HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1529.Alexander et al.92-0131 GRIEVANCE' C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2~00, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5G IZ8 TELEPHO~VE/7'~L~PHONE: (,~ 16).326~ ~388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIOL MSG 1Z8 FACSIMILE/T~LECOP/E : (4 ~6) 326-1396
1529/90, 1729/90, 2003/90,
2004/90, 2005/90, 2006/90
IN THE I~TTER OF ~ ~IT~TION
Under
THE CRO~ EHPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Alexander et al)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
Employer
BEFORE: S. Stewart Vice-Chairperson
M. Lyons Member
F. Collict Member
FOR THE R. Healey
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE P. Pasieka
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING February 18, 1991
May 22, 28, 1991
June 17, 1991
DECISION
The grievors, R. Alexander, B. Marcel, R. Brown, B.
Deans, R. Micili, H. Eskelin, To Montgomery, and J. Wilson
are employed by the Ministry of Transportation in Sault St.
Marie. At the time of the grievance Mr. R. Alexander was
employed in the position of Equipment Body Repairer. The
other seven grievors were employed in the position of
Senior Mechanic. The positions were all classified as
Mechanic 2. The Union claims that the positions of the
grievors are improperly classii~ied.
The parties were in agreement that T. Montgomery would
give evidence as a representative grievor and that the
decision of the Board based on the evidence concerning his
position would be binding with respect to the other
grievors. There were further grievances before the Board
in this proceeding dealing with the positions of other
employees. The Board will remain seized with these ·
grievances in the event that the parties are unable to
resolve them following this decision.
There is a recent position specification that has been
prepared covering both of the positions formerly described
as Equipment Body Repairer and SeniOr Mechanic. The
position title for both positions is now Automotive
Technician 2. This position specification is attached
'2
hereto as Appendix A. The position remains classified as
Mechanic 2'. The Mechanic 2 class standard is attached
hereto as Appendix B. The Union Seeks re-classification of
the grievors to Technician, Equipment Development, the
class standard for which is attached hereto as Appendix C.
Alternatively, the Union seeks a "Berry order," an order
directing the Employer to properly classify the grievors.
The parties were in agreement that Appendix A contains
an accurate description of the duties performed by the
grievors. Mr. Montgomery is a Class A automechanic. He --
commenced his employment with the Ministry of
Transportation in November,~ 1981, when he worked as an
equipment operator. He commenced his employment as a
mechanic, classified as a Mechanic 1, in 1988. He was
reclassified' to a Mechanic 2 position in March, 1990, upon
receiving his heavy duty mechanic certificate. .Mr.
Montgomery testified that the attainment of this
certificate was the basis for his reclassification.
The attainment of this certificate required an
additional two years of apprenticeship after Mr. Montgomery
obtained his Class A certificate. As well, he was required
to take an eight week full-time course and pass an
examination to obtain this certificate. It is the position
of the Union that the Mechanic ~ class standard does not
properly reflect the duties and responsibilities of the
Automotive Technician 2 position because it does not
reflect what was characterized as design and modification
work. It is the Union's position that the grievors perform
design and modification work without specifications 30-40%
of their time. It was submitted that this work is not
contemplated by the Mechanic 2 class standard. It was the
Union's further position that the grievors spend a
significant portion of their time performing welding work
which, it was submitted, is not. contemplated by the
Mechanic 9. class standard. It was also the Union's
position that the requirement that the c3rievors possess a
heavy equipment mechanic licence is not contemplated by the
Ma~hanic 2 class standard.
Mr. Montgomery works in a maintenance repair garage
performing work on Ministry of Transportation vehicles and
other types of ministry equipment. There are two
apprentice mechanics as well as the eight grievors who work
in this garage. There is an Assistant Foreman, Mr. M.
Pinnell, who is ~ member of the bargaining unit, a shop
foreman, Mr. J. Aynesworth, who is a member of management,
and the equipment supervisor Mr. N. Levigneo Mr.
