HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-2125.Grace & Groskopf.92-07-30 ONTARIO EMPLOY[~S DE ~ COURONNE
CROWN EMPL 0 YEE$ DE L'ONTA RIO
GRIEVANCE ~ C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
DUNDAS STREET WEST, SU'/TE 2.~O0, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G ~'Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: (4~,6I
RUE DUNDAS OUEST, ~UREAU 2tO0, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G tZ8 FACSI~/LE/T~L~COPiE ; (4 ~5~ 326-
2125/91
~n~er
T~ CRO~ EMP~YEES COL~CTI~ B~AININ~ ACT
Before
~ ~aI~CE' SETTL~ BO~
BE~EN
OPS~ (Grace/Groskogf)
~rievor
- ~ -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Minist~ o~ Transpo~a=ion)
~ployer
BEFOg: J. Emrioh Vice-Chai~erson
S. Urbain Me. er
R. Scott Me~er
FOR THE D. Wright
GRIEVOR Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & 'Chapman
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE B. Christen
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING May 22, 1992
~be grievors, Mr. David ~ an~ Mr. Karl ~f, are currently
classified as Exsmt/ve Officers I in th~ Administrativ~ ~rvices Category.
They are the only employees in the Province of Ontario wbz> hold the position
entitled ~iver Examination and Oertification Officer. %i~=y claim that the
Class 8tar~azd for Executive Officer I does not accurately describe the'
duties and responsibilities of their position. By way of relief, the
grievors ~ an order directing the Employer to find or create a Class
~ which would be a bet%~ fit to the functi~ performS. In ~
by i Uati fi ing
~tm~cs on consent. The agreed facts are as follows:
1. The Position Specification for Driver Examination and
Certification Officer accurately describes the grievors', work
2. ~ grievors spend on average 3 to 4 days per month at the
Ministry's offices in Downsview. ~he grievors are affiliated
Office of t. he Ministry. They report to the Head of Programme
3. The grievors first raised a compl~ oonc~iin~ their
classification by me~or'an~__~ to ~ immediate su~e/~/sor,
Ms. Yvonne Robidoux.
4. In a ~ dated July 31, 1991, Ms. f%0bido~x
acknowl~ receipt of the grievers' c0~91aint and indicated
Branch for classification review.
5. By ~ dated Au~ 19, 1991 Ms. Robidoux informed the
grievors that after reviewing the grievors' Position
Specification, staff in the Human Rescuroes Branch b~_d
conches4_ that the appropriate Class Sta~4a~ would continue
to be Executive Officer I.
1
6. In response to th~ grievors' suggestion that the Class
Stamtard of Safety Instruction Officer 4
~iata, Ms. Robidoux advised that this standard does not
~ within the oo~f~nsation s~.
7. The grievors filed their grievanm~ on OcU~er 3, 1991. Fro~
AL~jUSt 19, 1991 to the date the gri~ were filed, the
grievors did not raise the issue of reclassification with any
member of management. The grievances were received by
~ on October 17, 1991.
8. The reason for the la~se of time between the re~ly of
~3~ag~ on Au~st 19, 1991 to October 3, 1991 whe~ the
gri~ were filed is that the grievors were out on field
work and did not have an opportunity to dis~J.~s the
~ployer' s response.
The Executive Officer I Class Standard fails wit2~in the A~ninistrative
Services Category. The parties did not file any preamble to the Ex__~_ztive
Officer Class Series, bat did file the l~mmble to the Administrative
Services CategDZy as a whole which contains ~ 125 separate
classifications. H~wever, the Union does net challenge that the grievors
would fall within the scope of the Admin/strative Services Category.
Rather, the Union contends that the Class Standard of Executive Officer I
does not ap~ly to the grievors. It was agreed tha~ the Em~cutive Offi_,3~_-~ 2
Class Standard is not a~licable to the grievors. The Class Star~d in
question is a~ foll~s:
EX~nAT~ OFFICER t (BA~aINING UNIT)
This class oovers positions involv~ responsible
administrative or office management duties, usually as assistant
to a branch head or to the Deputy Minister of a small ministry.
