Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1550.Blahut.92-12-18 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPL 0 YEE$ DE L 'ON TA RIO GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETILEMENT R GLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2700, TORONTO, ONTANIO MSG IZ8 TELEPHONE TELEPHONE (4 rS) 3£5- TSO, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100~ TO~ONTO (ONTARIO) MSG [Z8 FACSIMILE TELECOPtE (4 ~6) 325 1550/90 IN THE MATTER OF AN ~RBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE B]tRGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Blahut) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) Employer BEFORE: N. Dissanayake vice-Chairperson M. Vorster Member R. Scott Member FOR THE R. Blair UNION Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Shilton Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE M. Failes EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HE~RING May 31, 1991 August 8, 13, 1991 2 DECISION This is a grievance of Mr. J. Donald Blahut alleging that his position as Provincial Fur Marketing Specialist at the Ministry's Fish and Wildlife Branch in the North Bay District is improperly classified as Resource Technician Senior I (RTS I). He seeks a direction that his position be properly classified. Attached to this decision are the preamble to the R T S series of class standards and the RTS I class standard (Marked "Appendix A"), and the grievor's position specification (Marked "Appendix B"). In the grievor's position, he spends a substantial amount of time at the site of the North Bay Fur Sales and Service Depot, commonly known as "The Fur House". The grievor has been with the Ministry for some 23 years, starting as a Forest Technician II. He received a number of promotions, and in 1972 became a Conservation Officer. In this position he had some responsibilities at the Fur House. At that time his present position of Provincial Fur Marketing Specialist did not exist. In the late 1970s the Ministry did an audit to ascertain what changes were required to cope with the increased activity at the Fur House. One of the decisions reached was to establish a permanent full-time position as Fur 3 Marketing Specialist classified as RTS I. In September 1981 the grievor was promoted to this position. The North Bay Fur House is one of about ten major fur exchanges in the world, and is operated by the Ontario Trappers Association. It handles mainly trapped (i.e. wild as opposed to ranched) furs. Annually it handles 1-1/2 to 2 million fur pelts, approximately half of which is harvested within Ontario. The rest of the pelts come from other Canadian jurisdictions as well as from the United States. On occasion there may even be pelts from Europe or Asia. Of the total wild furs harvested in Ontario approximately 75% is handled through the North Bay Fur House. The grievor worked out of a Ministry office located on site at the Fur House. In general his responsibility was to inspect the fur processed through the Fur House to ensure that the various statutory requirements have been complied with. Of primary significance was the Ontario Game and Fish Act and regulations thereunder. The Federal Game Export Act regulates fur coming in from other Canadian jurisdictions and the US customs legislation regulates fur coming in from US destination. In order to properly perform his job, the grievor is required to be familiar with this legislation, as well as with the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. 4 The parties agree that the grievor is "responsible on a district-wide basis for technical control of a sub-sub- service" (the fur trade) within the meaning of the RTS I class standard. However, it is the union's contention that two aspects of his position, namely his enforcement duties, and responsibilities for training and education, take it outside the RTS I class. The RTS I class standard provides for several means of entry into the class. One category covered is "positions of employees responsible on a district-wide basis for technical control of a sub-service". The issue then is whether the grievors "enforcement" duties and his involvement in training and education fall outside this description and if so, whether that takes the position as a whole outside the RTS I class standard. Counsel for the union points out that the grievor plays an important part in the enforcement of the provincial, federal, US and international law regulating the movement and sale of fur pelts, and that this responsibility forms a substantial part of his job. It is the union's position that this "enforcement" responsibility does not fit within the RTS i class standard. 