HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0639.Neve et al.93-06-01i~!~:~'~'. , .'¥?t'" ONTARIO EMPLOY~:SDEI. ACOURONNE
: ~'~:,.i:'..~,.~ ~ :.. '~..~.~: CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL'ONTARIO
................ GRIEVANCE C.MMISSION DE
ffi ffi SE~LEMENT REGLEMENT
lBO OUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. ft45G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TI~L~,o.NoNE: (416)326-1388
1BO, RUE OUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (O,'qTAfllO). M5G IZ8 FACS/MILE/T~'L~COPJE : (4 ~6) :326-1396
639/91
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Neve et al)
Grlevor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Environment)
Employer
BEFORE J. Emrich Vice-Chairperson
G. Majesky Member
A. Stapleton Member
FOR THE N. Wilson
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE C. Osborne
RESPONDENT Counsel
Fraser & Beatty
Barristers & solicitors
HEARING October 2, 1991
Placed before the panel are the grievances of Don Neve and Bill Trayling filed on
January 17, 1990 and the grievance of Nick Satonikidis filed January 19, 1990. The grievors
claim that they are improperly classified as Environmental Officers 4 (EO4). By way of
relief, the grievors seek reclassification as Environmental Officers 5 (EO5) or an order
directing the Employer to Create an appropriate classification in accordance with the
principles enunciated in Re OPSEU and Berry v. Ontario Ministry of Community and Social
Services (1985) 15 O.A.C. 15 at p.20 (Div. Ct.). As an adjunct to any such order, the
grievors claim compensation at the rate of the higher classification retroactive to twenty days
prior to the date of the grievance, with interest thereon.
At the outset, counsel for the parties stipulated that the grievances would proceed on
the basis that Mr. Neve would be the representative grievor, such that findings made in
respect to his grievance would bind the other grievors. The parties filed a series of
documents on consent as follows: the grievances; the grievors' position specification; the
class standards and preamble for the Environmental Officer series; the Employer's guidelines
for designation of a technical specialist within the meaning of the EO5 class standard and the
Employer's policy concerning the rationale and criteria for the designation process. The
parties agreed that none of the grievors had been designated by the Employer as technical
specialists as set forth in the exhibits filed. It was also agreed that the grievors are the only
field technicians who perform the function of auditing private industry air monitoring
systems.
The parties further agreed upon the appropriate standard of review. It was common
ground that the grievors' case was framed upon a "standards argument", rather than a "usage
argument". In Re OPSEU (~Patrick and' Baker) and Ministry of Community and Social
Services 547/80, the panel articulated the issues in a classification case in the following way:
The role of the Grievance Settlement Board in dealing with
classification decisions has been discussed and to some extent
clarified in a significant number of recent cases. It involves the
Board in a two-step process, the f'nost step being to decide
whether or not the Grievor is properly classified and the
second step being whether or not, assuming the answer in
the f'wst step is no, the Grievor might better be classified in
the classification sought in the grievance. With respect to
step one, the inquiry is into whether or not the Grievor is
actually performing the duties set out in the j ob description.
Thus in normal cases the class standards are the absolute
standard and if the work of the Grievor falls within the
appropriate standard, that ends the matter. Occasionally
evidence is led that other persons who are differently classified
are doing substantially similar jobs'to that done by the Grievor.
This is often led to support the claim that the Grievor should be
classified in the same way as those other persons. As has been
suggested in some awards, this evidence is most relevant to the
second step of the procedure, assuming the Grievor is not doing
work within the relevant class standard.
(emphasis added)
Since the ~ case, it is clear that the Board, even when a grievor is classified
atypically, has a duty to enquire whether the grievor's core job functions and responsibilities
vary widely from the archetype of the classification. If so, an order will issue directing the
Employer to establish a classification which appropriately describes the work and
responsibilities of the grievor. This point is made by the panel chaired by Arbitrator
Dissanayake in Re OPSEU (Komendat et al) and Ministry of Housing 1246/90 in the
following way at pp.8-9:
2
It is well established now that this Board has a mandate to
remedy a grievance where it concludes that a position is
wrongly classified. (Rg OPSEU and Berry vs. Ministry of
Community and Social Services, decision dated March 13,
1986, Ont. Div Ct.). Nevertheless the Board has recognized
that the ~ decision did not altogether preclude atypical class
allocations. See, Re Kuntz 85/89 (Verity). Despite this
continuing recognition of atypical class allocations, the Board
has held that the core duties ora position must comfortably
fit within a class standard. In Re Kelusky et al, 1098/86
(Wilson) the Board stated:
I am of the opinion that while the Berry. decision
may not have invalidated atypical classifications,
this Board, given its clear mandate to direct that a
new classification be established when it is
· satisfied that a grievor is improperly classified,
must insist that an atypical classification not vary
widely in its core features from the archetype of
the classification. In our case, on the evidence it
is clear that the grievors do an entirely different
job from that described in the class definition.