It calls f~r the frequent application of i~de~t judgement and
~h~re direct supervisoz7 responsibilities are not a major
feature of the work, tb~ employee will develop proc~xe~ required
to implement legislation and regulations, and will exercise such
a~xim_tmtrmtive authority as his ~hief may delegate. He may make
ad~ub~ts~tive studies, organizational reviews and carry out
various assignments of a consultative, investiga~b~ or
~ s~mmrvision is the _d_ecisive factor in ,~e work, the
individual is responsible for the organization, a~ignment and
supervision of tasks to a number of clerks or technical employees
in a section of a branch and for the detailed in~tion of
policy and legislation. M~_$ work is usually s~bject only to
general supervision, although his instructions .may at times be
s~ecific and detailed.
details such as the preparation an~ adatinistration of office
or insti~onal rec3ulations and ~(~Lwes. May act for the
Carries out field investigations in ministry's c~_ratir~
district offices, in ord~___-r to ensure %hat effective controls
Enters into ~ with the public as an official
re~x~sentative of the ~ for the procurir~ of leases,
rights of w~y, t~es an~ ~ and for the sale of
As office manager or ~%ief clerk of a section of a branch or
c~mi~ion, plans, assigns ar~ reviews the work of employees
engaged in the collection of revenue, the assignment of
pensions, or the Urovidir~ of important ar~ essential
Performs other related work as required.
1. Senior matrio~lation star~ or ~m equivalent, preferably
with a d_~]r~ fr~ a university of r___~cognize~ stand~ or
oomparable professional training. A th~ knowledge of
offioe organization and methods.
2. Several years of progressively responsible experi~ in the
a~pria~e line of work, ~referably within the Civil
Service.
3. Administrative ar~ supervisory ability; ability to inte~
legislation and re~/lations and to amplify, develop and apply
policy in practical operation withcut ~ect supervision;
ability to maintain harmoni~ workin~ relationships amongst
employees and with the general public; facility of expression
in s~ and writing; initiative; integrity; alertness;
adapt~_bility; tact and good judgement.
re~x~ibilities of the grievors' position do not fall within the parameters
of the Executive Officer I. Class Standard. T~e evidence indicated that the
major purpose and function of the grievors' position entails inspections of
regist_e_~d authorities and sign/n~ authorities who carry out driver
the Standards enunciated in the Driver Certification Program. This program
is developed pursuant to the H~ghway Traffic Act s.18(5) and Regulation 462,
s.8 promulgated under the said A~t. In this re~, counsel for the Union
argued that the grievor's job could not ~e described aocurately as an office
~ibility and counsel for the union contended that t. hey do not develo~
policy and ~Dced~z~s for the implementation of legislation; rather they
Counsel for the Unix'on claimed that the grievors could not be characterized
aocurately as conduct~ ,,administrative studies, organizatior~l reviews or
consultative, invest~tive or confidential assignments". Counsel for the
Unio~ ar~ that no~e of the characteristic duties set forth in the Class
Star~d would describe accurately the grievors' work.
~here was no d~m~mm~nt ab~t the ~iate standard of review in a
case such as this, rather the parties differed as to what conclusions should
be drawn from the evidenoe, upon application of ~he tes~.
In OPSM3 (Brick) and the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of
Tr~r~x~ation and ~mm]nications), GSB~564/80, a panel of the ~rievance
Settlement Board chaired by Professor ~S~m~].~, oonduct__~d_ a review of case
law in the private an~ public sectors and concluded that the d_~_-isions
artioAlate the sa~e test in different ways. At p.49, Professor
On to state the test in a classification case where the breach alleged is a
misfit to the class
decide whether ~they would be px~perly classified in the
classification which they seek. We m.~_~t look at the
Class Standards as a whole, and not classify according
to scme peripheral part of the duties of the
classification. Obviously not all employees in a class
basis in order to be classified in a particular
classification o
5
In an earlier case, ~wards ar~ Maloney (GSB~11/78) referred to at.