5 The thrust of the union's argument is that a substantial portion of the grievor's job involves the enforcement of the law and that this function does not fall within the description of "technical control" in the RTS I class standard. Union counsel points to the evidence that the grievor monitors compliance with Federal, Provincial, US and International law and submits that he is responsible for the "front-line enforcement" of those laws. It is pointed out that if not for the grievor's role, most infractions would go undetected, and that charges laid in the various provincial districts and other jurisdictions result from his monitoring role. Counsel points to the fact that the grievor also testifies in the courts. The contention therefore is that these enforcement functions do not properly fit within the RTS I class standard. Counsel further relies on the evidence that the grievor had created and conducted a course for Ministry staff on the Fur trade. The employer's position is simply that the grievor is a technical expert and that all of the duties relied upon by the union flow from this technical expertise. Thus it is submitted that his position comfortably fits within the RTS i class standard. It has been said that in determining a classification grievance, the Board's task is "... to decide first whether 6 or not the grievors are properly classified in their existing classification". [Re Brick, 564/80 (Samuels) at p. 49]. It has also been held that in order to find that a position is improperly classified there must exist a substantial difference between the job being performed and the job described in the class standard. In Re Dumond, 1822/90 (Kaplan) at p. 20 the Board stated: There is no reason, in our view, to interfere with the longstanding jurisprudence of this Board that a substantial difference between the job being performed and the job described in the Class Standard is a pre-requisite to a Berry Order. Whether or not there is a "substantial difference" and what constitutes a "substantial difference" will be a matter for the Board to determine on the facts of each case. In order to succeed in a classification grievance, the onus is on the union to establish that the core duties of the position fall outside the existing classification. The preamble to the RTS series recognizes two groups of positions. One group consists of positions".., of specialists concerned with planning, the provision of functional advice and policy and standards control." The RTS I class standard itself envisages "positions of employees responsible on a district- wide basis for technical control of a sub-service". The key phrase there is "technical control". It is generally agreed between the parties that the RTS I class standard envisages a position of a technical expert. The dispute boils down to 7 whether the enforcement and education duties can properly be described as "technical". The union describes the grievor's duties in inspecting fur being processed~through the fur house and in testifying in courts as "enforcement" duties. The employer prefers to call these "technical" duties. In our view, to properly' characterize the duties, one must focus on the actual role played by grievor and the skill and expertise that enable him to play that role. The evidence is that the grievor does not directly enforce any law or regulation. He inspects fur to detect any potential violations. When such a potential violation is detected he notifies the authorities in the jurisdiction from where the suspect fur originated. This could be the conservation officials in the provincial district, federal customs officials or US customs officials. Those authorities may require the grievor to detain the fur in question. They will then decide whether to investigate and ultimately whether to lay charges. When charges are laid the grievor may be called to testify. The grievor conceded that it was very infrequently that he will lay charges himself. In five years between 1985-90 he had laid charges only on 4 or 5'occasions. His role instead is to bring facts to the attention of the enforcement authorities. It is they who would investigate and decide whether to lay charges. There is no question that the grievor monitors the movement of fur for ~ompliance with the law; that in order to do this he must be familiar with the various laws that regulate the fur industry; and that his work ultimately results in the enforcement of the law. The question then is whether these factors take those duties out of the technical category so as to make his