HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-2712.Napoleone.93-10-05'c
It, 4, ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONIVE
.: CROWN EMPLOYEES ' DE L*ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT· REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DLINDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2700; TOF~ONTO, ONTAR/O. MSG 1Z8 'TELEPHONE/T~L~PHONE; (476)$26-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OLIEST. BUREALI .7~'O0. TORONTO (ONTARIO), MSG 1Z8 FACSIMILE/T~{.£COP[E : (4 J6) 326-1396
2712/91
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
.under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Napoleone)
' Grievor
- and-
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Government Services)
Employer
BEFORE: M; Gorsky Vice-Chairperson
E. Seymour· Member
D. Mon~rose' Member
FOR THE E. Mitchell
UNION Counsel
Koskie & Minsky .
Barristers & SoliCitors
FOR THE S. Patterson
EMPLOYBR Counsel
Legal Services Branch
· Management Board of Cabinet
HE~RIN~ September 28, 1992
September 21, 1993
DECISION
'The Grievor, Tony Napoleone, was at all material times
employed at the Ministry's offices at 1201 Wilson Avenue,
Downsview, Ontario (the "Downsview Centre"), and had th~ position
title of Peripheral Operator with the acting classification of Data
Processing Technician 4 (DPT4). On October 28, 1991, he filed a
grievance as a resu]t of his not being awarded one of seven Senior
Peripheral Operator positions classified as Data Processing
Technician 5 (DPTS). He requested that he be,awarded one of the
positions posted retroactive to the day when'the present incumbents
were appointed.
The posting (Exhibit 3) was with respect to seven positions
and is as follows:
Required by the Ministry of Government Services, Toronto
Production/Development Centres. You will: provide
peripheral services such as tape, printing, I/O
scheduling, and bindery services; identify and resolve
.peripheral related problems to _ensure critical
availability, performance, and turnaround targets are
met; ensure quality control standards are enforced and
provide backup console services for MVS/ESA operating
systems and database applications. Services are provided
.on a rotating shift basis 24 hours/day, 365 days/years.
QUALIFICATIONS:
Extensive knowledge of c6mputer operations principles and
practices with particular emphasis on peripheral
equipment performance and maintenance in a computer
service bureau environment. Ability to develop backup
console operations skills. Superior, communication,
interpersonal, leadership, and training skills. Ability
to handle.and manoeuvre large quantities of print stock.
2
The seven successful Candidates for the 'posted positions were:
Bernie'Albano, Nick Nicastro, Vince' Francella, Clint Wilson~ Tony
Gallucci, Sandra Ansell. and Gary Fallis.. All of the incumbents
were given notice of the hearing and of their right to attend and
participate. All of them, save Messrs. Francella and Fallis,
attended on the first day of the hearing, being September 28, 1992.
Only Mr. Wilson attended on the secon~ day of the hearing on
September 21, 1993.
As noted, the Grievor, at the material times, worked at the
Employer's Downsview Centre, where the Production Unit was located.
Other of the posted positions would be filled at the Employer's
Development Unit, located at it's Queen's Park' Centre, with Both
units being part of the Employer's Computer and Telecommunications
Services Division.
The position specification and class allocation form with
respect to the posted position (Exhibit 5) is annexed, hereto as
Appendix 1,
The position specification and class allocation form ~ith
respect to the position that was occupied by the Grievor on an
acting basis is annexed as Appendix 2. .
The competition was open to all classified and unclassified
Computer and Telecommunication Services Division staff within
3
commuting distance of Toronto, and 14 internal candidates who
applied for the positions were interviewed on.October 3 and 4', 1991
and on October 16,.1991;
The interview panel was made up of Ken Raymond, the OPerations
Supervisor of the Production Centre at Downsview, Jim Heard, the
Operations Supervisor at the Development Centre at Queen's Park,
and Monique Wimmer-Kronis, aL Human Resources Officer with the
Employer working at its ~head office. Mrs. Wimmer-Kronis was
appointed to the panel because of her exRertise in'the running of
competitions. All of the candidates were internal ones, and the
Emplgyer was not only interested in running a fair competition but,
as well, in having the competition appear to be fair.
Each of the candidates~ were aske~ the questions set-out in
Exhibit 7, and the members of the panel individually scored'the
candidates in accordance with 'the marking scheme also set out in
that~exhibit, with~the scores arrived at by the individual members
of the panel being averaged. There was no significant objection
taken to the content of the questionsiused ~n the interview, the
marking scheme or with respect to the test marks awarded.