Aynesworth is Mr. Montgomery's direct supervisor. Mr.
Montgomery testified that he sees Mr~ Aynesworth on an
average of ten visits a week, when the work orders are
discussed briefly. Mr. Levigne testified that when both he
4
4
and Mr. Montgomery are at the garage he checks his work
briefly on a daily basis, in the course of a tour of the
garage. Mr. Levigne reviews all of the work orders. Mr.
Levigne testified that the majority of the work that Mr.
Montgomery is engaged in involves general repairs to
automotive equipment, primarily five and six ton trucks.
He performs work such as brake, clutch and steering repairs
to these vehicles.
Mr. Montgomery is initially required to examine
vehicles to determine what work needs to be done. After
doing so he prepares a report detailing the kind of repairs
that are necessary. The report is reviewed by Mr. Levigne,
who prepares a work order and assigns the work.
Mr. Montgomery gave detailed evidence regarding the
kind of duties that the Union characterized as design and
modification duties. The first example he gave relates to
work he performed on a weed spray unit, which is a piece of
equipment mounted on the back of a truck, used for
dispersing chemicals to kill weeds. Mr. Montgomery was
involved in the installation of spray heads on the unit.
He received polaroid pictures and some hand drawn sketches
with a list of the pieces required to perform the job. He
was required to adapt the unit to accomodate the new spray
heads by building a boom that could be controlled from the
5 ~
operator's chair. It required a protective guard made of
flat iron, Mr. Montgomery stated that the machine and the
pictures were not exactly the same as t'he unit that he was
required to adapt and that some cha.nges were necessary as a
result. He described the pictures and 'the notes as "giving
him a basic idea" with respect to what should be done. The
unit required a catch-basin to be mounted on the machine to
catch any excess chemicals which fell off the head. Mr.
Montgomery designed the catch-basin by taking a piece of
sheet metal, cutting it with a torch to the appropriate
size, making the necessary angle bends welding and securing-
the catch-basin by drilling holes and bolting it to the
unit. Mr. Montgomery also constructed a piping system to
dispose of the residue of the weed spray.
Mr. Montgomery also gave evidence regarding work he
performed on a zone striper, a piece of equipment that
paints markings on roadways. When the unit was received by
Mr. Montgomery it required a system for moving paint to the
pumps. Mr. Montgomery testified that he designed the
system and purchased plumbing equipment in order to install
it, As well, he built a valve system at the top of the
pump so that it could be turned off. In addition he
reinforced the tanks to make them stronger. In orde.r to
make these changes it was necessary to move an existing air
cylinder which he did by cutting the existing brackets off
and constructing new brackets, fixing the cylinder to a new
location. It was necessary to align the pain% guns. The
vehicle as it existed could not ensure the application of
the necessary amount of glass beads that is required, which
necessitated a change in the piping that supplies the beads
to the guns. It was necessary for Mr. Montgomery to obtain
a different kind of bead gun than the one that was
originally supplied. The pointer on the unit had to be
moved a~d a lifting mechanism had to be installed. Mr.
Montgomery secured the pointer in its new location with
pins he manufactured from round iron. The boom was moved
to a different location on the unit which necessitated the
drilling of holes to secure it and the adjustment of a
cable. Mr. Montgomery testified that he received no
written specifications with respect to how to carry out the
plumbing work on the unit. He stated that he had some
discussions with his supervisor with respect to the
reinforcement work and that he then carried it out himself.
He ~erformed the work on the cart after discussions with
his supervisor and ~ consultation with the persons in the
Ministry's Toronto office who had manufactured the
equipment. He received no specifications or instructions
with respect to the bead guns or the pointer. After his
work was completed on this unit Mr. Montgomery tested it by
operating it and making adjustments by trial and error.
Mr. Montgomery went out with the operators of the zone
7
striper in order to deal with any problems. The unit
required an odometer which Mr. Montgomery purchased after
consultations with supervisors. He calibrated the unit.