position a misfit in the RTS class series generally or the RTS I class standard specifically. In Re Johnson/Wales, 1787, 1788/90 (Dissanayake), the grievors' were employed as Lands and Parks Technicians. They grieved that their positions were improperly classified because in performing their duties they were required to consider and interpret various legislation that impacted on the use of crown land. The argument was that this work was "para-legal and intellectual" as opposed to "technical". At pp. 9-10 the Board stated: The mere fact that the grievor's duties involve a consideration of legislation does not in our view turn the grievors' role from one of a technical expert to that of a para-legal. It is a fact of life that practically every area of human activity is regulated to a greater or lesser degree bY the law of the land. Thus for example, a professional engineer in charge of a project, in addition to providing his engineering skills, may have to consider and provide advice on a number of laws such as zoning laws, safety laws and even labour laws that may govern the activity on the project. An 9 accountant may have to consider and provide advice on tax laws, partnership laws and trust laws. However that does not convert their jobs into legal or para-lega~ jobs. They still remain experts in their own professions. The grievors have no legal or para-legal training. Their position specification describes the "skill and knowledge required" as "Progressively responsible experience as a resource technician. Technical skills and knowledge at the level associated with the successful completion of and graduation from a related two year course of study at a community college." The RT 3 class standard requires a "good understanding of resource management principles". The position specification goes on to also require a "working knowledge of relevant legislation and regulation". There is no reference in the RT 3 class standard to legislation. However, in our view, that does not detract from the fact that the grievors' role is that of a technical expert. The fact that the practice of that expertise requires the consideration of relevant legislation does not change the nature of their duties. In our view the same reasoning applies in this case. Eventhough the grievor is required to be familiar with legislation and his work leads to the enforcement of legislation, what enables him to perform all of those duties is his technical expertise. It is his technical knowledge about the fur industry that qualifies him to perform this monitoring function. For example, he has to know that it is illegal to import timber wolf fur. similarly when he testifies in court, he is called as a technical expert, eg. to identify the species of a particular pelt, or to testify about the adverse impact of the illegal fur trade. The grievor's role is comparable to that of an accountant who carries out audits of tax payers. He would use his expertise 10 in forensic accounting to audit a tax-payer's books and would bring any violations to the attention of the authorities responsible for enforcement of the tax laws. He may assist them in the investigation and may testify in the courts as an expert. Throughout all of this he is performing his duties as an expert in his own profession, eventhough his work is helpful and indeed necessary for the enforcement of the law by others. In Re' Johnson/Wales, the class standard in question did not explicitly refer to knowledge of legislation. Yet the Board held that the grievors' role in interpreting legislation did not take their jobs out of the Resource Technician category. The RTS I class standard itself includes, in the "Skills and Knowledge Required" section, a requirement that the incumbents have a "good working knowledge of relevant legislation". Therefore there is even less reason here to accept the argument that the grievor's involvement in the enforcement of legislation takes him out of the RTS i class standard. Likewise, we do not find that the grievor's involvement in educating ministry staff takes his position out of the RTS I class standard. While the class standard does not expressly refer to training or education, the evidence is that what the grievor did was to educate ministry staff about the nature of the fur market. In other words, he was imparting some of his technical expertise to ministry staff. 