The Board proceeded to render a Berry order. See also, R~e
McCauly and Truchon, 93/88 (Epstein).
(emphasis added)
This is not a case where the Employer has designated the grievor's classification as
"atypical". Rather, the Employer asserts that the grievor's job duties and responsibilities are
best described by the EO4 class standard, Counsel for the Employer referred us to GSB
//39/89 Re QPSEU (Braund et al') and Ministry of Correctional Services wherein Vice-
Chairperson Slone, excerpted a passage from another case he had chaired, Aird 1349/87,
which articulates the onus upon the grievor in the following way at p.24 of the Braund
decision:
3
On the case law which we have considered, the addition of new
duties may take a job out of its original classification, but only
where those duties are of such a kind or occur in such a degree
as to amount to a different job altogether. See for example
Baldwin and Lyng, GSB 539/84 (Palmer) and Fen.~ke, GSB
494/85 (Verity).- As these and other cases show, the propriety
of the classification is a factual issue to be decided on the merits
of each case. In the instant case, we cannot find that the job as
performed is something other than the type of job contemplated
by the class standards. The onus is on the grievor to show
that he is actually performing a job, the essence or core
duties of which do not fit within the class standard to which
it has been assigned b~y the employer.
(emphasis added)
Counsel for the Union argued that Mr. Neve's expertise as a specialist in monitoring
and maintaining the computerized air quality monitoring system known as the telemetric
system has been recognized previously by a panel of the Board chaired by Arbitrator Verity
in Re OPSEU (W. T. remblay and D. Neve) and Ministry of the Environment 528/83. In that
case, Mr. Neve successfully grieved his classification as an Environmental Technician 3 and
was reclassified as a Environmental Technician 4. The reclassification came about in
response to the change from the old method of air quality monitoring using strip charts,
known as the Historical Data System, to the new computerized telemetry system. At. pp. 13-
14 of the decision, Arbitrator verity finds that this technological change transformed the
grievors' work and responsibilities:
There can be no doubt that technological change has indeed
affected the job of these two Grievors. While it is true that
technological change alone is not a sufficient reason to justify
reclassification, the Board finds that the Grlevors now
perform spec~aFzzed work to such a degree as to be deemed
4
( (
specialists in the time data telemetry system and thus do
qualify for the higher classification.
On the evidence, it is clear that the Grievors are both initially
and ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the
instrumentation as a result of the technological change in 1978.
In addition, the Griev°rs are responsible for the validity of the
data used by the Ministry's abatement section in its enforcement
procedures. The trouble shooting component of the Grievors'
jobs is more difficult and complex as a result of complex
electronic devices. Employees such as the Grievors must deal
effectively with many more components than under the old
system.
(emphasis added)
The Union argued that based on the previous Neve decision and the evidence adduced, the
Union had established that the grievors should be recognized as technical specialists. As
such, the Union argued that the EO5 class standard best describes the grievors' work.
Since the previous Ney. e. case was decided in 1984, the classification system for
environmental technicians was altered, in 1988, to reflect the increased technological
complexity of their work and the increased responsibility born in respect to enforcement
functions carried out as an adjunct to responsibilities for detecting and investigating pollution
incidents. The history of the revision to the classification system from the environmental
technicians series to the environmental officers series is recounted in the case cited to us of
Re OPSEU (Zakrewski et al) and Ministry of the Environment 90/88 ... 1997/86 at pp. 8-17.
At p. 17, Arbitrator Samuels, writing for the majority, noted:
In September 1987, the Employer issued the Environmental
Officer series, with the six classification levels. And thereafter,
bearing in mind the decisions of the Grievance Settlement Board
5
in Baldwin and Lyng (539/84) and Pingue and Wolaniuk
(540/84, 1597/84 and 1598/84) the Ministry reclassified the
environmental technicians. By and large ET3s became EO3s;
ET4s became EO4s; and IEB Investigators became EOSs.
With this history in mind, wetum to the evidence in this case. The grievor was the
sole wimess. In his evidence in chief, the grievor reviewed his position specification, dated
in late July, 1988 and appended to the award as Schedule "A". The grievor holds the
position of Air Quality Instrument Technician at the Sudbury Regional Office of the
Technical Support Branch, Northeast Region of the Ministry of the Environment. The
grievor's evidence supports the position specification as an accurate depiction of the grievor's
work and responsibilities, subject to a few clarifications that are addressed below.
The grievor reports to Mr. Tremblay, Supervisor Air Quality Monitoring, for
supervision. In chief, the grievor indicated that he would meet with his supervisor every
Monday morning to plan work for the week following and Mr. Tremblay would
communicate any directives from more senior management. In cwss-examination, Mr. Neve
acknowledged that it would be his supervisor's prerogative to set priorities or rearrange
priorities in work. He also acknowledged that he would be in daily contact with Mr.