Mr. Montgomery testified that it was not possible to
purchase the loading and reinforcement system that he
prepared. Mr. Montgomery was sent to t+he Ministry's
Toronto office for a week in order to obtain information
with respect to the wiring system of the zone striper
Following this period Ministry employees from Toronto
attended for a few days in Sault Ste Marie to continue
dealing with the wiring system of this piece of equipment.
Mr. Montgomery is also required to construct dump
boxes, which are the units in the back of trucks that are
used for hauling gravel or other cargo. It comes to Mr.
Montgomery as a disassembled piece of equipment which he
assembles and installs by constructing and mounting
brackets on the truck frame. It is 'necessary for him to
adjust the hydraulic system of the truck, which dumps the
load from the box. As well, there is wiring involved to
connect the box to the light system. This type of project
involves two full working days. It is tested by operating
it.
Mr. Montgomery referred to work he performed in
lengthening trailer tongues as design work. This involved
8
work on the tongue of a trailer that was too short. He was
given instructions to lengthen it. He purchased plate,
made a template of cardboard, transferred the design on to
the plate, cut it with a torch and fitted it on. The only
specifications that he received was that a specific number
of inches were required. He made jack legs, a new bracket,
drilled holes and bolted them to the frame. This work
involved five to six working days. Mr. Montgomery has also
built a rack to contain propane cylinders. This required
the rebuilding of a storage compartment and the
construction of a secure system to hold the cylinders
stationary.
As well, Mr. Montgomery' gave evidence regarding work
he has performed on snow-wing push poles. These are pieces
mounted on the right hand side of a truck, the purpose of
which is to extend the wing to the right to clear pavement
of snow. They are folded in against the side of the cab by
the operator. Mr. Montgomery has been assigned to work on
these when they are not performing properly. Mr.
Montgomery carried out this work on this project by bmaking
templates out of cardboard and, from those, making and
adding pieces to the unit. He was provided with no plans
· or specifications to carry out this work. He spent .an
eight hour day carrying ou% this project. He stated that
it would not be possible to purchase the piece that he
9
manu factur ed.
Mr. Montgomery has also performed work on a roof rack
that carries revolving lights on the top of Ministry
vehicles. It is necessary for him to modify racks that are
commercially available. Different Vehicles require
different kinds of racks. Mr. Montgome].~; has also worked
on spare tire carriers. This involves either building a
new carrier or modifying an existing one. No
specifications for this kind work are provided. If a new
carrier is required it is necessary to design and
manufacture the carrier. Mr. ~.~ontgomery also manufactured
flaps to protect a snow plough engine because the original
flaps were not performing as required. He manufactured the
flaps from a conveyor belt.
Mr, Montgomery has also installed sanders on the back
of trucks which operate from the truck's hydraulic system.
It was necessary to remove an existing hydraulic system
from the unit and hook it up to the trucks hydraulic unit.
This entailed pipe fitting, relocation of the hydraulic
line, as well as manufacture of the hydraulic line. To
ensure that the plough and %he wing would have lifting
priority Mr. Montgomery installed a "power beyond" valve.
He did so on his own initiative. Mr. Montgomery has also
performed work on the exhaust systems of' trucks, which
....
involves a change of piping. As well, Mr. Montgomery has
installed backup alarms on vehicles. This work. requires
him to construct brackets and make modifications .so that
the alarms can. be activated by the vehicle's hydraulic
system or by a mechanical switch. No plans or
specifications were provided for this work.
Mr. Montgomery spends approximately five to six weeks
of the year away from the garage where' he ordinarily
performs his duties. At that time he performs routine.
maintenance and repair on equipment and has discussions
with operators which may result in him making modifications
to equipment. He has been called upon to perform tasks
such as adapting a hydraulic pump.