p.44 of the Brick case, the t~_..~_~lyi~ rationale of a classification system
is' stated at p. 11:
~le t~__~_ks perfo _.~____ by individuals in different
classifications may appear very s_~_m~ lar, yet it must be
kept in mind that the classifications have bee__n designed
for a put/pose - whether to reflect different emphases
with regard to the similar t~__~_ks, or to reflect greater
discretion or responsibility by those in one of the
classifications, or to reflect the higher qualifications
demanded of those in the more senior classification (the
aim being to preserve the morale and status concerns of
those more highly qualified in a particular field of
end__~_~_vour). An arbitration board must therefore be
particularly careful in assessin~ classification
grievances where there is extensive overlap in job
duties, so that a decision does not interfere with the
overall aims of the classification system. The onus is
classification, and where there is extensive overlap in
job duties, he should show that his job, in practice, is
the same as that performed by a person properly within
the higher classification.
Having this rationale in mind, Arbitrator Roberts chairin~ the panel in
Parker et al, (C~B~1528/88), c~mented.at p.6-7 that the Class Standards
ought not to be viewed as simply a list of typical duties. Rather the Class
Standards must be seen as enonmp~.~ir~ the level of responsibility,
complexity, ar~ qualifications embodied in the performance of such
At the sa~e ti~e, we reoogr~ize that a class ~ is
not a job description. In classifying a job, the
"typical duties" set forth in the class standard are not
the sole ~ of classification. Consideration
also is giuen to whether a class standard is most
appropriate to a job in terms of level of
responsibility, complexity and qualifications of
6
in OPS~3 (Carol Berry et al. ) and The Crown in Ri~t of Ontario
(Ministry of Ommamity and Social Services), the Ontario Divisional Court,
in a~ ~ decision dat_~d. March 13, 1986, review~ a decision of the
Grievanoe Settlement Board which had di~.~ed the classification grievance
b~oucjht by Ms. Berry as a re~x~entati~e grieuor. The ~jority of the Board
baa held that'the grievors would not fit the classification they sought.
Divisional Court held that 81.~m~.~l of the grievances was a wrongful denial
of the r-m~] mandate of the Board conferred by s.19(1) of the Crown
~loyees Collective Bar~a~ Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.108. Sizloe this case
was deci _a~4. __, le~ions of cases have come before the Grievance Settlement
find or create a classification suited to the grievor's duties and
responsibilities.
in O~SEO (~thl a.~ the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of
T~tio~) (GS~ 192/90), Ms. L~w ~tate~ the te~t in a ca~e i~ whic~
the ~ sought is a ..Berry order at p.9:
before the awardin~ of a Berry order is appropriate is
that there must be a su~-tantial variation in either the
nature or scope of the duties performed by the grievor
from that set out in the class star~ard and no other
class stanc%srd reasonably descr/bes the functions which
Whether there is a substantial variation between the duties performed
ar~ the duties referred to in tb~ Class Stam4~rd is a question of fact: see
Re OPS~ CDumon~) aha the Crown in Right of Ontario {Ministry of
7
~fansDo~cation), GSB~IS~2/90, (Kaplan), at p. 19. At pp.19-20, Professor
Kallan comments that percentages of time spent on duties not included in the
class standard are not r~~ilY helpful to reflect the responsibili~,
There is a lo~3 line of juris~xudm~e at this Board that
for a reclassification cx~ler to be given the Board ~
be sat/sfied that there is a substantial difference
between the duties performed and the duties referred to
in the Class Standard .... That, of oourse, is a matter
of fact to be determined in each ca~_~e. It is not, in
our view, a matter that can be determimmd____ by reference
to percentages (althou~ they may be helpful). If such
a method were e~clusively followed, where would one draw
the line? Would it be sufficient to say that if a
Stam4~ 10% of the time that constitut_~d_ a subetanti~
difference? ~hat about if she was only perform_ _~
duties not included in her Clas~ StamP_ mrd 9% of the
time? Would that fail to meet the test? What about if
Standard only 5% of the time, but those duties involved
significant responsibility well beyond that ever
envisaged in the Class ~? ~hat about if the
duties were of an infinitely more complex character than
those in the sta~mrd? What if the duties required a
significantly greater d_~]ree of skill and training than
that re~dm~ in the Class Standard? These questions
illustra~ the difficulties inherent in atte~ing to
resolve these questions with percentages. The c~___~es, at
least those cited__ by union counsel to the Board, de_rend
to a great extent on their facts and appear to have been
decided on that basis.