Tremblay to report what was happening in the field. Both the grievor and his supervisor
work in the same physical locafiofi. Thus, tl~e evider~ce indicates that the grievor can consult
with his supervisor without difficulty should the need arise. However it is clear that the
grievor's knowledge and experience enable him to work under minimal supervision as
contemplated by the position specification.
6
(
The grievor's core functions and responsibilities are focused upon the installation,
calibration, operation and maintenance of the computerized telemetric air quality monitoring
equipment. The equipment for which the grievor is responsible in the Northeast Region is
housed in thirteen (13) stations around Sudbury, four (4) air quality stations near Sault Ste.
Marie and a mobile monitoring station. Various air pollution parameters are monitored by
the system including emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone levels and dust. One
station monitors meterological data as weli.
Each station hooked up to the system has an alarm level 'set. If pollutant emissions
rise above permissible levels, the alarm is triggered and is electronically relayed to the
Abatement Branch of the Ministry as well as to private sector industries which have hooked
up to the system. Examples of such private sector participants include Inco and Falconbridge
at Sudbury and Kidd Creek Mines at Timmins. Any questions arising concerning the
accuracy of the data and validity of the alarm triggered at stations to which the grievor is
assigned responsibility are addressed to the grievor who must judge whether or not the alarm
ought to' have been triggered. The grievor characterized this function as the most important
aspect of his work and responsibilities. Any enforcement action under relevant
environmental legislation taken in consequence of the alarm does not fall within the scope of
the grievor's job functions. Rather, the enforcement functions are carried out by personnel
in the Abatement Branch.
In cross-examination, the grievor added that any decision he would make concerning
the validity of an alarm would be discussed with his supervisor if Mr. Tremblay or Mr.
7
' Potvin were available. He acknowledged that his supervisors would have the authority to
override any decision he would make. Such an override has not occurred.
In respect to section (3)(1)(1) of the position specification, the gfievor clarified that
while he conducts auclits of the calibration of Ministry-owned equipment, personnel in the
Air Research Branch also come to the Northeast Region every four months to conduct an
audit as well. He added that once a year, such personnel also conduct an audit of telemetric
equipment hooked up to the monitoring system, but owned by private sector participants,
In respect to s.3(3)(a), the grievor would review with his supervisors a "wish list" of
equipment they would like and the money available for purchases. The grievor
acknowledged that he carries no overall responsibility for the purchase of equipment.
The grievor's evidence supports a conclusion that the position specification accurately
describes his work and responsibilities. Attached to the position specification is a page
entitled "Summary of Compensable Factors". There was no suggestion in the evidence
before us that this summary Was not applicable nor that it was inaccurate to describe the
compensable factors entailed by the gfievor's position.
The preamble for the Environmental Officer class series and the EO4 and EO5 class
standards are attached as Schedule ~B~ to the award. The EO4 and EO5 class standards
were not put to the grievor in direct examination for his comments. In cross-examination,
the grievor was taken through the statements in each section of the EO4 class standard so
that he could comment as to the accuracy or application of the statements to him.
The grievor testified in cross-examination that the entirety of the EO4 class standard
contained an appropriate description of his duties, responsibilities and compensable factors
embodied by his position, with a few clarifications. He pointed out that he did not function
as a group leader, nor was he involved in advanced investigation or enforcement functions
except to the extent that the data he produces and verifies as accurate may be used in
enforcement functions by the prosecution. The grievor agreed that'the class standard applied
to him because it includes "recognized senior environmental officers who have the ability and
wide variety of experience to function independently and to assume significant responsibility.
They will exercise judgement and initiative to identify and resolve complex and contentious
problems." In respect to the compensable factor of accountability, the grievor clarified that
he is not responsible for the purchase of complex monitoring equipment, although he is
accountable for its installation and maintenance. Earlier he admitted that his supervisors
would have authority to override any'recommendation he might make in respect to whether
or not an alarm is valid. In re-examination, the grievor reiterated that his role in obtaining
compliance with appropriate levels of emissions by private sector participants in the
monitoring system would be limited to verification that the data yielded by the telemetric
system is genuine.
On the basis of the evidence and case law before us, we find that the grievor's work,
t
responsibilities and core functions fall squarely within the EO4 class standard. Comparison
of the old ET4 class standard as set forth at pp. ll-12 of the Neve/Tremblay decision 528/83,
529/93 to the new EO4 class standard reveals that the new EO4 class standard contains
significant additional content that enhances the compensable factors. In light of the grievor's
evidence, we see no basis upon which to conclude that because the grievor was found to be
appropr/ately classified in I984 as an ET4, that he would now be appropriately classified as
9
an EO5 in the new series. Rather, the evidence supports a finding that the EO4 class
standard best describes the gfievor's position. Given the onus which the jurisprudence places
upon the Union to show in what way the grievor's work and responsibilities exceed his
current classification, we must conclude that the Union has failed to meet such onus in this
case. Unlike the Charbonneau case, there was no suggestion in the evidence before us that
the work the gfievor performs is much different in complexity or accountability than that
performed by the other grievors currently classified as EO4 in the Northeast Region.
