·nt ~OTkl I ~&thlfln&, a...mbl1ftr&n~c~ptlinl t.ehnl~ll d.ta on ~'Irl pr.parinl t.chnical rlportl ~~dl or pl,n. on de.r; .,I...ln, t.chnical needl of man.....nt Ind .ubmltti~' technical reeo~nd.tlon. on d..r 1n C.øtr.1 R'lion with p.rtlcular .apha.i. on Huront. Dl,trlct· . ' I Sup.rVl.l. rel~llr and I...onal ..play,e, .n4 tlke. chlrl' ot sroup. of cllv,l emploYII. IoIhen requlred. Carrl.. out .~ .nfore...at 'Il.tld work II ...t,nlð. . 'n...,'......._..,..C,' ,'1 ("'\ 'n I "- 0= t . ::2 9E1 l~.49 0123 MNFI HUFlON!A 01 _. 70~-72e-~371 ,... ~ I - 'i' I 'ala 2 Cantral le,ioD D..r fe~hqicl.u I 09.1tU· ZO 1. Dutle, aad ralated taak, (coatLQuad) \ '.prowida. tecbaleal laput to habl~t manaa,.ont proJectl 1n Huron!a ailtrltt, I audit. prolr.., aad rlviave Oqtp~t'l -" 1& n, to l' and aupa 1'.,11" ..eraelll:Y IIlo4 upp 1""anta ry wIater da.r hedInc prolr'œ whaa rlquired¡' -c01llp11.. and '1I41y:... data Ind pupal''' t.cluaical nporU on reat.onel ba,lll I -Iftalllt,la. ,nd rap,lre !MoMlellent equip.,nt .uc,h a. Ic,l.. end lebol',tory ..qUip.IDt; -a,.l.t. Distrlct ,taff ln orealll11al 4ear ralated pl'oJect.. ·proYldiq t.eba1~1 e.p.rU.a 1a lfrttllll diac"aat.oD papen aa4 teclmieal repone raqlluud by eh. _..1...1 ltotOIt.t 01' .c,loul IHldllh Ilololllt. I 2. ',don. tllntlct a"lf aldOMl deer u;taad= ectJ,vl Hit Illd pubUc retationa bYI -~ --- ~ . -atundinl ...lnar" cOQUe.. wor\!..tulp" CQOf.I:,aCI, on dear habitat aa.d I population Ga~".lat ¥ -¡lve. pre.entatlon, to steff. on a r.cloul vtdl ba.l., I...ral ,.~lte, ,lllta re, t ¡fOllp'þ .Ie. Oil deer __I'.'lIt II t1 Udal ,11de., fUll., "1410, . tc. -llUtruCtl at vlldUf...uceœ.llt cOllr..,. .e.tufI '04 vork.hop. vlthill Central halon¡ I - nau.. lit t.h lholl'otlla 01. ute t pL~ualll' a.. 1,luS, .taft to docn.lnt i_paCt! j)7" of propoee4 d.ftl.....U GO d.... hallltu qlln':lt)' lad ClvaUty; p -Itai... IIUh rorue analllllut ,..nODAe! la trlt,sratinl de.r aud fore.t hablcat uQaCe,,11t plall' ID Kllroda; I -eonductio. 'plcial ill'lfecelon. an. lcyuU,.Uon' n..r411l1 public izzqul rb., 1e. Duh,nee d881' probl..., do. ,rclb1a.... rod ki Ued dllr. . tc. I ',I . pro'" Ill... tletmical ..pnth. coucuah, 411" 'laM".lot to dlUdet biohllltl 1.1\4 r'IIane¡ biotoli.t. (i.8. wia.tlr deer leldine. d..r b.\litat ..nale.IDt, llul.IOCI I deer unaae.eDt). -a. the aa,loul Dill' "'HI'.llIt tlchllical .,edalht re.,lev. .int,try polic)' Ifropo..l. aod ..H....at direction, CO pro.,t4. cOe8ant. to the lI..clonal 11o1olllt, (1... Pro.,hc1al Dur poUey and Cllld.Un..). ~, -auhe. R.11oad thb .ad "uctlLla .ulf v1t11 ,r.,.r.U_ of ...loaa1 d..1' 'UU'Ø' aad poUd...., 3. Pro.,1d.. l.adlr.hl, by, I .coordlmatla. the .ctlYltte, of ,taff (rellllar and ,..,oael) working 011 fuch project. a, cheek .tatioll" u.er 'Gd 1111,Sovnl'C' survey. al requlnd¡ /O~ -Iuper.,i,e, uncl."lfieð ,taff, I.,taniol vork (.ch'~ul... haurS, ct.. aff) and ..alaatin¡ p.rtorœaDce a. requlel4; I ·plaDa and tllplellell.ta .pechl etlploY"1l.t proJe.:u, youth proJlcu. 