We will first address the issue of whether the
evidence establishes that Mr. Montgomery performs design
and modification work that is not contemplated by the
Mechanic 2 class standard, in support of his position in
this regard Mr. Healy referred to two previous decisions of
this Board, Ministry of Environment & OPSEU (Beach),
816/86, (Fisher), and Ministry of Environment & OPSEU
(Cardno), 530/88 (Stewart). It was Ms. Pasieka's
submission that the kind of work that Mr. Montgomery
performs is clearly contemplated by the Mechanic 2 class
standard.
After a careful review of the evidence and submissions
of counsel it is our conclusion that th,_= work performed by
Mr. Montgomery which the Union characterized as
modification and design work is work that is contemplated
by the Mechanic 2 class standard. The Mechanic 2 class
standard clearly contemplates a high degree of initiative
and judgment. The first sentence of the standard refers to
"highly skilled mechanics ... performing complex work..."
The class standard goes on to state that: "These employees
receive the more difficult assignments requiring a high
degree of initiative and judgment in deciding what repairs
are necessary'~. The listing of typical duties of that
position refers to diagnosis of difficult problem areas.
The qualifications for the position include a reference to
"initiative; ingenuity; ability to lead other
mechanics;...good judgment..." These provisions of the
class standard clearly reflect the expectation that a high
degree of independence and initiative will be exercised in
positions classified as Mechanic 2. The class standard
also refers to: "modifying equipment according to
specifications". We cannot agree with Mr. Healy's
submission that because s~)ecifications were not provided in
the instances referred to in the evidence we should
conclude that the modifications that were performed by Mr.
Montgomery fall outside this provision of the class
standard. In our view, the reference to specifications
indicates that mechanics must be able to understand
specifications that may be referred to. It does not,
however, require that specifications be provided in all
instances when modification is required. In our view, the
facts of the Beach and the Cardno cases are distinct from
this case. The level of independence exercised in those
instances went beyond the level contemplated in the class
standard. While the class standard in this instance does
not specifically refer to design work, and we agree with
Mr. Healy that some aspects of the work coul~ be
characterized as design, we are not convinced that the work
exceeds the level contemplated by the class standard when
if refers to "positions of highly skilled mechanics ...
performing complex work...". In our view, the "high degree
of initiative and judgment", "ingenuity" and the specific
reference to modification contained in the Mechanic 2 class
standard supports the conclusion that this class standard
clearly contemplates the kind of design and modification
work that Mr. Montgomery carries out. Given the
independence and initiative encompassed in the Mechanic 2
class standard, it is our view that it contemplates the
level of supervision that Mr Montgomery receives.
.While the Mechanic 2 class standard does not
specifically refer to the possession of a heavy duty
13
mechanic certificate as a qualification for positions in
that classification, this matter does not compel us to
conclude that the position is improperly classified. Mr.
Montgomery's evidence was that he was reclassified from
Mechanic 1 to Mechanic 2 when he obtained this certificate.
The Mechanic 2 class standard refers to "successful
completion of the Civil Service commission authorized
departmental examinations where applicable". The Mechanic
1 class standard does not contain such a reference. While,
as Mr. Healy emphasized, the reference to departmental
examinations is not a specific reference to a heavy duty
mechanic certificate, given the fact that the Mechanic 2
class standard contemplates training in addition to that
contemplated by the Mechanic 1 class, standard, the lack of
a specific reference to this particular kind of training
does not compel us to conclude that Mr. Montgomery's
position is improperly classified.
We will now address the matter of the welding work
that Mr. Montgomery performs. As Ms. Pasieka pointed out,
the Mechanic ~ class standard states the e~ployees in that
classification "may perform any or all of the duties
characteristic of a Mechanic 1". Welding duties are
specifically referred to in the Mechanic 1 class standard
as duties carried out by persons in that. classification.
It was apparent from Mr. Levigne's evidence that the kind
of welding work performed by Mr. Montgmery is, relatively
speaking, not at a high level of complexity. We note that
the Mechanic 1 class standard also refers to the testing of
vehicles.