We agree with the reasoning in the Hilts case, 1376/88, at p.3 that the failure of the
Ministry to actually designate a gfievor's position as being a "specialist" within the meaning
of the EO5 class standard is not conclusive of.the Board's enquiry. Rather, it is the task of
the Board to examine "whether the grievor functions in his position in the same manner as a
"specialist" as described in the EO5 class standard". Such an enquiry presupposes that the
grievor has established facts showing that his position transcends the EO4 standard. In the
Hilts case, the gfievor was unable to demonstrate that he functioned as a recognized expert,
that his work was performed under general direction rather than minimal supervision, or that
.judgement and contacts required of him met the EO5 class standard. In the instant case, the
grievor admitted that the EO4 class standard applies on the compensable factor of
knowledge. We have concluded that the findings of the Verity panel in the previous Neve.
decision do not establish that the grievor possesses "proven technical knowledge such that he
is recognized as an expert in a specific field" within the meaning of the new class series.
The EO5 class standard adds that "designated specialists function in a specialty area within
... emission control". It is arguable that the standard could contemplate specialty areas
10
within the four fields listed of municipal or industrial solid waste; liquid waste; emission
control; and complex assessment surveys. However, there is insufficient evidence in this
case from which to conclude that the grievor is "recognized as an expert in a specific field".
Furthermore, we find on the evidence that the grievor functions with minimal supervision in
his position. Messrs. Tremblay and Potvin retain authority to review, rely upon or i'eject his
recommendations, on the grievor's own evidence. Furthermore, it is clear on a review of
the compensable factors of judgement, accountability, and contacts that the content of the
EO5 class standard clearly exceed the requirements of the grievor's position.
In summary, we find that the Union has not met the onus upon it to establish that the
requirements of the grievor's position and the work as performed exceed the scope of the
EO4 class standard. Thus we must conclude that the grievor is not wrongly classified.
Having said that, the Board wishes to acknowledge that the grievor impressed us as a very
knowledgeable individual of exceptional integrity. He carries considerable responsibility for
ensuring that the air we must br.eathe meets acceptable levels. We are ail indebted to him
and his colleagues for their service to the environment we share.
In the result, the grievance dismissed.
I1
(. (
Dated at Kingston, Ontario this ~st day of ~n~1993.
~.E. E~rich Vice-Chairperson
"I Dissent" (dissent to follow)
G. Majesky Member
/" (I/.. :
Af S~leton / / Member
12
_.nlor [nyiror~ent. al Officer Air Quality ~ 37-4206-26
~v~ ron~ent Regional Operations
:ch. 5up~ort N/i ~eglon [gg Le~Ch Street, 5udbu~y
~ ~ - . ~upervisOr. Air Oualit~ Monitortnq [ 37-4206-24'
, a senior role. the inc~bent selects, installs~ operates and maintains a regional
-:work of ~ir qua)fry. ~e~s~tion andmeteoro)oglcal tnstr~ents to provide envi~ental
,hi toting data ~ supers the region's abatement programs an~ to dete~tne a~lent air
,~lity; undertakes )peci~l monitoring and sampling surveys ~ supers Ministry progr~s
,cb as the prov~nce s acl~ rain studies and deals independently with unusual or
Un,er minimal supervision, i~stall, operate lad maintain regional air quality,
~eposition. and meteorological monitoring and te)e~try networks by perfo~lng tasks
- select and rec~enU ~nltoring site locations and c~plete site
plan and arrange fer the use of ~nt~rlng sites tad the selection and su~rwtston of
contractars engage~ to install electrical and other serwices at ~ni~rtng sites;
- select 6~U install monttartng equt~ent and make required connecllon$ ~ recording and
lelemetry equt ~ent;
~ maintain, adjust, calibrate, and ~pair air quality, meteorvlogtCal an~ deposition
moni toting equi~ent;
- trouble sh~t electric a~d electronic c~ponents of moni~rtng a~U tel~etry units
with precision test equi~ent leg. osclllo~ope$, vol~etee$, ~requenc~ cou~r$) to
i~entify and r~tify abno~al function and ~ ~patr electronic ctr(uit boards;
- procure the serwices af operators for ~ni~rtng equt~nt a~d prowide training and
tec~nical supervision lot Such operators;
- pla~ and i~pl~ent work schedules ~ air quality ~et~rk operation~ In the region;
- prepare or modify instructions or lnstr~ent operation anO maintenance;
- ~Uify existing monitoring equi~ent to ~et sp~fa) needs or ove~ probl~s;
design electrical and electro~ic circuits to interlace c~nts of monitoring
toiletry systems; .