The .average score of each of the successful candidates and
their seniority date is as follows:
~' 1. S. Ansell 78.6 9/88
4
2. G. Fallis 69.3 1981
3. V. Francella 68.6 11/89
4. N. Nicastro 60.0 5/89
5. T, Gallucci 56.3 2/89
6. C. Wilson 53.0 11/72
7. B. Albano 47.3 1976
The members of the panel identified the "top candidates"
agreeable to all of them as ~being S. Ansell, G. Fallis and V.
Francella. The.qualitY of 'their answers as reflected in their
scores were viewed as clearly differentiating them from ali of the
other, candidates in terms of their qualifications and ability ~o
perform the duties of the posted position, and a decision was made
to recommend their appointment.
The panel regarded the answers to the test questions of N.
Nicastro (score 60') 'and T. Gallucci (score 56.3) to be "more
complete and accurate" than those of C. Wilson (score~ 53),
DiCarlo (score 52), G. Tremblay (score 51), T. Napoleone (score 49)
and B. Albano (score 47.3), and concluded that their qualifications
and ability to perfOrm the required duties of the posted position
was substantially greater than those of the last named candidates.
Accordingly, the panel unanimously agreed to recommend their
appointment to the poBted positions.
6
considered as the determining factor in any contest between them.
We are satisfied that the Grievor and the successful
candidates Wilson and Albano were relatively equal in terms of
their qualifications and ability to perform the required duties,
and, accordingly, the seniority of Mr. Wilson being 1972 and Mr.
Albano 1976, they were properly recommended for appointment over
the Grievor who had a 1986 seniority date.
Was there a basis for differentiating the successful
candidates Nicastro and Ga]]ucci, in terms of qualifications and
ability to perform the required duties, from the Grievor, as the
panel had done?
The jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board on the
expected standards in a job competition were summarized by Vice-
Chairperson Samuels in MacLellan and DeGrandis, 506/81 etc. At
pp. 25-26:
The jurisprudence of this Board has established various
criteria by which to judge a selection process:
1. Candidates must be evaluated on all the relevant
qualifications for the job as set out in ·the
Position Specification.
2. The various methods used to assess the candidates
should address these relevant qualifications
insofar as is possible. For example, interview
questions and evaluation forms should cover all the
qualifications.
3. Irrelevant factors should not be considered.
5
The panel regarded the answers of the candidates Wilson,
DiCarlo, Tremblay, Napoleone and Albano to be "basically the same
within acceptable range of points," and on the basis of the
seniority' dates of Messrs. Wilson and Albano, recommended their
appointment to the remaining two of the posted position. .That is,
their qualifications and ability to perform the duties of the
posted position were regarded as being relatively equal to those of
the candidates with whom they were grouped so as to warrant
consideration being given to the seniority dates of the candidates.
It was also indicated that, in addition to seniority, attention was
given to reference checks' Carried out by Mr. Raymon~ in
recommending the appointment of the sixth and seventh successful
candidates. Such attention as was given to'reference checks appears
to have been limited to discovering if there was a significant
negative reference. Otherwise, the references were given little if
any weight.
We are satisfied from the evidence that the successful
candidates: Ansell, Fallis' and Francella had demonstrated
substantially greater qualifications ~and ability to perform the
required duties and, hence, it was unnecessary for the Employer ~o
consider seniority ia their cases. In the case of the successful
candidate, Fallis, we are satified that even if his qualifications
and ability to perform the required duties were only relatively
equal to those of the Grievor, hi~ greater seniority could be
6
considered as the determining factor in any contest between them.
We are satisfied that the Grievor and the successful
candidates Wilson and Albano were relatively equal in terms of
their qualifications and ability to perform the required duties,
and, accordingly, the. seniority of Mr. Wilson being 1972 and Mr.
Albano 1976, they were properly recommended for appointment over
the Grievor who had a 1986 seniority date.
Was there a basis for differentiating the successful
candidates Nicastro and Gallucci, in terms of qualifications and
ability to perform the required duties, from the Grievor, as the
panel had done?
The juri~.~d~ction of the Grievance Settlement Board on the
expected standards in a job competition were sumamarized by Vice-
Chairperson Samuels in MacLe!lan and DeGrandis, 506/81 etc. At
pp. 25-26:
The jurisprudence of this Board has established various
criteria by which to judge a selection process:
1. Candidates must be evaluated on all the relevant
qualifications for the job as set out in the
Position Specification.