The class standard for Technician, Equipment
Development deals with positions of employees who build
special equipment which is not commercially procurable for
research and other special.purposes and who perform work
under the supervision of a mechanical engineer or designer.
They work from their own design or modify existing designs..
In our view, the work performed by Mr. Montgomery cannot be
characterized in this manner. As previously noted, it is
our view that some of the work that Mr. Montgomery performs
may be characterized as design and modification work. As
well, it is apparent that some of the work that Mr.
Montgomery performs is customized, involving components
that are not commercially procurable in the form that is
required. Howeger, it is our view that Mr. Montgomery's
responsibilities in this 'regard are not of the scale or the
magnitude contemplated by the Technician, Equipment
Development Class standard. That class standard clearly
contemplates involvement in the design and construction of
an entire piece of equipment rather than the modification
or adjustment of a piece of equipment that has already been
constructed. Mr. Montgomery does not perform work under.
15
the supervision of a mechanical engineer or a designer.
While Mr. Montgomery has some contact with persons outside
of the garage, we cannot agree with!Mr. Healy's submission
that he receives no meaningful supervision from local
management in the context of his daily ,work.
In summary, it is our conclusion that Mr. Montgomery's
position is reasonably encompassed by t~he Mechanic 2 class
standard. Accordingly, the grievances .are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 315tday of January, I992.
S. L. Stewart - Vice-Chairperson
"I Dissent" (dissent attached)
M. Lyons - Member
~ _
F. Collic~~-~ Member
1529, ~729~ 2003', 200~, 2005, 2006~90
O~J (~.~~ ~T ~)
~ ~ ~ OF ~0.
(~~Y OF ~~~)
DISSf~
I have read the decision of the majority in this matter and, with respect
I must dissent.
Although I concur with the majority that the Grievors' duties and
responsibilities are not those cont~nplated by the Technician, Equi~nent
Develo~nent class standard, these duties and responsibilities, and the
skills required to perform them, do go significantly beyond what is
required by the Mechanic 2 class standard.
The Mechanic 2 class standard requires, inter alia, "modifying equipment
according to specifications". From the evidence it is clear that not
only do the Grievors meet this requirement, but that a great deal of their
time (approximately 30 - 40%) is spent doing design work and modifying
equi[xnent without specifications. These duties are not found in the
Mechanic '2 class standard.
It is true that a Mechanic 2 is "highly s~illed" and "performs cc~plex
work". That is why a Mechanic 2 needs a Class A licence. However, the
Grievors required a Heavy Duty Equipment Mechanic iicence in addition to
their Class A licence. This additional licence was required to ensure
that they had the skills necessary to perform their duties.
In their decision, the majority equate the Heavy Duty Equipment Mechanic
course with a Civil Service CoTmission authorized departmental exam.
There is no basis for this cemparison. The courses necessary to obtain
a Heavy Duty Equipment Mechanic licence clearly go well beyond a
a departmental examination.
Therefore, since a Mechanic 2 requires a Class A 1-icence and the Grievors
required both a Class A licence and a Heavy Duty Equipment Mechanic
licence, it se~ns clear that the duties of the Grievor must go beyond
what is required by the Mechanic 2 class standard.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, I would have allowed the grievance
and awarded a "Berry order".
Dated at Toronto this 24th- day of January, 1992.
