Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-2488.Wilson.94-05-18 \ .0"\- I \ ''II ~"'. <t!!e ~ ONTAAtd EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE , SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100. TORONTO, ONTARIO, M50 lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONe (416) 326-1388 180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396 , 2488/92 I IN THE KATTE:R OF AN ARBITRAT.ION I I Under I I THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT I I Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Wilson) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) Employer I I BEFORE: M Gorsky Vice-Chairperson I W. Rannachan Member I M O'Toole Member I I FOR THE S. Watson GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE F. Gallop EMPLOYER Counsel Filion, Wakely & Thorup Barristers & Solicitors HEARING: August 11, 1993 February 4, 1994 April 21, 1994 April 22, 1994 -"" ~~ "".' ( '''''''\~ 2 D E CIS ION On October 13, 1992, the Grievor, Tom Wilson, filed a grievance in which he stated I grieve the Employer has contravened article 24 and any other applicable articles of the collective agreement The Grievor sought a declaration that the Employer had "violated article 24" and requested that he "be assigned to the position of RT4 consistent with article 24 6 1 with full retroactivity compensation with interest " For the purpose of this matter, the following are the relevant articles for consideration: 24 1 Where a lay-off may occur by reason of shortage of work or funds or the abolition of a position or other material change in organization, the identification of a surplus employee in an administrative district or unit, institution or other such work area and the subsequent assignment, displacement or lay-off shall be in accordance with seniority' subj ect to the condi tions set out in this Article. REDEPLOYMENT 24 6.1 Where an employee is identified as surplus he shall be assigned on the basis of his seniority to a vacancy in his ministry within a forty (40) kilometre radius of his headquarters provided he is qualified to perform the work and the vacancy is - in the same class or position as the employee's class or position; I l ___ - ______. __ _ __ _ _ .___ :~'~ .; /-- - 2 - - in a class or position in which the employee has served during his current term of continuous service, or - another vacancy DISPLACEMENT 24 9 1 Effective January 1, 1992, an employee who has completed his probationary period and who is subject to lay-off as a surplus employee, shall have the right to displace an employee who shall be identified by the Employer in the following manner and sequence (a) The Employer will identify the employee with the least seniority in the same class in which the surplus employee is presently working and if such employee has less seniority than the surplus employee, he shall be displaced by the surplus employee provided that such employee is in the same ministry and within a forty (40 ) kilometre radius of the headquarters of the surplus employee and provided that the surplus employee is qualified to perform the work of such employee, (b) If no employee in the same class has less seniority than the surplus employee, the Employer will identify the employee in the class in the same class series immediately below the class in which the surplus employee is presently working who has the least seniority and if he has less seniority than the surplus employee, he will be displaced by the surplus employee provided that such employee is in the same ministry and within a forty (40) kilometre radius of the headquarters of the surplus employee and provided that the surplus employee is qualified to perform the work of such employee, (c) Failing displacement under (a) or (b) the Employer will review the classes in the same class series in descending order until a class is found in which the -v-. , q:i - 3 - employee with the least seniority in the class has less seniority than the surplus employee In that event such employee will be displaced by the surplus employee provided that such employee is in the same ministry and within a forty ( 40) kilometre radius of the headquarters of the surplus employee and provided that the surplus employee is qualified to perform the work of such employee; ( d) Notwithstanding the above, in the event that there are one or more employees in one or more classes in another class series in which the surplus employee has served during his current length of continuous service who have less seniority than the surplus employee, the surplus employee will displace the employee with the least seniority in the class with the highest salary maximum (no greater than the current salary maximum of the surplus employee's class) and provided that the surplus employee has greater seniority than the displaced employee hereunder, provided that such employee is in the same ministry and within a forty < 40) kilometre radius of the headquarters of the surplus employee and provided that the surplus employee is qualified to perform the work of such employee Many of the facts were the subject of an "Aqreed statement Of Facts" which the parties submitted to the