There is no r~_~_~on, in our view, to interfer~ with the
lon~~ jurisprudence of this Board that a
substantial difference between the job being performed
and the job described in the Class Standard is a pre-
"substantial difference" and what oonstitutes a
"substantial difference" will be a matter for the Board
to determ/ne on t~e facts of each case.
~ the integrity of the ~river Certification l~gram, as those
duties are detailed in their Bosition Specification, ~x~titute
The Class Standar~ refers to ~ible m~inis~xative duties or office
management duties. The grievors' duties are more accurately described as
;~'~u~.~cration and Evaluation, opera~l Policy Office of the Licencing
and Control Branch in the T~tion Regulation Operations Division of
the Ministry of Trarm~ation. The Class Sta~_ ~ contemplates that the
usual repot Lin~ relationship would be at a higher level in the hierarchy:
"as assistant to a ~ranch Head or Deputy Minister of a small ministry".
~, given the overall level of responsibility and complexity .of the
substantial _~_~ff~ in the le~l of the griew~rs' re~x>rting relationship
as to fall outside the scope of tb~ Class StandaZ~o
The parties were agree~____ that the grievors frequently at~ly in~ent
judgement and initiative within the limits set by the Driver Certification
under the authority of s.15(5) of the Highway Traffic Act az~ Regulation
462, s~o~ 8 ~x-c~llgate~ tlr~]~r the ~aid a~t. We o~Tc~r with
conclusion drawn by the Classification Officer stated in the Position
initiative in assessing qualifications, evaluating trainin~ facilities,
9
ap~'~ising ~ion methods, monitoring driver records of driver/
tra/ners and su~___ing if required, a,~{ting performance and recua,,,endin~
revocation of operati~ licenses".
~The Class Standard contemplates positions such as that held Dy the
grie%~rs '~re direct supervisox~ responsibilities .are not a major feature
of the work". The grievors have no supervisory responsibilities.
implementation of new or existing Driver Certification Program policies;
at pp. 3 and 4 of the Position Specification. We find that these duties and
responsibilities fall within the scope of the Class Star~mrd _bec__ause in this
a~d re=3ulatic~s" %~der s.18(5) of the Hic~Y~a~ Traffic Act ar~ s.8 of
Regulation 462 thez~er. Fu~-~--w~e, w~ fir~ that the grievors, i~ their
capacity as assistants to the Head, Program ;~dnistration and Evaluation in
the Operation Policy Office, "prepare reports ar~ informational material and
admin/stration of office ... requlations and procedures", as set out in the
Class Sta~_r~. We oo~cur with the conclusion reached by the Classification
Officer that the grievers are responsible for developing and estm_blishin~
~he Class Standard contemplates that the Executive Officer I' '~will act
for the branch head in his absence". The grievors act for the Driver
Program ~u~crator in his/b~r absence upon request. Once again, the
Class Standard contemplates responsibility at a higher level in the
10
___cY3ntrol Branch, of the Ministry of T~tion. H~er, the Employer
havi~ assert__~d__ that the grievors are properly clas~ifi~ at this level
ought not to be allowed to gainsay that for the purpos~ of this case.