2. The various methods used to assess the candidates
should address these relevant qualifications
insofar as is possible. For example, interview
questions and evaluation forms should cover all the
qualifications.
3. Irrelevant factors should not be considered.
4. All the members of a selection committee should
review the personnel files of all the applicants.
5. The applicants" supervisors should be asked for
their evaluations of the applicants.
6.' Information should be accumulated in a systematic
way'concerning all the applicants.
See Remark, 149/77; Quinn, 9/78; Hoffman, 22/79;
Ellsworth et al, 361/80; ahd Cross, 339/81.
The evidence disclosed that there were approximately 350
employees in the Computer and Telecommunication Services Division
at the time of the~ grievance, of whom approximately 30 were
operators. Operators are divided into two groups: console and
peripheral.
Prior to 1989 there were a number of different classifications
carrying out the console operator function. After reorganization
in 1989, all of the console operators were reclassified as DPT7's,
and were, thereafter, referred to as. Integrated Operators.
A similar reorganization took place in 1991 with respect to
the peripheral operators and, thereafter, noone was placed within
the DPT3 classification, with all former DPT3's being made, at
least, DPT4's. As new positions occurred, those that would
formerly have been posted to be filled by DPT3's were posted to be
filled at the DPT4 level.
It was as a result of the 1991 reorganization that the DPT5
classificatibn came into existence and the~posting in this case
8
involved an opportunity for lower classified DPT's to apply for
advancement to the DPT5 class'ification. The ,effect of the
reorganization is shown in Exhibit 4 where the team structure was
changed.so that there would be four DPT7's, two DPT5's and two to
three DPT4's on each team along with a Shift Supervisor.
The Grievor's history with the Employer is as follows:
1.. He was first employed as an unclassified employee at the
Downsview Centre in .June of 1985 as .a DPT2. This situation
continued Until February of 1986, with the Gri~vor's employment ·
continuing under a series of term contracts.
2. In September of 1986, the Grievor was employed as a member of
the unclassified service under contract as a DPT3 at the Queen's
Park Centre.
3. As a result of his being successful in a job competition in
1986, the Grievor. was appointed to the classified service as a DPT3
at the Downsview Centre.
.4. One of the responsibilities of the Grievor was to instruct new
employees as they came onto his team.
5. In August of 1990 the Grievor was assigned to an actint DPT4
position, which he held until july of 1991. In this capacity he
9
had some training and instructional 6bligations with respect to
DPT3's on his team. Although it was submitted by the Union that he
had supervisory functions, we find that what he did, in addition to
the functions described, was to assist DPT3's~with work. related
problems encountered by them.
6. In July of 1991, the Grievor commenced a leave of absence as
a result of a recurrence of a work-related injury and was in
receipt of WCB benefits.
7. ~In August of 1991,. the Grievor applied for the posted
position.
The duties and responsibilities of the Grievor during the
approximately one year period that he occupied the ~cting DPT4
position were quite similar to those provided for in the DPT5
position specification, the significant difference being the
percentage of time spent on'the duties and responsibilities and the
involvement in a back-up role with respect to the console.
The Grievor testified that the DPT3's and 4's performed the
same work but that the 4's had certain additional responsibilities
in relation to the ~training of and assistance to 3's, the
establishing of the peripheral rotation, and monitoring the
performance of work by DPT3'-s to see that the scheduled work was
completed.
10
in Exhibit 25, the evaluator, Janet O'Grady, indicated that
position had been classified as DPT4 because:
I have classified this position ~n accordance with the
Civil Service Commission Classification standards for the
.following reasons:
Stronger than DPT3-1 for the following reasons:
A. Position requires an extensive general knowledge of
computer operations in order to provide expert
technical advice to .less experienced workforce.
B. Guidelines.are loosely defined, and some initiative
and discretion is required to plan course of
action., determine permissible deviations from
standards and resolve processing problems.
C.' Supervision is general and work is not. subject to
immediate verification or check. Errors are n6t
usually'immediately apparent, and may be serious in
that they could result in considerable
embarrassment and/or substantial financial loss.
The Employer relied on the fact that the DPt5 position
required an incumbent to be able to perform certain backupconsole
operations functions. Exhibit 3 Provides: "Ability to develop
backup console operations skills."