Board on April 22, 1994 In addition to the Agreed statement Of Facts, the Board has before it the evidence of the Grievor Findings of Fact On the basis of the evidence of the Grievor and of the Agreed statement of Facts, the Board finds as follows I -_._-~-- '(''0, r,^ - 4 - 1 The Grievor has a seniority date with the Ministry of March 23, 1981 (Exhibit 23) 2 Another employee of the Ministry, Dan Herries, has a seniority date with the Ministry of November 30, 1981.. (Exhibit 23) Mr Herries was given notice of his right to attend and participate in the hearing, qnd he did so attend and participate 3. The Grievor's position Specification & Class Allocation (Exhibit 8) is attached to this decision and marked as Appendix 1 4. The Grievor's immediate supervisor signed Exhibit 8 on AugUst 29, 1989 as did the Ministry official 5. The position title shown for the Grievor in Exhibit 8 is Assistant Park Superintendent/Conservation Officer His immediate Supervisor's title is shown as "Superintendent Bass Lake, Mara and McRae Point Provincial Parks," and his class allocation is shown as Resource Technician 4 Cons. Off. (Atypical), with the effective date being shown as November 25, 1987 The signature of the Authorized Evaluator is shown to have been made on September 1, 1989 6 The position Specification & Class Allocation which applies to Mr Herries (Exhibit 9) , a copy of which is annexed to this i decision as Appendix 2, shows an incumbent's position title to be ,...;~ 3'< - 5 - Conservation Officer. The immediate supervisor's title is shown to be Enforcement coordinator, and the Class Allocation is shown to be Resource Technician 4 Cons Off. The signature of the incumbent's immediate supervisor is shown to nave been made on July 13, 1989, with the signature of the Ministry official being made on July 14, 1989 The effective date of the Class Allocation is shown to be November 25, 1987. The signature of the Authorized Evaluator is shown to have been made on September 21, 1989 7 A reorganization wi thin the Ministry of Natural Resources took place in June of 1992 8. Prior to the reorganization, the Grievor's and Mr Herries' Administrative District was Huronia, Central Region 9 After reorganization they were part of the Midhurst Administrative District, Southern Region 10. The Grievor's class standard at all material times was that found in Exhibit 22. Exhibit 22 contains a copy of the Class Standard with respect to Resource Technician 4 - Conservation Officer 11 In 1985, the Grievor's duties were split between the Parks Program and the Fish and wildlife Program of the Ministry On December 6, 1985, he was appointed by the Ministry (Exhibit 3) as l \ - 6 - a conservation Officer pursuant to section 7(1) Game and Fish Act "for carrying out the Game and Fish Act and the regulations thereunder " In the memorandum from H Fordyce, the then Regional Director, Central Region, to the Executive Coordinator, Outdoor Recreation, (dated November 14, 1985) (Exhibit 2) attached to the letter recomending his appointment, there is a statement that the Grievor was then "Assistant Park Superintendent of Bass Lake Provincial Park, Huronia District and has a dual role in Fish and wildlife and Parks " 12 Between 1985 and 1992, the Grievor's duties continued to be split between the Parks Program and the Fish and wildlife Program. In the Parks Program his role was Assistant Parks Superintendent and in the Fish and Wildlife Program his role was as a Conservation Officer The Grievor would spend part of the year primarily assigned to the Parks Program and part of the year primarily assigned to the Fish and Wildlife Program He could undertake duties relating to the Fish and Wildlife Program while assigned t~ the Parks Program and vice versa He had a supervisor in each program and received performance appraisals, from each of them 13 The amount of time the Grievor spent on Conservation Officer duties varied from year to year. The parties agree that the approximate range of work time he spent during a year on Conservation Officer duties was between 50 and 75 per cent :<t'.:!' ~ - 7 - 14. Conservation Officer, Syd Sma 11 , prior to the June, 1992 reorganization, had primary responsibility for Tiny and Tay Townships within the Huronia Administrative District On at least two occasions, one being a fall-winter-spring period in either 1988-89 or 1989-90, and another being October 1991-April 1992, the Grievor, along with the performance of other duties, filled in for Mr. Small. Mr Small continued to perform duties in Tiny and Tay Townships during these time periods 15. From July 1989 to July 1991 the Ministry employed a bilingual Deputy Conservation Officer by the name of Julie Carter who was assigned to Tiny and Tay Townships This employee was inexperienced in enforcement and was present in a training capacity. She was providing a French language interpretive program to the public through the Tiny Marsh Provincial Wildlife area 16 Prior to the reorganization of June 1992, Conservation Officers were assigned to patrol areas in accordance with Exhibit 4 Mr Herries' patrol areas and duties stayed the same after reorganization Both before and after reorganization