4. 'erfora. oth.r telat.d dutiel .i a.'l&Dldl ..... I S7. -..ehthl tlllll." Coe.urv.Ün OrUe.n dlll'l"ll ~.II won 10.d of l11e,.l fall 4... buatlDC aa' .prlGI 11.h raG. " I 4. SkUll aDd KQovhd¡e uqulrtd to puforll th,. vork (coattnu.d) 2. Dellon.trated ~DovLed.a of, Iud practical e.perieDce in vl1dli£1 ~aaca.lnt tee høiquel P' rtlcuh roly 1'.1. ted to d'el' lUM....ut. ). GOOO communication .kills. both oral and writteD. D..on.trated ability to I deal tactfully with other staff aDd with the ,aDeral Ifublic. 4, 1oð.rltandiQI Dew .tati.tie.l Dethodo10iT tn order to enlure proper statl.tlcal c..tine. 5. A~11ity to pel'for. ti.ld vork under adv.ra. weatber conditlon.. I 6. ~o~klnc knovled,e of t~ Occupat,ooal H..lth ,ad Safety ~ct. and thOle recut.tlon. ned, under the ~Ct that .pply to work beinc .up..rvlse4 or CuD tra L lId. 1, Valld Drlver', Llcence. I II r - r -: (".' ,',.-. J¡ APPENDIX ., f\ \ CATEGORY: I I Techn.cal S.:v~cel GROUP: !S-07 Resources SUPpor~ SER¡ES: Resource Te~~~c~~~ I ~...ASS COOE: 4 UO·~ :!J c¡ 1 .. cuss STANDARllS: I ,RESOURCE :r~HNICIAN J . I This ~la.ss coven positions of employees þerforming more complex, demanding and responsible' technical duties (;on1:.uning considerable latit'..IÌe I for deci.sion makin.c e.g. <:heek scaling; comp.ilinc lake development data; I I trdl"lirlC fire crew; operatin.g type "Crt parks or type "e" hatcheries; , I earryiD.¡ OU't J'iJh and WUdlife lØI!1&Cement and/or en!oreemel:t W'Ork; gathering, I I auemblitlg and compilit1¡ technical or sciea.ti.!ic <i.u, Feparing teelutic¡l i I reports aDd/or plana; assessing technical needs of ~gemen1: or scientific I projee~s and submitting technical reeommeadatio1U etc. in U1y assigned area of responsil:lility. I They 111&)" supeM'ise abd/or train re(\Ùa.r eIIlployus or take Charle of groups 01 casual employe.. &zxl~ ill this context, orga.ni:e and schedule i activities within the general framevork oflaïd down pl~ or instructions I and aUlD. r..pansiœ.li~ for the qualitY &ad qua.aticy of production a..a1 I I for the work perfonaallCe of a..uiped. st.aS!. i I . , SKIIµ AND KOOWLEICE R.EQ.UIRED: Ability to organhe projects and supervise iJlplementuion; initÜtive , ~ and ability ~o assimilate new techniques to be applied in a varie~ Qf situations; good under,tanding of resource œana¡ement principles. - I I , ~ I , I I I . October 1, 1970. , .. I . . r B fo. APPENDIX 3 --- .-..-.......~- - r ' ,- -, ~- '... CU.SS 57 "'NOÞl.