The Grievor was asked Whether he had, as an acting .DPT4,
backed up the console operator and replied that he could not recal4
if he had done so. However, in Exhibit 13, which is the Grievor's
performance appraisal dated February 17, 1991, his supervisor,
Brian Ford, states: "Tony has often helped out with console duties
as required~" We are satisfied that if this statement was
incorrect, the Employer would have ~called Mr. Ford to explain. The
11
Grievor did testify, however, that he had obtained training with
respect.to console operations'in the course of one shift per week.
In Exhibit 13, under "Demonstrated Areas Of Strength," the
appraisal states:
Tony has excellent skills in maintaining and monitoring
peripheral devices. He also has the skills required to
diagnose problems. Tony has done an acceptional (~ic)
job of training juniors and provides supervision in the
print, tape and I/O areas when required. Tony has often
helped out with console duty as ~equired.
We are' satisfied that the wo'rd "acceptional" was meant to read
"exceptional" but that there was a misspelling of that word and
reject any suggestion that it was meant to be "acceptable." If the
latter word was intended, we would expect the Grievor's supervisor
to have been called to so testify.
In Exhibit 13, under "Areas Requiring Development," the
following .appears:
Tony requires training in overall systems perspectives.
This would include the controlling of the system through
MVS and JES. With these skills Tony will be .able to
participate more fully at the console. Tony should
start training in the IMS , and .CICS areas, on an
introductory level.
The Grievor testified that he had, thereafter, been trained on the
MVS at an outside training site, at the Employer's expense.
According to the Grievor, he was familiar with the skills and
qualifications required as set out in Exhibit 5 and stated that he
had performed most of them as a DPT4. He regarded the principal
12
difference between the DPT4 and 5 positions as arising from the
greater time spent on the c~nsole by a DPTS.
It was put to the Grievor, in cross-examination, that
approximately 20~per cent of a DPT5's time was to be spent on
learning about and performing backup on the console. He replied
that this responsibility took up between five and ten per cent of
his time When he was an acting DPT4,. and he did not regard the
difference in percentage as significant ~n terms of his ability to
perform the function or to be trained 'to do.so at a higher level.
Ken Raymond testified on behalf of the Employer. Mr'. Raymond
has been with' the Employer for 17 years and is the Operations
Coordinator in the Toronto Production Centre at Downsview. The
responsibility of t. he Data Centre is to provide computer and
telecommunication services for various .ministries, boards 'and
agencies.
Mr. Raymond confirmed that in 1989 a reorganization of console
positions resulted in senior operators, who'had been classified'as
DPT5, 6 and 7, being classified as DPT7. He referred to the
combining of the positions as being intended to create an
integrated operator position of DPT7.
13
,The result of' the integration was to provide peripheral
operators'with an opportunity to obtain' an enhanced knowledge base
and the senior position was reclassified to DPT5. The significant
difference identified by Mr. Raymond was that incumbents classified
as DPT5 would be 'expected to spend 20 per cent of their time on
backup console duties, which duty was not provided for in the
previous DPT4 job description. DPT5's would then be expected to
obtain training in online data base areas, networks and Multiple
Virtual Systems ("MVS") areas. Mr. Raymond regarded this change in
the job description as being significant because the operator's
would work under the.supervision of an integrated DPT7 and/or Shift
Supervisor. -
Y.
It is not without significance that Exhibit 5 is consistent
with the job posting in stating that an incumbent to the DPT5
position is required: "To train to a standard where backup console
operations can be provided on and act as required basis in an MVS,
CICS, IMS, network, etc. operating environment."'
Mr. Raymond testified that at the end of each interview the
test answers were individually scored and the answers discussed,
and, as noted, the final score of each candidate was based on the
average of the individual scores of the panel members.
14
He also testified that he performed the reference checks with
respect to the candidates and Ms. Wimmer-Kronis was. responsible for
examining the performance appraisals.
Mr. Raymond also acknowledged that the language of Exhibit'25
and Exhibit 5 is quite similar.
At the time of the .interviews, Mr, Raymond did not know, nor
apparently did the other members of the panel, whether any of the~
panelists had console room experience. He anticipated that the
successful candidates would have to be trained in the additional
responsibility related to the console room.
Mr. Raymond was asked if the panel would give special
consideration to An applicant who had. demonstrated initiative in
acquiring console skills. From his answer it was difficult to know
whether they would. He stated that he had looke4 thrqugh the
applications to see if applicants had'such-trai~ing but could not
remember what he had found or how it might have affected his view
of the candidates. He did say that if he had found an applicant to
have had such experience he "probably" would have taken it into
consideration, although from his further answers it appears that
this would only be for the purpose of deciding whether to grant an
interview.