Mr Herries' spent 100 per cent of his work time engaged in the duties of a Conservation Officer. Some Conservation Officer patrol areas were cnanged after reorganization and Exhibit 24 is an accurate representation of the post-reorganization assignments I ---- '';',)., i I - 8 - Conservation Officers who were employed within a 40 km radius 17 of the Bass Lake Headquarters before reorganization were Jim Kitchen, Ken Evans, Syd Small, Randy Brooks, Tom Wilson and Dan Herries After reorganization Jim Kitchen, Ken Evans, Randy Brooks and Dan Herries were employed within a 40 km radius of the Bass Lake Headquarters A small part of Mr Small's post-reorganization patrol area remained within Tiny and Tay Townships. The majority of his patrol area is more than 40 km outside the radius from Bass Lake 18. In peak times or when circumstances required, it was usual for Conservation Officers to help out in other areas within the District. 19 Pre-reorganization there were position specifications for Conservation Officers in the district as follows. i) 3 Conservation officers based out of Bass Lake excluding the position specification marked as Exhibit 8 re the Grievor described in paragraph 5 herein (Messrs Brooks, I Evans and Kitchen); - I ii) 3 Conservation Officers based out of Earl Rowe Park I (Messrs. Browning, Dreyer, and Evers); /i':.~ ,j-. - 9 - iii) 2 Conservation Officers based out of the District Office (Messrs Small and Herries) These positions involved 100 per cent Conservation Officer duties 20. The Gr ievor was paid throughout the year at the rate of a Resource Technician - 4 Conservation Officer 21 As a result of the implementation of Minutes of Settlement with respect to GSB #497/85, all RT-3s for the Ministry of Natural Resources who were working as Conservation Officers, including the Grievor, and other persons listed in paragraph 19, above, were reclassified as RT4 CO and paid accordingly. 22 During the reorganization process, the Grievor's position was declared eliminated and he was declared surplus. After three months, he was placed in the position of Assistant Parks Supervisor, Bass Lake Provincial Park and his pay was red-circled 23. Prior to reorganization a draft District organization chart dated January 1992 for Midhurst (EXhibit 10) did not disclose a French language designation for the Conservation Officer positions listed. - t .}: 1; I - 10 - 24. Exhibit 11, being a March 1992 draft District organization chart for Midhurst showed one Conservation Officer position designated as French language in Area 5 (simcoe West) This area covered Tiny and Tay Townships 25. The seniority of the Grievor relative to Mr. Herries' seniority was not considered by the Ministry to be relevant in declaring him surplus 26. Prior to and during the reorganization process the Ministry provided certain written guidelines and information to employees about how the process would work These included Exhibits 12, 13 and 14 In addition, there was correspondence between the Grievor and the Ministry (Exhibits 16, 17, 18 and 21) regarding his particular situation. 27 Following reorganization, the staffing situation with respect to Conservation Officers was as shown in Exhibit 24, and no individual was assigned to Tiny, Tay and Flos Townships as a regular patrol 28 Mr wilson and Mr. Small had no difficulty in performing their Conservation Officer duties in Tiny and Tay Townships when they did them even though neither of them was bilingual x.:-- .; - 11 - 29 The Grievor is not capable of performing Conservation Officer duties in the French language 30. Tiny and Tay Townships have a French-speaking community Argument On Behalf Of The Union Mr Watson made the followin9 submissions, by way of argument, on behalf ,of the Union 1 However the matter was looked at, the Grievor's "class or position," within the meaning of article 24 6.1 was that of an RT4 CO, and the addition of the word "Atypical" could not change this reality, that designation never having been accepted or agreed to by him 2. The Employer was in violation of article 24 1 by failing to consider the Grievor's greater seniority to that of Mr Herries. 3 In the absence of any evidence from the Employer to show that it had in the "subsequent assignment displacement or layoff" applied seniority, as is required by art 24 1, it had failed to demonstrate that it had properly administered that article -~ '< t - 12 - 4 Although there was no dispute that the Employer had properly designated the Conservation Officer position for Tiny and Tay Townships as requiring a French language capability, it was disputed that this was called for by any provision of the collective agreement or by the policy and procedure guidelines issued by it. Th~ Employer had never properly applied its mind to whether the Grievor could, notwithstanding the French language service designation, properly perform his duties and responsibilities as a Conservation Officer without such a capability. 