11 Based on all of the evidence, we conclude that all of the duties performed by the grievor are part and parcel of, or sufficiently related to, his technical knowledge. He remains a technical specialist. There is no basis to conclude that his position is improperly classified as RTS I. While we have reached the foregoing legal conclusion, it is not hard for us to appreciate the frustration being experienced by the grievor in his present situation. The evidence indicates that he was a conservation officer up until September, 1981. At that time he obtained "a promotion" to his present position. Subsequently, a grievance was filed by the conservation officers, claiming that their positions were improperly classified as Resource Technician 3. The Board in its award in Re Anderson et al, 497/85 (Roberts) upheld the grievance on the basis that the grievors performed full-time enforcement duties, and held that those full-time enforcement duties were not captured within any of the existing RT class standards. Accordingly "a Berry order" was issued. Pursuant to this order, a new RT 4 class standard was created for the positions of conservation officer. The wage rate that was negotiated for the RT 4 class was higher than the rate applicable to the RTS I class which the grievor held. In other words, the grievor ended up with less pay in his 12 promoted position, than the pay rate enjoyed by his former conservation officer colleagues. The grievor's sense of frustration is indicated in the written grievance form where the settlement desired is set out as - "that I be rclassified with full retroactivity as settled with the conservation officers...". The duties of conservation officers which led to the Board's decision in Anderson are reviewed at pp. 4-5. Suffice it to say that the grievor's duties do not compare to those. Indeed, it is even debatable whether the greivor's duties may properly be characterized as "enforcement" at all. It is more appropriate to state that he enables others like conservation officers to enforce the law, by using his technical expertise to bring potential infractions to their attention and by giving evidence in court as a technical expert on the fur trade. Therefore, there is no basis to find that the grievor's position is improperly classified. Yet there appears to be an inequity in that incumbents in what is generally seen as a lower ranked class series (i.e. the Resource Technician series) are higher paid than incumbents such as the grievor occupying a higher ranked classification. If indeed there is this inequity, it must be addressed by the parties themselves. It is not the role of this Board in deciding a classification grievance to rectify pay inequities. 13 For all of the above reasons this grievance is hereby dismissed. Dated thislsth day of December, 1992 at Hamilton, Ontario. N. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson M. Vorster Member R. $co~t Member /u~rtendum I~ Union Nominee - M_enr~o Vomter Ontario Public Service Fmploye~ Unign and Minisfly of Nntural P~.sources Grievance of Donald Blahut (GSR #155D/90) Donald Blahut has been caught in the immovable grip of bureaucratic inflexibility. While his employer has recognized the grievor's value to the Ministry by promoting him above his peers, they did not see fit to ensure that his salary would reflect the faith they have placed in him. Because of the reclassification of his former position of Conservation Officer, his wages would have been greater had he simply refused the "honour" of being promoted to Fur Marketing Specialist. The fact that Mr. Blahut had to resort to a grievance to seek the same wage status that the employer had previously given him would seem rather ridiculous if the situation wasn't so unjust. Since the logic has alluded the powers-that-be to this date, let me pose one question: If the Ministry was of the opinion that Mr. Blahut deserved a greater salary for the duties he was performing when they promoted him, and since the duties of his former position remain unchanged, doesn't the grievor still deserve a greater rate of pay?. i sincerely hope that upon reading Vice-Chair Dissanayake's award on pages 11, 12 and 13 the Minisfly will set aside its stone-chiselled rule book and do what's right. This series covers the positions of Senior Technicians in =he field of ma=ufa! resources management. Some posi=ions are those of s.Deciaiists concerned wit.h planning, the provision of -~unctional advice, policy and standards control; other positions are t. hose of supervisors involved in the imp.iementa=ion of varied and complex resource management programmes. The. basic requirement .