15
He acknowledged that a DPT4 was higher in classification than
a DPT3 and had some quasi-supervisory function, and would be
required to act as the first line 'resource person to furnish
guidance to DPT3's. Although he agreed that the DPT4 position was
the closest one to the DPT5 position, Mr. Raymond did not' regard
this to be of any significance when considering the qualifications
of the applicants, most of whom were DPT3's.
Mr. Raymond stated that it was only after the interviews that
any review was conducted of references, or performance appraisals,
and that any information that he would have about an applicant's
console room experience would have to have'been obtained at the
interview. It was apparent that at the time of the'interwiews Mr.
Raymond had no recollection of any performance appraisals that he
had previously read with respect to any of the applicants who were
under his supervision. He acknowledged that the Performance
appraisals would have been received by him' and would have been
perused, but any information contained appears to have disappeared
from his consciousness by the time of the interview. ~
It was also Clear from the evidence of Mr. Raymond and Ms.
Wimmer-Kronis, being the only members of the panel who gave
evidence, that they regarded the results of the interview as the
only significant measure of an applicant's qualifications and
ability. Both of them regarded reference checks and performance
appraisals as being of limited ~alue because of a perception of
16
possible biases on the part of an applicant's supervisor. It was
apparent that Mr. Raymond had little.recollection of the reference
checks that he had conducted, and he had only the sketchiest of
recollections of his discussions with Ms. Wimmer-Kronis concerning
the performance appraisals that she had referred to. Neither he
nor Ms. Wimmer-Kronis could recall when, or if,~there had been a
meeting Of the entire panel to discuss and review the references
and performance appraisals. .They both'said .that if there had not
been a meeting, then they probably discussed the matter over the
telephone when information was exchanged. They concluded that the
reference checks and performance appraisals, of the candidates were
approximately equal and then relied on the test results. Fr6m
their evidence we do not know whether the third member of the panel
was ever involved in discussing, in whatever manner, the
performance appraisals and reference checks.
It appears to us that Mr. Raymond and Ms. Wimmer-Kronis gave
little attention to either the reference checks or the performance
appraisals. In fact, a large number of the performance appraisals
were never produced, and there was some confusion on their part as
to whether performance 'appraisals were located for many of the
applicants. Only a few of them were produced at the hearing,
although there had been an undertaking to do so.
There was no suggestion that the competition was carried out
in bad faith, and we find no evidence in that !regard. We are
17
satisfied that the panel.did its job honestly. However, we have a
considerable concern as to whether they did their jo~ completely.
The evidence that we heard indicates the importance of a panel
keeping a record of its proceedings in the form of a log or
minutes. We understand how difficult it is to remember events that
took place a considerable time ago. Because no Such log or minutes
were apparently kept, Ms. Wimmer-Kronis and Mr. Raymond appeared to
be relying, in large measure, on their memories of events that had
takenfplace in August and September ~f 1991. Where they had
nothing with which to.refresh their memories when they failed them,
~hey frequently had to rely on what "probably" happened.
What we are left with is evidence of a competition where we
have not been'satisfied that a proper, examination and review was
'conducted of the applicants' performance reviews, nor are we
Satisfied that other than a perfunctory reference check was made
about the qualifications and ability of the applicants with respect
to the performance of the required duties of the posted position.
We are dealing with a position that is, in many respects, similair
to the one the Grievor had successfully filled' for approximately
one year. Tests have their place in evaluating the qualifications
and ability of candidates for posted position, but so do
performance evaluations and reference checks. Where the latter are
given short shrift, as we find they were in the case before
especially where they could provide valuable objective evidence of
actual experience that ~ould bear on an applicants qualifications,
18
it would be difficult to avoid concluding that the carrying out of
the competition was seriously flawed.