- maintain logbooks of fnstr~ent ~erfo~ance, maintenance a~d repatr, and ~co~s
related to operator fees..rental charges and po~r Costs;
(conS'd)
~ /ears experience tn t~e environmental field with extensive knowled~ of the theory,
ncip~es and practices of air quallt~ surve~ and assessment technlq~s and the selection,
.air. trouble shooting, and malntena~ce of a ~tde varlet~' of c~plex atr qualit~
,iCorfng a~ telemetr~ sy~as. The technical k~ledge and abillt~ to o~erate
a a eenlor enviro~enta[ officer, Incumbents function in&e~l~vhe~ inetall~g~m' '
p~ratin& and maLnta~nln8 a regional eetvotk of alt quality, ~epoeit~oa add
nsc~ments.
echntca[ principals co new problems which do nbc respond to precedent or eaCabItsbed practCtc e.
ncu~enta requtte proven technical pro[tcteacy and exte~alve ko,ledge of eleccgoelce and
ad monttotln8
i'~. a~dtt the calibratIon of air qu~lI~,; monitors and associated %ele~etr~ ~nd/or
recording instr~entation opera~d by industry under Controt Order programs and/Or
o[her ~Uatment programs;
- tnrou~ prescribed centra~ CO~pu&¢r access arid ~] on-site visits, check t~e response
of the telemetry System components (data 1Oggers, ~s, telephone 1Jmes, etc.) to
~ia~nose pro~le~s an~ ensure t~e coliection of valid ~ata ~nd its pro~r transmission
to users [e.g. ~0[ V~ ~puter, outst~e agencies, industrial tit errs,
- es~Ults~ ~ preventative maintenance program ~nd an ~nventory of s~re p~rts
supplies;
- ev~tuate equipment perfo~ance and rec~e~ tmprev~ents tn eqoapment a~ sempllng
p~oce~ures;
- ma4ntetn 1Jet son with sentor ~Jr quality ~chntctans In o~er regton~ regarOang the
exchange Of tec~n4cal ln~o~tton and spare
- consult supDtters and Ninistry technical staff to reso3ve equ4pment problems;'
- arrange for the t?dnsport ~f samples ~nd prepare associated doc~ntatlon~
- alert appropriate HJntstry staff of unusually high ~11utqon readings and provide
support data. such as meteorologica~ info.arSon, for ~l~utJon
, m~JnCa~n T~a~so~ ~t~ reg~on~ and h~ad off,ce s~aff co~cern~ng processing and
analysas of samples an~ r~or~er charts .... . .
- ~.', ~ ~ ...... ~ .... '~.~ ,o~ *~ .......... :. ~ ..... ?' e..-* .... ;s'~ ,r~*-v ~"~ ....... ~.~
Conduct and participate In specSal ~onitorlng and sampl$ng surveys keg: ~btme a~r
qua~lty studies, sno~ sampling, contingency ?es~se mnltoring, toxics ~n~rlng) by
- select and mac--end ~nJ~orjng site locations and c~p~e&e s~te documentat~on~ .~:~
.9' select snd tnstal~ ~on~torSng equ$~ent and ~a~e requ~reO connections to r~oratng
telemetry equ~p~ent~
maintain adjust, celebrate, and repair a~? quality, meteorologtca4 and depesJt~on
~nitorlng equt~ent~
~- moaif~ existing moni~rin~ equipment to meet special ne~s or overcome prob~ems~
- arrahge for the transport Of samples a~d prepare associated doc~en~at~on~
,.- maintain 1Jansen w~th regional and hea~ o~f~Ce st~ff ¢e~e?n~ng processing and ~ ana17sJs ef samples and recorder
)- ensure vallatty and ¢~pleteness of da ta~
,- assemble, organize and tabulate fie~d data and anel~tice~
Perfo~ other assJgned duties su¢~sj
participate In the preparation Of'budget proposaas and prepare budget status repo?ts~
- participate fn technical meetings.and at.nd courses, seminars and ~orksheps to
upgrade technical kno~ledge~
such ~ployees;
- respond to requests for t~fo~atton, s~ak to groups (ag: schools) and give equip~nt
d~onstrattons;
. give Interviews and/or'demonstrations to the media~
- give testimony during legal pr~eedings either as a witness or technical ex.rtl
* assist at ¢onttngenc) sites, condu~t s~ctal monitoring and/or resolve Jntrumentation
malfunctions after regular working hours.
Sktll~ and knowledge requlre~ to perfom job at full ~orktng level. (cant'd)
independently tn the field. A valid drivers licence and good physical condition. The
skills ~nd knowledge outifned tn .~he Su~e?y of C~penseble Fecto?~ section are QI~O
requireO.