Furthermore, we do not take the Union as cla(m(~ a classification lower
than that which the grievors now hold. Pather we under~ the Union's
claim to be to a classification which is equal to ~r better than the
classification now held. ~_refore, we do not conclude that the grievor's
the hierarchy than the Class Standard ~ould describe. The grievors c~_.rry
responsibility for the efficacy of the ~river Certification Program
t~3hcut Ontario. They are ~ to re~,,,mnd suspension of a license
f~r n=~:ompliance with the program objectives. In these respects, the
The grievors are requ/red to provide a liaison service to other staff
detailed at p.3 of their Position Specification. We find that these duties
and responsibilities fall within the scope of the Class Standard as
"carryir~ out assi%~=~rfcs of a consultat/ve, investigative or confidential
nature". Furthermore, these duties and responsibilities may also be
'T~r~/l~ delegated administrativ~ details". Tb_~_$ aspect of the grievors'
work is described by the Classification Officer in the follc~in~ way:
"Provides ~ting services to other Ministries ar~ indu~; acts as
ministry expert; sets driving standards for driver training". Bearing in
m/nd that only these two grievous carry out these duties and
respons~ili~, as well as their investigative and enforcement functions
f~r th. ~iver ~ication ~ ~ the Provinoe of Ontario, we
find that their work is apDroD~iately descr~ by the Class Standard as the
ex~rcise of dele~at_~4_ administrative authority and as "the oor~k~ of field
investigations" for the puzlx~e of ensuring that the goals an~ standards of
the Driver Certification ~-oqram are made known and enforced. In this way,
the grievors carry out the effective control of the Operational Policy
Office over ~~ration of'the Driver Certification Program. ~
The balanoe of the characteristic duties described in the Class
Star~d do not aptly describe the grievors' ~urk. Mz~ever, as reoognized
in Bri~, not all employees in a class perform all the duties mentioned in
Ihe skills and knowl~e required to perform the job at full workin~
level are detailed ~ively at pages 1-4 of the Position Specification.
The position does not require the ac~4-m~c credentials which are stipulated
~s a thorough knowl__~gg_~e of the Operatio~l Policy Office ar~ its
~e Class Standard requires "several years of progressively responsible
experienoe in the ap~%~c%~-iate line of work". We would concllzle that the
skills and knowledge required f~r the positic~ w~uld be acquired in the
manner described in 'the Class Standard. The Class Standard does not mac,ate
a~quisition of such experience within the Civil Servioe, alth~ that could
be an asset to the position held by the grievors and is characterized a~
'~0=eferable" in the Class Standard. We have no hesitatic~ in concluding
that the q~alificatior~ listed in the Class ~ are required for the
outside or vary subst~ally from those ~.~ed by the class standard
of Executi~ Officer I. In the result therefore, the grievances are
13
D~ted at Ki~, Ontario ~s 30th day' of July, 1992.
Jane E. ~ich Vice
~nlar~ ] For 050
I
' DRIVER EX~INATIO. i CERTIFICATION OFFICER 06-7520-59
Opecat/ona~ , ~es~ ~er [ 6gQ~2
To contribute Co the overall ob~ec:~ves o~ :he HLnLs,Lry's
Sub-Pro&r~e by providing ~npuL tn:o ~he ~ormu~a:Lon o~ nev/'exisCLng
policies and procedures~ rev~e~in8 app~ca:ions ~or enCrg into :he
cont'd.../2 .,i
Under the ~ene~l~ supervision o[ ~he Iieed, P~oG~am Administration
~v&XuAL~o~, Operation&~ Policy Office, the Driver Exam~RLion
Certification Officer is responsible for contributing to
objectives of the Dr~ver 5ub-Prosra~
2. Providing a liaison service to other staff members, program
del~vecy, p~ogc&m management, industry and .the generq1 public.
3. Participating 1~ the 'developmenC and ~mplementaL~On
ne~/~men~ed Oriver sub-programs, policies ~nd ~rocedu~es.
4. Performing ~elated additional duties as assigned.
cont'd.../2
~xcelZent ~orkin~ knowledge of legislation, regulations, policies and
procedures pertaining to the Driver Program including :he Iligh~ay
Traff~ Dr~ver Policy HanuaX and numerous Operational Procedures
/~ l , -, ' ~ 1/; I or I~
Ree~/bl/ goc developi~ est~l/~i~ ~el by pce~t~:~r&tio~ ~icectLv~,
~la, ~l14~ ~ pce~ci~/~llveci~ tcaini~
'" [5 .I.:, ' ,
2, PURPO6E OF POSITION toni'd,..