APPEND~ P~,~lt[ 9p~clfloatlon & Clau AIIocatlon~SC 6150
~.,~ ~ b~k ~ ~ ~r ~mple~on In~t~n~)
""~: Senfo~_Mechanfc j06-5917-0~ . M~han~c ZZ 17611
Transpo~atl on ~lW Reg~ on
Dtstr~ct ~Sault Ste. Marie 8aunt Ste. Marie, Ont. P6A 5M6 1t~01
8 I Shop Fo~eman/~oman 06-5917-0~
To matnta~n a~d' ~epat~ ~11 ~ove~n~m~ vehicles and eAutpment, ~nctudtn~ heavy
an~ s~aI~zed ~u~pmen~,
~da~ ~he general supervision of the Asststan[ Shop Foreman/Woman, ~epat~s alt gove~nmen~
v~fc~es and equfp~nt
-.unde~aklng a]~ aspects of equlp~n~ maintenance and ~epa1~ ~n compliance w~h
potfctes, fla~ ~ate manuals, ~e~evan~ legfs~a~on and msnufactu~e~'s specfftca~ons;
ministry policy, flat r=te manuals o~ the supervisor;
- ~lntatntng on~1ng ~o~kJng kno~edge of Jesting equ~pBen~, p~ecJsfon ~ns~umen~s,
~echnol~ca~ developments, welding equipment, and powe~ [oo~s, e~c.,
w~h various ~ypes of vehicles end equ~pmen~ PepeJ~s and maintenance p~ocedu~es;
- pe~fo~=tng ~ep~t~s and =od~.fy~ng {as ~equt~.ed) ~u~p~ent such as ~nches,+~i~ conditioners,
augers, ae~al devtces, hydraulic systems, zone s~lpe~, ~ed sp~ay equipment,
- matn[elnlng sll ~elev=n~ ~eco~ds of equipment 'cepat~s and hours
- pe~fo~lng ~e~gency and p~even~a~ve maintenance ~epa~s on a~ equfpmen~ in the
4..~kUb ~ Imowtedgt required to perfm-m Job et furl wo~ktng le~l. (1~
Possesst~ ~..~ts%~y.~ 5~tlls De~elo~e~..~o~ ~eMcle Yechen~c.Ce~t~ca~e and Heavy
DutX..~Ghenf~. Ce~tf~ca~e. Olp~oma'~n Au~OttVe Technol~y f~om a ~ecog~lzed co~unf~y
~07~'~ ~e e~ulva[en~ expe~e~ce. Va~
a~l~r OmV r k~nTh
~ec~ I~ 1762~ MS-02A
~s[=~n ia =e~na~le ~or ~t~ance ~d repair of all qove~nment vehicles
B, ~8t~%es. ~e~8 ~d de~e~ing t~efr~es for p~Jects Of a ~ec~lize~ nature.
¢, Provides br&/ning ~o Jourae~nan level mc.cEa:Ales and ~pDrentices,
ln~tmcttons for ;ompl~tlng form C~¢-6150
U~lllfled ball P~ns (O~p 3}:
- ~n~ ~r ~J~ ~ ~er " . "IntruSions ~ ~ing ~nal Wo~ PoH~ '
~ ....... 7
* MU~ ~, I.e., 8~mw, F~l, ~.
I~ ~ ~i~ ~, Hm. Wo~ s. ~ ~'
NO~~d~~m~)~.4 ~~ ~ ~ ~ 5]4
equip~nt repetr, fnspectfon of teased/h~ed equipment, e~c.;
- ~8~n[atntng a clean; safe ~o~k envl~o~men~ enE.comp~fng ~h aTT ~eteven~ TegisZa~ton;
-matn~a4nt~g a~l shop'~ools and"equtpmen~;-
- p~ovldfng tec~nlca~ t~alnlng ~o Au~omo~Ive Techn4c~an Z's and Apprentices;
- o~he~ ~e~ed du~es as ~ss4gned.
'acceptable' ~ng ~eco~d, .'
ce~tt f4 Cate of Qua~ ~ ficatton as' a 'P~pan'e.. S6:.~ehlct e. ]nsp~o~, ~ ssued b~ ~he
~n~st~ of Coaster snd Co~e~c~a~' Re~e~tons, as ~equ1~ed.