S[ILL~ AND KNOWLCOG[:
' Work ;eqaires the technical e~pertt~e, flexibility and depth of back,round to ~eal
independently with a wide variety of unpre~ictab)e equipment and monitoring problems,
relating to air quality evaluation uno assess~nt, where the individual's knowleqge'~ay be
the only immediate guide to action. This would include:
- an extensive knowledge of the theory and practice of electronics and telemetry
~ec~o)ogy for trouble Shooting and repair of electronic circuit boards to the chip
~evel;
- a working knowledge of mathematics, physics, and chemistry as applied to air
contaminant monitoring;
- an extensive know)edge of the theory and pra¢.ttce of instrumentation technology to
trouble shoot and repair a wide variety of c~n~lex air quality and meterologtcal
instruments;
- manual dexterity and aptitude to assemb)'e c~ponents and subcc~npo~ents, sampling
manifolds and meteorological equipment, and to operate a wide variety of calibration,
testing, safety and repair equtp~nent;
- working knowledge of electrical an( building co,es, an~ safety regulations;
- ability to plan and organize work schedules an~ set priorities;
~ demonstrated leadership and good oral an~ writ:em co~aunication skil)s;
- a working Knowledge of COurt procedures;
- mature Judgement, tact a~ the ability to dee) with people including contractors and
site operators;
* knu~led~e o~ industrial air l)ollutf~n r(~ntK~l tm, )iris,lily 4(I,J
~DGEMCNT:
rk is performed under minimal supervision,
dgement is exercised in applying general technical principles to new problems ~tch do
t respon~ tD precedent or establishe~ practice.
dgement is exercised in the selection of the proper air quality n~ttoring and assessment
Jipment for routine and special surveys. Smd in carrying out appropriate quality
~trO1/quality assurance procedures, ~u~gement is required tO select and modify surveying
~ sampling m~thedologies as require~ by unique field circumstances.
)gement is exercised in applying general assessment techniques to the validation of
:a and in verifying information and. data in ass(stin9 in the preparation of
suasiveness and mature judgement are required when dealing with contractors, site
~ators and the ~edta. Judgement is required when representing the Ministry at public
~(ngs, hearfng~ and court appearances.
OUNTAB~LITY:
position is fully accountable for the ~ndependent ¢o~plet(on of c~lex work and
technical accuracy and quality Of data collected or produced. Errors could result
~propr(ate action, unnecessary expense, potential environmental damage, public beal%h '
~rds and e~barrassment to the Ministry.
'ACTS: y
involves a wtde variety o~ continuing cent. acts ~4t~ :~-~.~"~ment a,d tnCustrial
cta~$ a~ The operational and technical levels and ~lth the general publlCo
acts are for the purpose of exchanging Information, givlng advtce, and planning
perettve studies. T~ incumbent officially represen%5 the Ministry 6nd n~y be required
cca$tOnally appear at public meetings, hearings and in courts of law.
E~iVIEOh~I~T~ OFFICEIt 61500 - 01510
INCLUSIONS:
This series covers positions responsible for dsrs collection, lnspecCionml,
lnveoc~S~rionsl, enforcement,, iud prelintn~ evaluative end interpretive york
on B~ccers reletini to euvironMnral assessB~nc end pollution courrol Ln the
n&curel enviror~ent,
~.XCLU$IO~S:
Excluded free the ser~es ~re:
1.Positions requires& the lnalysis ~nd tescln~ of s~mples conducted
priMrtly in a laboratory setting.
2. Positions requ~rin$ full professional s~&~us for cbe opplic&~ions of
scten~lfSc ind enslneert~& principles found in such disciplines is
en&/neerin&, biology or cheuis~ry,
ALLO~TIO~ OF POS~?IOKS:
There ore six levels In this series ~nd the asslSnoen~ of positions to the
opproprio~e levels will be hosed on conslder&~lon of bo~b ~be Sr~SW
description and the four co~en3oble f4c~ors: knovled$e, JudseBen~,.
iccovn~iblltty, and contbc~s;
1. The knovled~e lictor describes ~cb cbc knovledse snd skills
required co perfo~ ~he responsiblll~te~ of ~be position. ~e knovledse
elemen~ refers to ~he knovledse of leslsl~ciou, principles ~nd
p~eceden~f. ~e ~k~lls ele~n~ of this Siecor refers ~o ~he opproicbes,
proctices iud techniques, ~omlly ~ained ~hrou&h experience, which ire
required ~o edequi~ely p~rfo~ the duties.
2. ~e jud~eM~ f~ccor refers ~o ~he discretion required and cbe freed~
for ~ktns decisions within vertlble p~r&~ers. To be considered ire
such M~cers ss the n~cure of supe~i~ion received, the ov~llobil~y of
sufd~nce frou such sources as scscuces, le~fsl~cLofl, ~ecbflic]l
s~&~dirds, specifications, iud previously zs~blished procedures and
precedents, ~he requlre~en~ for ney snd lnnov4~ve opprooches ond the
vor~ecy of fl~ernfrLve choices of ac~toa.
3.~e ~ccoun~ebil~7 /oc~or refers ~o che scope of responsibility,
decisions Mde ~nd ~be resul~ of errors.