..,and testing p~ograms conducted by members of the Driver
Certification Program for compliance with pre-established sta~,dard~.
Assisting in the development and deliver~ of training seminars
related to the Driver Certification, Driver E~omi~$ation ond Driver
lmproveman~ programs.
3,SU~HARY OF D~TIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES conrad.,.
1. Haintains the integrity of the Driver CertificationlProgra~ by:
$5~ -pre-evaluating training facilities, vehicle ~leets and
£scllitie$ of prospective Driver Certification applicants during
contact visits to ensure that established sLa~dsrds are met;
opteviewing applications made Lo Lbe HinisCr¥ ~or entrance into
the Driver Certi~ication Program! ~denti~ying con£]icts of
lntarast~ ~eligibility, or non-con£ormance -ith pre-established
a:andards and making recommelldatio~s to %he Head, Program
Administration and Evaluation;
-reviewing and assessing the driver traini~tg curriculum
testing procedures submit:ed by transportation firms, or
Community Co~leges seeking Recog]~i=ed Authority Status ~iLh
Hinistry;
-identifying weaknesses in the training/testing program
submitted s~d bringing these to the attention of the Uead for
follo~ up where necessary;
-conducting inspections on an on-going basis at.Recognized
Authority premises t}~rougho~t the province, to ensure that
performance standards, stock control, driver training and
Lasting files and records are maintained in accordance
Hinlatry policies and procedures;
-eppra~sing the methods of instruction by $ig;~ing Authorities,
judging probable effectiveness during in-class and
training sessions;
-conducting program evaluation rides ~ith drivers ~ho have been
recently upgraded ~hile conducting an assessment of the overall
driver traiz~ing and testing program;
-completing Reports of Inspection and making recommendations
the I{ead, Progra~ Administration and Evaluation for suspe,sion
or caneell&tion o£ Recognized or Sigr,lng Authority sL&Lus baaed
on non-compliance with ad,n~nistrative procedures;
-accessing the Driver System using on-/ina computer terminals to
review the driving records o£ Signaling 'Authorities, recommending
acceptance~ rejection, susy~r~s~orJ or cancellation based or)
past driving performance;
-assisting in the formulation o~ a Driver CerLifica%ion Program
Inspection p~an, on an annual basis;
-monitoring motor cycle courses conducted by Recognized
Authorities throughout the province;
-assisting in non-rouLette inspections end i~vesLigaLiO~S of
Signing/Recognized Autt~oriLies ~here non-compliance with
legislated requirements a~d/or HinisLr¥ policy is suspected;
.....
Provides & liaison service to other st&fl members, program
delivery etaff~ program management~ industry representatives and
the general public by:
-communicating the overall objectives and pre-established
standa£ds of the Driver Certification Program %,o senior
management and their representatives From various-transportation
firms and Community Colleges during contact vis, its;
-completing Contact ~lslt Reports end forwarding these
liead, Program Administration and Evaluation for' review;
-assisting in the development and delivery of Driver
· Certification lndocLr~naLion training seminars.for
Recognized and Signing Authorities follo~ing a¢:ceptsnce in~o the
program; --
-preparing formal ~ritte~t responses for approval by the ]Icad,
Program Administration sad Evaluation including letters of
reJectiont acceptance, responses to reguests for information or
general inquiries on an on-going basis;
-responding to e~tensive, complex telephone entuiries regarding
the Driver Sub-Program from field managers and staff, head
office managers end skaff, representatives from alter
~inietries/Age~ci~s, legal counsellors, ~P~s, }tPP~s law
enforcement personnel, industry and the general public;
-communicating ~ith the above to inform them of approved