="..r both groups is a ~horough knowledge of ~he principles of resource management and technical expertise. The working level of non-professional district staff specialis~ positions is a= the Resource Technician, Senior 3 level. However, positions may be allocated above or below this level, if, in assessment of senior management, the priority given to the ~anagement objec=ives of the service(s) places greater or lesser demands on t_he position than is t~?~ically found on a province-wide basis. The reasons for such an assessment must be meaning~ully documented by senior managemen= in each instance. In any such allocation, %he following two conditions must be met: (a) The number of positions at the Resource Technician, Senior 3 level in any i~divi~ual %'~rvice must be grea~er than =he number of positions above t_his level. The number of positions at the Resource Tec.knician, Senior 3 level in any individual service must be greater than the number of positions below t_his level. -~~s= and second Research .Branch posi=ions allocated to the leve~ in this series will normally be un~erfilled by one grade for a period not longer than one year, to allow for necessary "on the job" training in specific research aspects of ~he duties invo!ve~. Positions of Senior Technicians assigned to ~he Head office :r Regional Offices are alloca=ed =o specific levels in %his series on a comparative basks with dis=tic: positions in relation to such factors as planning, s=anclards con=rol~ policy interpretation and implementation, policy recon~endations, etc. Positions will be alloca=ed to a specific level in ~his class series only when al__l the requirements of that level have been ful fille~. DEFINITIONS FOR USE WTT~ THis SERIES Se.--vice: Functional field equivalent' of a Minis=.--y Division, e.g. Fores=s, Mines, Fish ~nd wildlife, Parks~ Conservation Authorities, Field Services, Lands. Sub-Service: . Functional field equivalent of a Minist---y Branch, e.g. Fores= Management, Mineral Resources Management, Wildlife Management, Parks Management, Fire Control, Lands Administration. (over) PREAMBLE (continued) CLASS CODE: 41109-41115 Work'P!anninq: Planning over a relatively short period where the major factors are provided, e.g.-objectives, specific targets, expenditure allotment, time limitations, areas, etc. Lonq-range Operational Planning: Planning involving participation of field offices and the Head Office in the setting of Regional and/or District objectives; developing and establishing alternatives for meeting these objectives; analyzing these alternatives; recc~mnending the course to follow; etc. Research Station: A formal unit or organization with permanently assigned regular and/or probationary staff of Research Scientists and non-professional research assistants, conducting, on a year-round basis, scientific work assigned by the Research Branch. CRITERIA FOR RANKING FISH HATCHERIES Type A - year round trout culture. Type B - seasonal pond culture. Type C - trough or jar culture. CRITERiA FOR RANKING PARKS 1. Camper days 2. User days 3. Large natural environment 4. Complexity because of special situations. CRITERIA FOR RANKING TREE NURSERIES: Type A - Annual production target of at least 10 million seedlings or an annual production of at least 6 million seedlings plus production of special stocks plus minimum of 10 species produced. Type B - does not meet the above requirement. CLASS RES0t~RCE ~<NiCI.k~. 3~N!CR tec~ques, ~le~n~g po~ ~d con, rang s~n~s ~ ~ne or mare se~ces ~ a ~stric~-~e basi~. Posi~ons of su~sors ~o on a year-ro~d ~sis ~ve aa~n~s~r~ive resD~aihi~ for a fo~ ~= of or~=a~ion (f~c~o~l or =errizorial) ~ ~o, ~ ~s con=e~, pre,re ~rk ~ ~ ~ bud~e~ or~-~:e ~a sched~e ~e ~='s work ~ =~rcise bu~e= c~=rols, are ~so _ ~oca=~d =o ~s level. Po~icioas of e~i~ees ~ c~rge or ~ "B" ~=che~es or second-inlarge of ~e "B" tree n~se~es, are ~c~ded a= c~s level. In ~e Research ~r~, =~s chss covers pOsi~ious of non-professio=l, f~7 mod ~d =~riemced rose,ch as~s=~cs ~ ~ous ~scip~es sciatic research ~o ~der ~ec~ of a Res~rch Scion=is=, ca~ assi~ed ce~olo~ ~ses of rese~ ~d ~ve f,,~] responsi~ for ~~ of ob~ned or processed ~ ~d ~e pre~on seve~ projec=s ~d co p~re work p~s; perso~ 2. ~e~ive ~ledge ~d ~or~.~ =ders~g of o~jec=ives, ~ =ec~ues app~hle co the assi~ed work ~owle~ze of rele~= Ocuober 1, !gTo. PROV. Fb~ MARkeTING 3PEC~LI~T ~eso~ce Tech~cian ~M~31 Re~o,~ces Northeastern Re~ion ~ , 0 , 0 i 0 , 0 Fro~ncial royalties and h~ves~ s~a~is~ics are derived from sales of Cn~ario f'~ marketed a~ ~he On~ario F~ ~les Ser~ce warehouse a~ North Bay; ~o bearer trapp~ and produ~ q~li%y control ~ec~iq~s; ,~o assis~ in ~ho meaz of polioies and s~d~ds ~o~ernin~ ~he sale of wild, f~ bearin~ e~z~13~ 1. Ensues :o!!ec:ion of app~op~aCe Pro~ncial royal~y and harvest s~atistic~ from th~ sale ~:',wild f~ (1979 ~o:al sale value $30 million, royal~Tes $i mill by p~rfo~in~ ~asks such asr ; · ~-insoec~S ~e~arly incom~g ~4 outgoing Ont~ri~ ~ ~a~e~ Se:.