It is evident that Mr. Raymond and Ms. Wimmer-Kronis have
confidence in their conclusion that a test is objective and, hence,
more reliable than evidence of actual experience and work
performance. In the absence of actual evidence that a supervisor's
appraisal or a reference check of a supervisor is flawed because of
bias, there 'is no reason to disregard them or to discount them as
appears to have been done in this case. There is a good reason for
maiataining the importance of ~appraisals and refernce ~ehecks as
important indicators of qualifications and ability along with te~t
results. It is important to recall that the tests used to assess
qualifications and ability pursuant to art. 4.3 have not been
subjected to rigorous validation procedures which would indicate
that' they are more likely to predict success on the job than
evidence of actual job performance and skills acquired. Tests have
long been accepted as a legitimate source of information relating
to a candidate's qualifications and ability to perform the required
duties of a vacancy. The results of tests must, however, be
utilized along with other significant information, and ought not
to be relied upon to the extent that they were in this case without
an adequate consideration of other available information.
From our examination of the Grievor's per'formance review
(Exhibit 13) and of his work history, it appears that the panel did
not give sufficient attention to them in order to obtain a more
complete picture relating to his qualifications'and ability. The
length of time that he spent as an acting DPT4 and the relationship
of the DPT4 position to that of the posted position appears to have
been largely ignored by the panel.
We can only conclude that there was a lack of comple4teness on
the part of the panel in carrying out its obligations under the
collective agreement to evaluate the qualifications and ability of
the applicants. If they had done so they could only have concluded
that the Grievor was relatively equal in qualifications and ability
to four of the successful candidates, N. Nicastro, T.~Gallucci, ~
Wilson and B. Albano. He is senior to both of Messrs. Nicastro and
Gallucci, Mr. Nicastro's seniority being May of 1989 and Mr.
Gallucci's, February of 1989.- Mr. Napoleone was the only person to
g~ieve the competition, and for.' the reasons above stated, we order
that he be awarded the position that had been granted to Mr'.
Nicastro on the basis of a consideration of the Grievor's length of
continuous service. Because of the lengh of time that has elapsed
since the positions were awarded, we do not regard this as an
appropriate case to order a re-run of the competition.
Our award will be retroactive to the date of Mr. Nicastro"s
appointment. We shall retain jurisdiction to deal with any
difficulties the parties may encounter in implementing this award.
20
Dated at Toronto this 5th day of October, 1993.
M. Gorsky - Vice Chairperson
~:. S~eymour - ~ember
D. Montrose - Member
? ';~.~ . ~U~,'~ ~ , //~ ~ (Relier tO back o{ f~ /~r completion
ute onty '
Minis~ of Govc~ent S~iccs' Computer ~d Telecommunication
O~fions, %torito ~clo~cnt ~tm 25 ~CnOC, Toronto 69~01
~ P~e G~ ~omion {why doe~ i~i~ ~Ositlon exlSt?l
. Duties and retard ~$ks (~at Is gmoloyee reauir~ tO ~, hOW end why? inOi¢ate per~nta~ of ~ime s~nt on ea.,* ".
Pwvidcs Pc~ob¢~] S¢~ic~ By:
-. Me, toting, imc~fiag ~d ~s~ndizg to consol~ m~sag~s ~t~nlng.to ta~, pdmen, ~ders/p=ch to
~ow for m~imum ~fficiency M providing R~c m~sary ~fiphe~ msouges t0 ~um se~i~ level
~ met on a ~isgm
cxccu6on ~d ou~ut activities.
- PedDling p~ut mla~d activiti~, su~ ~, loadin~stdpping pdnt¢~, ~ l~er ~ impact
i~a~on of pfi~ b~ds, loading tonertdevelo~r, pfin~r getup. E~u~s qu~ity con~l of printed out~t
eontinu~y :aa~taM~d by ~g print clarity on ~1 ~pics, p~r ~i~¢nt, crc.
- ~ufing m~ar p~vcn~fivc malntcng~c~, ~ s~cified in operating main~nanee pro~umS, activities Me
c~cd out on ~ ~fip~ equipment to ensure 0p~mm o~ratMg lcvcls ~ m~nmMed ~fl ~at my
equipment m~f~ction is ~ ~mcdiatcly to ~ shift su~isor.
. Emu~s qu~ity ~n~l mea~r~ ~ adh~d 1o.
- P~vidc d~oBating ~d bu~ting ge~i~s fl~ougl: ~e usc of instatled equipment.
-Provide fi~t l~vel p~blem ~lving m~ysis of fi~t level ~dpheral cquipn~nt m~M~tcfion m}d e~=Ct on
p~ccgsing. Refe~ ~fious p~bl~ms to MfiR su~wt~r..