~CS I .... -..... I ,... - r - - - - .JOQr-¡ . GtC1l0 f£CKNtCAL SERVICES 1S·07 RESOURC ES SUP E·OR'r " - Clast C~c. -- - Jen.. RESOURCE TECHl'fICI"A,.'l "llO6 j ~ i - -". I I RjSQURÇ£ TECHNI~fAN ~ - 'OH;,~VATION OFFIcER I I lhls elasl covetS pos1eions of employees in ehe Mlni,cl:Y of N.eut.l a.sources who .1:" ens.ald in nacural resource llanaS.Mnt &cc1vit:lu 1nclud1n¡ I1lní.fic:~nt I enforcemenc of n&cural resource. r.lac.d 1.,iJl~tion. they are .ppo1nctd .s I Con e~at1on offieers pursuant to the Game and f1sh Act. a. rIshery Officers ( und.r thl Fi,heries Act .nd .. G.m. Offic.rs ~nd.t & v&rttty of federal ~e.t:ute., They perform an 4s.1&nad blend of re,ponsibtlic1es for .nfore.men,. I exc.nsion I.rvtee. .nd resource m.n_¡lmtnc. I Re.pon"ibUlclu ",ill typically lncl\lde &n ußtgr.ed bhnd of the follo\lLn8 I t I I I due: itS : , - I {n fo rce,"en~ I t , I . 'h,un cOJlplhnct v1th I'\..tural resourcl. rebctd legislation .and U$O~,L1C.d " licenels/permies by ~o"Ltoring u~. of natural rlso~rc.s and by ~onducting I fqve,t1¡at1øns. ~oll.cc:1ng evidenc., 1sauin¡ varnlnCI/l.yinc chat'ge,. I I t~.rcl$1n, 'he pover, ot arre$t, a.arch and seizurl. proc'.Iing violations _tld tue1fyin¡ in CQurt; _.... I · prep.re ..nd/or pro..cue. ~ourt casts .. representative of the Ccown &S~ ~ Ji.cusary; , · i~.pect records of co~erc:i~l client! (o.g. commereial fish buyers. fur dealers, lic.nct lJsu.rs) for r'gul~cory cO~91ianc.; ~ ! · provide _4vies and ass1stan~e co ministry stall and othar agencies ill :he f I , enforce"ent: of . ..-ar1tt? of Provincial and recleral sc.atul:u and V- I t regulal:\ons; I I . cond~CI: inspections on proposed activities which ~ay affect: h.bicat and ~ I I' I 'prov1de .dvice ~o ~inimiz. adverse impacts, I I I ~xe,~'io" ~~lc~1 I IJ : . p~rticlp.t. in public education anã informacion ac,t1vlcies to prQ~oce I underse.andin¡ of resourc:e ll2.1nagemenz: principles. ~Irolram:l and h&is lH ~on: I I I - provide lnfor~ation and advice to tesour~. users ~bouc resource h~rves::~~. habit.a:: protection. resource legLslac10n .anå 111nhtty programs. f 1 I ; ; J ~ r : I ~ '. - - -, - . -, - -- - -. - -.... - ------ . .. - ~ .. ~ - ~ .t errecuv. ñ¡t. ....' - - - - r '- - f~ -, , -' .- .. - _.~..._.. -. .. ., ----- . ... ,. '-'..- -..- ~ - .. , '" "- _. - -- ---- '___T_ -, .: ~~ -- - - ~ 1~.47 8123 MNR ---s .... HURONIA D,[ST 7' "~-7'2e-,~37' 1 P. 3 I ,,' ; ='" ':~SS S7 )'NO~;:;CS ~ l ..~-j ..-. "_. 1:, .AII:'\I'IIo1' .... ,I .. .- - - - ; ClCIÇOI'f C;'OUQ TECHNtCAL SERVICES TS·07 RESOURCES SUPPOlt , w -., . ~ , - ) I s.n.. j Oui C4cJI : I" R£SOURCE TECH~ICIAN <. nOG j - ... - &tSOURC~ T~C~tClhN (con~'d) ! R.S9~c~~,na~.men, I I · lmpl.~snc narural resources ~.n.g.mene ptans and prosram. by organizing. I perform!nl or co.ord1nacing filld work and prlparing rlportJ; · participace in resource ~nasemenc discu.sion. vith appropriate staff relAti~e to s~rv.ys and manalom.ne plans; , · asstst volutt~..' ¡ro~ps in idanc1fyin¡. organt%1nC anå conducc1ng projects such as. fish spawnin¡ b.d imptov.œ.nt~ · conducé _x~1nacLon. of huntecs and ~ra9~ets in th4 pTovinc. fot licenslns I; purll'0". . ~..