~e concocts foccor refers to cbe sIKal[icince and zx~enc of rel4~ion-
ships which ore i ~ecessory p~rt of the york, The ~vo elenencs ~re (~)
the nicure and purpose of ~be concoc~, ~nd (b) the level snd
of che person contacted.
September l, 1987 July $, 1988 2 of 12
'[~is clans covers positions of employees who, in addition Co the
responsibilities described in the lnviron~ental Officer 3 standard, exercise
advanced responsibilities across a range of several areas in the environ~encal
end pollution control field.
l"be7 may function as group leaders pYovidinl technical direction,
co-ordinating and reviewing the staff activities, a'ssigning and evaluating
technical work, and instructing tn technical training programs. &lan, in
group leader role, they nay participate es a technical advisor on selection
boards and in the performance ~anage.~ent proces~ bl.perfomtnI ~uch d~[ie~
responsible ~ot reco~ending the purchase of specialized ~nitorlng
~nd ~he selection of appropriate sites; ~ t~ey ~ ~ recognlxed senior
enviro~n~nl officers who have the nblll~ nnd ~lde variety of ~xperience ~o
function independently and to ass~ significant responsibility. ~ey
exercise Jud~e~nc and tnttt==ive [o tdenciJI and resolve co. lex and
contentious problem; O~ in ~he advanced investigation and en~orce~nt
tunctton they ~y perfo~ ~ an en=~ l~vel in which ~hey Sain ~raining ~d
~eritnce tn both fields. ~e co~ensable factors at this level are ~yptcally
reflected a~
I. ~ovledge:
York requires the Cec~ntcal expe~cLse, flexSb!lS~y and d~pCb of
book,round to deal fndependencl~ vLth ~ v~de varLecy of unpredLc~bZe
envLro~ntal problems, where the Lnd~v~dual'l knovZed~e ~y be cbe onZy
and 4 good kn~led~e of a wide variety of enviro~ntal and related
legislation and regulations nre ~ssentl~l. In s~ positions which deal
vit~ lnscr~nt~tion a proven technic~l proficiency la required.
Judi~nc:
York is perlo~d under mtnt~I supe~islo~. Judse~n~ is employed to
co~rdin~e ~be necessnrI h~n~ ~ceriaI. nnd/ot lnfo~cion resource~
nnd to or~anixe ~u~ies, su~eys, lnves~l~atlon~ of co~l~tn~s or
inspections Independently, referring to supe~lso~s only in even~
yeti unusual ctrcuns~nces~ nnd to advise on proires~.
gudge~nt is exercised 1~ ~pplyin~ general technical principles
problen~ ~blcb do not respond ~o prece~en~ or e~ablished practice and
~en representing the ministry at public ~ectng$, he,rings or in
dealln~s ~lcb ~dl~. In so~ posicion~ Judgement Is ilso re~tred ~hen:
reco~nding appropriate clean-~p ~ction ~ spills/considering
reporcn n~d reco~nd~lons of ocher technical
September 1, 1987 July ~, 1988 7 of 12
[ T~[I~IC,,~t, SERVICES T~- 07 LESOURCE$ SUPPOET
~v/~tal Officer i ~ntOd.
3. AccounCobt~ttT:
~ae postttoa~ ate full7 accountable fat independent co~lettoe
c~l~x uork,~for the technical lutdance end c~td~not~on
collected or produced and for'comprehensive technical reports rich
rec~nda:~ons as a result of their decision on necessar7 info~tton~
for fo~t and content of report3 and appropriateness of reco~end-
arians; and in some positions for the purchase, installation and
~tnCenance of couplex ~nttoring equtp~nt. Reports are ~uitoble
d~strtbut~on outside the ntnl~try after only general revte~ by the
supe~sor. Inappropriate rec~endaCtons could result in so~ ~neca~
loss to :be atn~str7 or others end tn loss of the ulnistry~a credlbfl~ty
and prestige.
~ncacts:
and tndustr~al officials ac the operitLonol, cechuical,pto~essLona~
Mno&e~nc leveZs, erected of(totals, ~enetil pubZtc, the
consuZtan~s, developers, con~rac:ors) heelth o//tctaZs, technical,
acienti/tc and eng~fleerfn8 o~/lcials of the alnf~t~, other
ministries, cbc ~ve~nc of ~nada and international
~e coat'ts afc ~or the purpose of exchangtn& tnfo~tton,
advice, publishing interpretative data, Main8 teco~ndattonf,
cooperative studies, o~ en~oFc~n8 regulations. ~e7 My be called
&~ve ev~dehce on technical ~tter~ or to appear 06 an expect vttnes~
be~ore
tr~bunaZs
such ~s CAe Envtro~ncaZ
Board oF a court of lay. ~ey may be required to Mke
public Me:tn8~ oF represent the ntnLst~ on citizens* liaison
c~ttees. In oil contacts, the e~loyee officially r~prese~ts the
ministry.