APPENDIX B __
/
M CHAN C_ Z
CLASS DEFINITION:
This class cover~ the positions of highly ~killed m~chanlcs or
bogymen performing complex work on g~olin, and/or ~i,s,I power.d
~quipm.n~. Thes~ ,mploy~es receiw ~e more d~f~cult
r,qui~ a h~gh d.~ree of mitiativ, and ju4~ment in ~ecid~g what
r,pair~ ar, necessary. Thes~ employee~ may :~upervise ~e work,of one
or two qualified m.chanic~ per[orm~ mor~ routm~ r.~a~r
~enance work.
In other positions these employees specialize in major electrical,
i transmission or complex heavy machinery overhauls or large bodTwork
projects. In some positions they supervise a small shop, a section of
a large shop, or a small night shift.
Supegvision is exercised by a Mechanic Fol-eman or a line oificial,
While the se ernploye· s in non ~ sups rvis ory position s may perform any
or all of the duties characteristic of a Mechanic 1, their positions also
include one or more of the following functions as a regular and importa,ut
~ssigned responsibility of the job.
- complete overhaul of gas and/or diesel engines
. - diagnosis of difficult problem areas __ --'
,~ - estimating costs of repairs for major projects -~-
- modifying equipment according to specifications '
- acting as recognized assistant of shop Foreman in & large shop
a - rebuilding extensivelY damaged vehicles or equipment involving
the replacing or repairing of connecting body parts
- specializing in auto-electric systems, aatomatic transmissions
i or specialized Hydraulic systems,
Q UA LIFIC AT IONS:
1. Preferably grade 10 education; possession of Department of Labour
Motor Vehicle Repairers License Class A or B. Successful com-
pletion of the Civil Service Commission authorized departmenl~al
examinations where applicable, and departmental permit and
Department of Transport Chauffeur's I~ice'nse for road testing
I purposes where required,
2, At least two years' experience as a licensed Motor Vehicle repairer;
preferably in the same Department,
i 3. lVianua~ dexterity; i~,Lti~tive; ingenuity; abl]ity to lead other mechanics;
tact; good judgment; good physical condition.
APPENDIX C
CAT~CK3~Y: Ma in%~nanc~ Serv ices
~ROU~: ~-02C Trades ~4 Crafts
S~Z~: Technicl~, ~quipmen: Deveic~men
~S C~E: 12738
~ ~ITION:
~i~ cl~ cover~ positions of em~loyee~ who, ~der ~he supe~ision ~f
a mech~ical engineer or desirer, b~ld ~peci~ equipment not
work fr~ ~hei~ ~ desi~ or modify e~t~g de~i~$, ~d conduct
auicabili~ tests ~g fur~er mod~ications ~ere necezza~.
~eze employees ~e field trips when necesza~,
eq~pmen: dezi~ problems with operating perzo~el ~d
~hem ~ the uae of newly ~esi~ned equipment. Tkey prepare
special eq~men: or modifications :o e~:~g equipment e.g. fire-
fight~g eq~pmen:, seed~& devices, lab~rato~ devices ~d field
M~g uae of a wide variety of mach~e tools, they produce ~e parts.
.req~red ~d aSs~ble :he equipment, then test ~d adjust
~ese employees may assist a ~esi~er or eng~eer ~.develop~
more complex eq~pmen:; ~ ~a~ive suggestions to overcome
tec~ic~ difficulties.
Mech~uic~ aptitude. ~d creative ~ination ~ the mech~ical
area; abili~ to do close toler~ze h~d fittih~ ~d
znd w~ld~ ability.
2. Some ~r~:~( a~i!i~, ~oo4 ~ewled~e of
3. Basic ~le~e :f met~lur~, thorough ~owled~e of
shop ~d tooi-makin~ prat=ices; ability ~o read and ~derst~d
mach~e~ ~ndbccks ~d related en~eer~ publica~aons.
QU~IFi~TIONS:
1.Grade 12 or equivalent tec~ical training, or Orade 10 ~d'
mach~e trades training.
2. At !east 5 years' e~erience ~ diversified mech~ical work
~clud~ ~ch~e shop e~erience.
August !966