~~ S~l1t~ and KnowleßCI: I - sc~nd K~owlaQI. of ~~~ral r.sourc.. relacad 1.sl.Lation. inv.stigativ. and enforcelUent ltl.&cnods.r;lçhnique. and pToeedut.. n.c:es.ary Co .nforce h¡1sh,tion: 1 · ,ound knowledge of nacural reso~rc.s m&aage~.nt prineiples and 9tat~1c.s: praccical knowledge of data collection t.chnlques and .quipltl.lne: '! · knowleds. of cQ~rc procedur... rules of evt4enc. and l&yiol of chatges. , as , well ~. ~h. abiliey eo provide exp.:t t..c1mony: , - good comøunLc:aclon skill, in o~d.t eo prepate detailed briefs for us. by ,crown coun$el O~ prosecuting ofli,.r. t.,tlfy 1n court. prepare and ~~i:e re~ores. p~OtllOe6 min1st~ progtal" ·.Iith che public: and c:olMlunity sroups: ¡ · knowledge of Off1eet safety teehn1~ues ana the ab111ty to deal .ff'ctivelï ~ich conflict .icuat1on.; · proficiency wien sidearms and familiarity with eh. o~.(aeion of s~ort~n~ I firearlls. >- . ' ¡ Judument: , i ,. ~Qrk ts performed under general dlteceìon, however·the nature of enforc.men~ r ' ~otk requites ~h. ex.teisQ of .m~loy.e d1scrltion vithouc immediAte I consult~tion with his/her sU~.~/isQr. I ~ \ Employ.e. exercise judc,mane 1n: ! , · @nfOtcement of natural resoure.s relaelò l'g1slaciort. conòucein& 1:wescigatlons. collecting evidence. determining how to proc.ed ~hen a violation nas been deeact_d (_,g. warnlns.. chars.a, $eitur.s), ;aos¡;c~\:; ~:ì5 I cas., 4S re~r.senc~tiv. of che Crown and/or .ccing 4S expere witness; · ~toviding aP9rOpr\Ate information an4 advic. to promDce Ministry prO~~Jm5' · ~rovidio& soun4 inp~t and tecgmmen¢at~on. in survey ptoj.ct5 and þtJnn:~s c.e.ma. , f -.. ..-.---:---.--- ----' I· . ".)~. 49 0123 MNR HURONIA OIST 70::5-?2E3-~371 IF> . 4 f I ---- §J Q" Cl..).SS 57 .1NC ,1,~CS . - ",'~ ~"'" I I - .'~ - -.. .... ...' 'c.~ . . arauD ':'" r£CHHlCAL S£RVIC!S TS·07 R!SOlJllC!S SUPl'Ol\t - - .... Siftf.. R£SOUaCE tECHNICIAN Cia,. Co1c1., - l.llO6 , - - -- ßE~VRC! r~CHNIC¡~N (conc'cS) ~ ðceo~nt:..b~1itv: - to !Æploy". art .ecounc.Þl. lor: ~, ~ enforcement of ~cur.l rlsoure', rel&t,d tegi.latian and resource lllana¡elllent 4ceiviths throygh " planned "ork proS!:''' in accordanet ..,!ch legislation, œin1stty poliei.., l~idal1n4' and proeed~r..: lI, ~ providin& in£oClllaeion and promoting minhcry obj eccives anci pt'ognnls C:O ensure effective rlsour~. maMs,menc 'oIithin &n usi.¡ned \IorK are,; -, . lnpúc and &dvicI co ministry Icaff on th¡a status and use of naeur3J. " r.so~ree. for a variety of relouree manas.mlnt p~rpO$." I . Provi.s ton of illpropet infor=ae1on or advic. eould ruult in financ tal loss. fr,o loss of r.lourc.. or cred1bllity of cheœini.cry r..ouree management program. "I. Ineffective han6lins of enforcement ~rocedut... eonflict sieuations or prosecution of courc ca,es eD~14 r's~lt in inadequate manaSlllene of natural resour::es, l.,al liability or threat eo ell1'1.oy.. satety, ~ , -- ~ ~