EfJoClive Date Issued [Page
, TZCRN]CAI. $£~¥1CL' TS-O? ~g$OU~CZ$ SUPPO
~J~VIROh~t~4TAL OFFICZ~ 61 ~08
~l~~ 0~ 5
~is Cl~$ cover~ polition~ of.e~lo~es vbo, IccinS it I senior level
c~rdinocSnS che~occl~fttes of br~nch ond/or resionol personnel os tbe~ rellce
Co tb~ appropFtaC~ proiram area O~ acc os destsnoced specialists for brancb~s or
regions (boob pro~ra~ top]enentat~on coordinators and designated
function in a spealalr7 area within uuflicipal or industrial sol~d vesta/liquid
vasKe/emission control/comple~ assemsmen~ su~eys) O~ ncc as officers '~n the ;
l~ves~isotion and:enforcement funcrlon who oust Mke decisions independently,
ust~ only their knovled~e, skilXs end experience as guides In such ~c~ers os
collecclnS and an~lyslng evidence such as ~nanclal records/company books/
~ayb~lls, ~acherin~ intelligence on v~olators ~d prepari~8 ~nd IssXsCtng
ministry la.ers ~ltb prosecutions. ~e compensable fac~¢~'s ac tbt~ level ere
cyplc~lly reflected as follows:
1. ~ovled~e:
In some positions, employees ~ould have proven leadership, orsanizlrional,
co~nlcac~ve and ~roJecc ~naje~nc abLlttLes~ In ocher poifc~ons,
e~loyees v*ll be required to hav~ extensive knowledge of envfFo~encal
~nvescS~a~on and enforcement procedures or proven technicel khovled~e.
such that the e~loyee ts recognized os an expert fn n specific f~e]d. A
thorough knowledge of ·wtde t~nge, of envtro~encal le$tslactou,
regulations, end policies as veil as a workfng knovledse ag relnced
le~fslarlon ~nd regulations ~a also Mndacory.
2, Jud~e~nt:
8ark ts perfo~d under &enetal direction. Judgeaeat ned tact are
essential to coordinate the aecessar7 h~n and/or tafomtton resources
and to destsn and orsanize br~ucb/re&io~al Icudies, su~ey~
tnvestlSot~ons ~ttb n~ntm~ ampul frae supe~tsors. Perfo~n&
specloltst, a vet7 bSgh level of Judgement Ss necessar7 stnce Cbe per,on
M7 be the prtme utntst~ representative dealIn& ~tth
~n~cfpaJtc~es or consuZraflts and My develop options Xndependencly and
present them LO a cltenC 8roup.
A~ envl~o~enta] investigators, Judge~ ts.requited to f~plenen~
approprtace legal action. Judge~nt ts also requtred vben
evtdence/caktng starements/obse~tn8 ru~es of evtde~e/prepar:n& and
se~tn~ Iago1 docu~nts. . .
gg~l ~O~m~TA~ OFYlC~I 61
~.sviro~B~u~sl Officer ~
Accou~CabtliC7~
~u ppsfctons sll~cs[ed co chis lev~l, ~loT~es ore f~l17
and execution of pro0ecu~Son packages, Inoppropr~ece.;reco~endoctono/'
~no~eq~sce technical f~nd~n~s or ~nconple~ do~en~oc~on of evidence
could result in cons~derible ftn~nc~sl losses Co cbc uLntsc~ end ~o ocher
p~rc~e~ o~d loss o~ cb~ uLn~scry's c~edlbLl~cy 8~d prest"S8~,
Contacts: .:
~z york lnvolve~ ~ vide vlr/ecy o~ concLnulng concoccJ v~ch ~over~enc.ol
~d lnduscrS~l off~clils/~r the oper~c~on~l~ CechnSc~l~
~Ee~nc levels/courc and ocher enforcement a~enc~es/elecced
rbe 8eneral public, the med~, cofl~ulr~ncs~ developer~, concracrors/~ealch
officials ~nd technical, ~cienr~f~c ~nd en~Ineerl~& officill~ o~ the
m~u$~Cry, ocher provfuc$~] m~nlscr~es~ ~be Gove~nc of ~nedn ~nd
international a~encSe~. *
~e contacts are for Cbe purposes of ezcban~tn6 Snfo~c~on, provld~n~
advice ~nd direction, df~cussfnE co~lex technical ~ccers ~Scb experts
iron outside 6~encles, prep4rlfl~ and as~tJgtng l~ers virh prosecuc~ons~
publ~ohLnS fncerprectve dies, mektni reco~endscLons,
co-opericLve srudLes ouch as research projects funded by the ministry or.
en/orc~n& resulictons. They My be coiled co 8~ve evtdence on technical-
Meters or co appear os An expert vSrness be/ore G~tnlscro~Lve
such ss the tnv~ro~ncil Assessienc ~o~rd or ~ court of lev. They My be
requtred co mike presentations e~ public ueeclnss. In all concocts, the '*
e~oyee officlllly represents the stnlot~. .
10 of 12
September !. 1987 July 5. 19fl8