20% R~nsible for terminating ~c provision of ~fiphenl o~mti0ng se~ices bY ~ffo~i~ such tasks a~:
. Pmvi~ ~ning in ~ o~mlion ~d maintcn~ of ~fipbc~l equipmcut to junior s~, co-op atu~cn~, ¢~,
- Ensu~ ~at ~uipm~t manuals ~d pm~du~s am available ~d
i - Re~cplo~ont of ~d~¢ml staff dc~nd~t u~n wo~0ad at,/or ~mplexlfic$ to ¢[~um s¢~ic¢ level
arge~ m met for ~pfin~ng. ~tinDdemllating activities.
" Conlinu~ Page 2
, Skill* shd knowledge required to ~edorm idb at ~ull working revel. {l~d;¢ete ~n~tary ~enilals or lieenm, It
, ~lg,arur~ Jm~u~Js~ ' Olv ~Ofllk Yei~ ~ ~ [ gffy Month
~ D~ [ l~mi~L Director O~ations ~r~'
~ ~ [ ' ' ' - Etf~ri~date
;. ~[311 $llo~tion Cla~ ziUi ~[a~.g~ 0~u~tionll.~r :'~S numar Day MOnth
.; ' ~uat~ ~ D~ 5-1 knchn,itk for e,c lOaowing m~o~:
,.. Requires $i~fi~..t s~ci~z~ t~ning tn vadbus as~c~ of comput~ o~mtiom.
~cm is comidemblc Iad~dc wi~in a v~cty of ~t~mafivcs for pt~ing s~cific ~u~s of action, devising new
'. p~dums ~d ~solving problems pwsent~ by non. murine
Works undcr .. gc~ ~wision, wo~ Is subject to oMy ~fl~ic c~ck, em~m c~t ~ dCt6ct~ immolate.
' ~ " ' " · ~L'
~ · '~ ~ ~' ..
·
deveZo~menc e~d ~a~n~n~ im~ic~t~o~ o~ ~e~ ~e~ea~es o~ ey~C~m control pro~:ems, c~a~e
~xte~a~ - ~endo~$, ~echni~ spe~l~8~$.' sofB~are 8¥sce~ ~n~inee~ to ~e£i~e ?~oble~s
~c~ine ~nsua~e ~eve~. Goo~ k~o~Ze&~e of ~e ~yst~m ¢o~croZ pro~ra~, its
- ~us~ ~ave ~ood ~o~ed~e o~ '~ob co~cco~ setup
- Must have Bood knowledge of data structure~ and access methods.
- Good knowledge of the interactions of application ~rograms with the system control
programs,
b) Work Complexities
- Variety ... The incumben[ BUSt provide ~¢¢hnical knowledge in the maintenance
dcvelo~menc implementation and troubleshootin~ of system control pro;' '-s and o~he~
r."'~ed software; provides technical expertise
,,t':. ~embers of CTSD and the user community
de,ermine pNoblam causes and so~u~ions'unde~ cigh~ ~im~ coustcain~s.
Pr~-dete~minact~. and ~estin~ of po~enclal ~roblauw and ~h~lr e[[ec~ on ~ha
operating environment. Application of required solutions Co prevenC/avoid~correcc
problems. Planning for the installation of ne~ systemS.
control 9roarams and other software suppo[c =esponsibilities. Decides con=sa of
action to restbre sof~ware and/or sy~e~ con,roi pro,rams which cause So--ices
interruptions, Plans for the lmplemeota[ion of ne~ systems.
- Importance o[ Errors - E:ro?s itt judgement or implemeucatioll oi new systems could
result in loss o[ system availability., thus affecting ~ervice delivery. Customers
add o[her CTSD personnel could be affected by
Use on~y .....
Senior Peripheral Open,tar ¢ PT
Mtntatty D[vl~lon
Governmen[ Services Compu[er & Te]eco~un~ca[fons 5e~vfces
~nch end Section Locttlon ~Oe~. Loc. Co~
TorOntO Produc[ton Centre, Ope~a[to~s S~. 1201 H11s'0n Ave, D0~nsvte~ 169501
'No, al p~cet IProvldes ~Oup lildiflhlp to:
I Sbt fl Superyfso~
· . . .
2. Purpose al politlan twhy doel init potllton e.h~J
To o~mte ~Hphcral cqulpment and ensure d~c provision o~ cffcciivc ~dphc~l so,ices In a compu[cr sc~lcc bureau
cnvimmncn( o~ra~ing 24 nm/day. 7 day,week. 365 day~xcar.' To cnsu~ maximum ~r[o~cc ]~vels am
mcr and quaiity control si~dards/or output am malntat~ at a ~nsistanfly high icrc1. To ~sist wi~ U~c ~ining
junior ~riphcrat o~mlom.'