implementation dates for changes to the Driver Program;
-drafting non-routine correspondence for approval by the Ilead,
Progrs~ Administration & Evaluation;
-communicating ~ith the Driver Program Administrator to identify
needs for policy/training development and/or amendments;
-inLerprqting legislaLive/regulaLorY/policy and/or procedures
respecting the driver programs in respo~se ~o daily telephonic
enquiries or referring tl~ese to the Driver Program Administrator
or ~ec:ion ~ead;
-communicating with Directors, £iecutive Officers and/or
~anagars of the Lra6sportation industry to assure application,s
for Recognized/gig.lng Autl~ority are completed il~ s clear
concise manner;
-assisting in the co-ordination a~d delivery of Driver
Certification policy and procedure seminars throughout the
Province;
-providing consulting services Lo other ~inistries end the
transportation industry to establish driver Lraining/Lestini
standards; ,
-responding to requests from I[~dustry as directed by the ]te~d~
Progra~ Administration a~d Evaluation to participate in
regional/district training seminars, roadeos, Signing Authority
Courses, etc. es an e~per~ on Ontario's Driver Certifioatio;t ~nd
Driver Sub-Pro.rams;
3, Participating in the development and implementation of
ne./exist'lng Driver sub-Program policies, procedures and
business documents by:
10% -a~sisLiltg in the deYelopmenL and 'ame~dd~eJIL of epLry level
criteria and perfornlance sl, a~dards for ~ecog~ized (Companies)
a.d Signing (Trainers) A~l~horities;
.../4
-assisting in ~l~e developmenL and or amenda~n: o£ new/existing
written and practical driver licence examinations £or use by
driver examination centres LhroughouL the province:
-providing tnpu: inLo :he £orm~lation of revillo~s Lo existing
forms utilised within :ha Driver sub-program based o~
o£ driver examination practices;
-reviewing draft a~areness brochures and' driver mae~ua~s and
providin~ input into formula:ion of the final product &a an
'. experLdriver.trainer and examiner;
4. Performs related additional duties as assigned includins:
~X -respondtnl :o sd-hoc requests and/or statistics respecting the
Dr~ver sub-program; · ---~
-sssistl~ in the de.elopmenL o£ auareness mater~aJs, brochures~
bulle~ina, forms, ~ri~Len/practicai examinations and manuals,
doc~men~a related to the Driver Sub-Proiram;
-acLln8 for :he Driver Program Administrator in his/her absence
as requested.
SKILLS AND KNOWLDE~E REnU!RED TO P£RFORH TILE. WORK cont'd....
...Hanuals ia essential ~o enable the incumbent to act as the
~t~nis~ry expert ~hen coemunice:i~¢ po~cies, procedures and/or
~eg~a~a:ed re~u{re~en:s :o various indusLry associations, other
Hinistrtes~ enforcement agencies, professionals, parliamentary
E~ce]]ent Judgemen: is essentia~ to enable the incumbent to assess
the v~rtous driver :raintn8 &nd :eating programs and :o ma~e sound
recommendations for remedial action.
Excellent tn:erpersonal skills are necessary Lo maintain numerous
professional relationships with individuals both interna~ and
Excellent working knowledge oi the pro~edarea for evalua~in~ the
dr/yin8 skills of drivers of motor vehicles o[ all cla~ses.
Good oral and ~ritten communication skills are essential ~o record
c2ear~ concise reports of in~pecL~on and contact reports with
Good understanding o~ the ro~ea amd functions o~ al~ program users
and offices are a prerequisite to enable :ha incumbent ~o respond
or initiate acL/on,on a dai~ b~sis.
Thorou&h knawled&e of program scope in order Lo uncove~
irre&alari~ies and to ensure conformity comprehension and uniformiLy
in eeeLing Pro8ram requirements.
Skilled a~ conducting and delivering seminars ~orkshop~ Lraininl
Ability to ~ork boLh {ndependentl~ ~ith minimal supervision
participate as a team member.
Ab~21Ly to access .:he Dr~ver Systec using on-line compiler
Valid Ontario dr~ver's ~cence and a &ODd dr~vtng re~o~d.
Ability Lo qualify for a minimum of a clsss O licencdL