~ce ~ ~men%o and dcc~ea~a~ion e.~. the exercise of Judgemen~ requires a deep ap~re.:i ~'5~lon for ~he fac:s of ~y ,~ola:lon and :he de~ee ~ w~ch circ~s%ances' ~. suppor: ~he n~d for !~nZ of a c~r&e. Decisions coul~ se: precedents. ~ P:is~ake~ in~Lv~j vsl'~%le sh!~en~s co~d cost thous~ds of dollar~ in fosse ~ ~o ~hose con:~ee re~ess of ou:come in co~:  :oni~orin~ tae S~io ~~~s ~r~eo's compu:erized record keepin~ e.g. !e~isla%i:n req~res doc~men:a~ion and bo~h M~ and OFSS co~u'~r -l!aising wi~..~.:~o.P~- Sales service computer s~ff and M~ system, s have inpu~ :o ~s devei~en~ of a sys:em which ~i1 cap,ute required :.a oonple~:y of f~ manageman~ and ~he eno~ous ta~k o~ -~cordi ~anion ~iven .-en~.~.In~ me~k~s .!eveioped ~o produce a clear audi% ~rall for individu~! ~,.~ e.g. :o de~ec~ royal:y frauds, collusion, other ~:-f~c'~ionlng ~ ~C~. ;resen~ a~ She Fur Sales $~ ensure mdh~rence to re~.ktlons ~_~-. ini:i~:~ a~opriate ac$ion~when irre~arl~ies occult; u~'app~rs ~d' g~n~r~ ;ub!ic '~ improve the market value, of furbearers h~rvested and prono~e h~r.e ,._~_~ menhods throughout' Ontario .by per~'o~ing ~asks ' ~" -~ ~ =~,,,._~_....= with Cu:~io Tr~ppers Association }~ ~les. Ser~ce ~and. r~pre~en%a%iv of th% fur m~h~ir~g ~d,~:ry on'~a~ers of mu~ conce~ e.g. marke~, overs~ - re~ea, cnzug the market requirements o£ :'ur handling and carcass ...,.z utilizr.-tion ~ec.hniques by surveying industry recuirements and cb~ ' ot ~.a.eket trend~ ~tterus~' etc.3 .- promoting and invesbigattng ~he utility and ~ublic acceptc, uc(~ o.~.' u~iliza%ien e.g. bear mea*,~ beaver ~tls~ ~;~irreis as ~a.:~ cf ': ~d claws, teeth~ bones as cost~e jewelry~ tr~, otc.~ - developing printed educa.tional m~terial on h'~mane ~r&pping tecb~icucz ..... equen~ utilization of fur bearers for trappers, educa~icnz! ~.~ the general ,~ubl~, . . - acting as ~ i~:a~zon/tr~nlng officer to client gToup~, tra~pzr associations, Ministry s=aff and co~ity'colleges by me.,.n~ of media appe~ances, trapping workshops~ visual aid .. presentagion~ to service clabs, ~..~ois'~'s in the deve!o~ent of new policies and ~nCards vcvernln- the harvest ~d ~zle of ~ld f~bearers in 0nt~io 'ia=cnj'~:-~'.:n wi~h 15% 0ntario'.~,'S~.es S4r~c~' ~'d' 6~h~m'.Mi~try garmgers (~.~ z:~esz to Director Wi!d!lTe'~ch)'.by:~'.. ' '-" · " ' - nar~iclnnt~ng in ~'d reportin~'~n.f~ handling ~nC' tr~.~wLrg .... ~esi~Aek"tc m~w~ize pel~'..reven?~"'e~a!~e "proc' secY.:no and ~rzpping ~hniques ~h' ~espec~"t~ '~r d'~age; - , - . - o~il~ng pelt q~lity data~ from F~ ~ales 2e~ce,~,~ ~-=~'-~-~,~..~ ~_..,~-', . · d'issemi~.a~o~ oC'.ir~o~-a$iom and.'conclu~io~s t.n K!nz~:ry u.~uag~rs, clzer:n gro~ps'.a~. Wil~i'fe.Br~] '. .... . .... ~..'.~ .'~ "'. .... '. ' - recommending ch~ge's 'Lu ~easons 'ind.~pe~lt~d'me~hcds cf' -' reco~ending changes i'n~legislation, and poi.icy In ori~r tc . efficien% hm~ane ~rapping.metl=~d~'and' carcass. 4', Petrols 'related duties' suc~'as:.. ,- az'assign,>d~..'~.... ,. " ". .'' ~ ~,.u~ ~q ~o~'(u.~z~ ~ ~u,~a~aTO ~cs~ t,~ woa~?~,~t~.t~,~,~,,~,,,,~,,t~., Technical skills ~nd P~owledg~ ~:. ~he level usry ass~cia~io: ~th the successf~ comple$ion and gradua~on fr~ a re!a~ed Swo year ~o~se of sSudy 'a$ 'a co~tSy poi!~ge. ~owle~ge of a-d exn~r!eace ~h..~t~ife mAnagemen$ ~r$ic~ar!y trapping na ~.d L~ed 'l~$!sl,~t~oD a~ pO~Tcies, Report ~i~fn$ a~~_?rd keeF~ . ~/~',~uT~ abiii=es,v~i~ driver '~icenc~i,,~9$~,~,~~cati~n ~ f ~1141. / -.~--7l. ~ ............. ~ e-~ u · - ~~.;;= ~L'~g%--' -- -,-.~-~-~~ ~, ~.. t'',~. .'~ ..~ ~'~'. ~ ,~ .... '' ~'.:.,,~,'.'i.~, .... ~,'~" '~ .,'~-.~'.% ~ ,.''% '~ ~, .,-' · ' ,.%~i[~.~t~oc~:'; ..... ~ " __ ' ._..~ : ..... ' .............. m ~ ' ......... ~s ts a Sen~or ~echn~ctan ~end O'fft~e' po~t~pn ~tth pro~ncia~ ~ Jurtsdtca[ton a~d .Ioca=ton ~ in ~he Northe~sce~ RegioF, Nor[~ Say Dtstr~ct for adm~$stra~i~e purposes.' ' ' :~ .~, Technical~6On~roi of 9 ~t~nif~can~ pOF~fon"~f a sub=s%~tc~ Oh.a proV{nce-wide bas~s- acts i aS sen~or assis~an~ to professional specialists i.e. dis~ric.~,'.[esio9 a~ ~he Head Offi6e Pro~r~ ~na~er (Supe~is.o~ Wildlife Semites), .. ~ Posi~ion has functional advice =o D~s~r~cts fish and.~ldltfe orsaniza:ions concernln~ nolicies and standards control, d~ss~inatio~ of lnfo~ion, crainin8 pr98r~,.~ for improved techniques, des%table qualities fo~ ~elE products, chan~es in re~ulations¥ seasons, see memo'dated October 17, 1980 for specifics. ~ ~~~ , ,.~.,' Reco~ended by: P.Ot r~- - ~ .......... :,~.... , .... ~,~;.., .~.~ ~ [ ~ ~ ~ .t t~ ~E. Po~onoskt, S~. Pay & Class Off o.. -.. ~...;