3, Outlet and related taski {whll Jl Imp1oyll requited to do, how end why7 In,call plrclntlOe o~ lime Iplnt on II~ duly1
R~nslbto for W~idln~ P~Tpherai g~ic~ ~:
- MonilO~lt8. ?nt~lin8 ~d ~spon~ing Io co~olo m~g~ pc~alnh~8 to la~, printers, tc~dc~unch to s~tow For mashnum
c~ci~cy in providin8 Lbo n~s~ p~ph~a] ~c~ to c~ ~)~ level largcls sro h~t on I c~[sl~t
- RclHc~ns, mounting ~d filln8 mnsn~ic I~ ca~g~ta in ~p~so lo la~ ~u~ts to supra j~ cx~ul)on ~d
acdvit~.
- Pcffe~in8 p~nT ~]at~ activili~, ~c]l u, loa~in~sITtpp~n8 prJnlen, ~lh laser ~n~ impact l~hnolosy), insll]]ation at print
~&~s, 1old,n8 Im~ffdevclo~t, p~ntcr sesup. ~tes ~atity ~n~ot oF ~nted oulpul is contlnua]ty ma)n~a[n~ by ch~in
prTnt clair7 ~ a~t coplcs, prier ellgtmTent.
- ~uTin8 rcSUt~ prcvcnladv~ msiflt~an~, u s~)~ In op~a[inS mainlenan~ pr~uTcs, Icfivltie3 a~ c~ out on
pcHpimr~[ ~uipm~t to ~ns~o o~[imum o~.clng Ic~ls aD maintsin~ anG ;~mt an~ ~uip~nl ma][~cfion Ja rc~
- Provide ~ollalJn8 ~d ~ndnE s~Jc~ d~mu~ ~e u~ Of [~Jtl~ ~uig~L
10% - A~ist with ~ai~flg in the op~s[[~ ~ meinlcn~ al ~Hph=al ~ulpm~t to Junlor s[aff, c~ stu~nts, et~ ~d~ ~e
, 8uid~ca or the s~ior opmat~ and shiR
. E~o Ihal ~u[pm~t manuals ~d p~u~ ~e available ~d
- Ai]~ale ~ph~] r~ourc~ dependant up~ war, load anWor ~mptcxiti~ to c~um sc~t~ lcd] targcll ~ ~t
tap~finlins, ~t~n~DllalJn8 JcJlvJt;~
- A~Jsl wj~ t~c ~alualion ~d ~]~ta]]afion al ~w p~ph~ ~ui~nL
~ov[dln8 [~oUlput ~ic~, such ~, scp~alion ~ dls~butlon oF p~nled ampul, shlpplng-oulput end ~elv~n8 tnpuL
enFo~Jng ~uHly pt~edums conc~in8 ~mput~ r~ a~, ~si~tlng cli~ by vC~fyin8 jab slUus, ~nd ~din8
cli~t cnquiti~.
- Assistin8 ~o ~.la ]i~ by pulling ~d filling c~i6g~ls rr~ TMS l~st;ngs, cg: s~a~ch Iisi.
~o - Pcffo~ auxilli~ duties u usiBn~.
4. Skills and k.owledoe faqu~ted to pedo~m Job at full working level. {l~te mendetmy cr~e~tlelt o~ lights, If
· ~eff S~,i'th~ Dttectot Operations Br.
D.y Momh YeJr
' Data Processing Technician 4 31506 0A-0DP 22 j 04 I gl
Stronger ~han OPT3-Z for the foT1ow(ng reasons:.
~1 POSfttOfl requires an extensive general knowledge of computer operations tn order to provtde
expert techntcaT advice to less exper~ence~ ~orkforce.
e. GuJdellnes are loosel~ deftne~, and some Initiative an~ dlscrettofl ts'required to plan course
of actfon, dete~tne pe~1sslb)e deviations from standards and resolve processtn9 problems.
e. Supervfston ts ~eneral and work ts not subject to J~e~ta~e vertffcatton or check. Errors are
not usualT~ t~edtately apparenT, an~ may be serious in that they coutd resu)t tn cons~derobl
embarrassment and/or substanti&l flnanctal ~oss.
DIy Month Year
I
Jane:
O'Grady