5. The effect of the reorganization in June of 1992 was to create vacancies for all of the Conservation Officer positions in the District There being a vacancy within the meaning of article 24.6 1, the Grievor, being "in the same class or position" as the vacant Conservation Officer positions, should have been assigned to one "on the basis of his greater seniority" to Mr Herries 6. Even if this argument failed, there was a vacant Conservation Officer position in Tiny and Tay Townships, following reorganization, and the Grievor should have been appointed to it pursuant to article 24 6 1 7 The words "class or position" in article 24 6 1 should be viewed as encompassing all persons who were classified RT4 CO at the time of the reorganization The June 1992 reorganization was /~:; !- - 13 - so substantial as to render all positions held by employees who were classified as RT4 CO vacant All RT4 co positions within the 40 kilometre radius of the Grievor's headquarters were vacant within the meaning of article 24 6 1, and there was no question that he was "qualified to perform the work" of an RT4 CO 8 In any contest based on seniority, Mr Herries represented the only RT4 CO with less seniority than the Grievor 9 In support of the position that the Grievor was a Conservation Officer, reference was made to Exhibit 3 being his appointment as a Conservation Officer for carrying out the Game and Fish Act and the regulations thereunder dated December 6, 1985 10 Reliance was also had on the fact that the Grievor was paid at the RT4 CO rate 11 Reliance was also had on the fact that there was agreement that the Grievor carried out the core duties and responsibilities of the RT4 'CO classification for 50 to 75 per cent of the time 12 The Grievor was entitled to carry a sidearm, which Conservation Officers could do but parks personnel could not - - "- ---- '< ~; - 14 - 13 The major indicia pointed to the Grievor' s performing the duties and responsibilities of a Conservation Officer within the RT4 CO classification 14 There was no evidence to refute the fact that the Grievor was qualified and, for the majority of time, performed the same duties and responsibilities as the other RT4 CO's and could be called upon to do so at any time, even if, on occasion, his ability to perform those duties was under-utilized 15. The Grievor had never accepted the Employer's atypical designation to his classification, and the Board should find that his best fit was within the RT4 CO classification The Employer did not classify the Grievor either as an Assistant Park Superintendent or Assistant Park superintendent (Atypical) and recognized that the best fit available for him was within the RT4 CO classification 16 Reference was made to Exhibit 13, being a "R & R Bulletin" dated June 10, 1992 dealing with the staffing process under the "new organization." Under "questions and answers", the following question was asked Q~ Is seniority the deciding factor in determining who is assigned to area teams? A If there are more employees than positions within a 40- kilometre radius, then seniority must determine that the most senior employees will be assigned to the positions. For example, if eight Resource Technician 3s (RT3s) are slated for i.:~ :- - 15 - assignment to six RT3 positions, then the six most senior employees will be assigned to the six positions However, once it is determined which employees will be assigned to area teams, other factors in addition to seniority will be considered by managers in determining which area team each employee will be assigned to Other factors include organizational needs, employee desires, and location 17 Reference was made to Exhibit 14, being an undated document entitled "staffing Process, jl which indicates that it was received in the Bass Lake Provincial Park office of the Ministry on May 28, 1992, and the statements contained in that document. Finally, for your information the steps in the process are captured in point form below.. 9. Identification of most junior employees by classification within 40 kms radius; 10. rationalization of these listings to accommodate seniority and salary parameters assignment rights; 18 Reference was also made to Exhibit 15, being a letter to the Grievor, dated June 22, 1992, from George Tough, the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, which is as follows PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL As a result of the reorganization of the Ministry of Natural Resources, it is necessary to eliminate certain positions. This action is being taken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Ministry in order to - enhance our efforts at achieving our stated goal of developing the sustainability of our natural resources In the process of the reorganization, effective June 29, 1992 your position will cease to exist This declaration is made in accordance with Section 22(4) of the Public Service Act and will be subject to the conditions under Article 24 of the current Collective Agreement. The I I ;~. -"' - 16 - period of redundancy will be for six months. At the end of this period, circumstances will be reviewed in light of the one job offer guarantee, which you are reminded stays in effect until a suitable position is found It is my earnest desire that the reorganization be carried out with the minimum possible adverse effects on the employment status and job opportunities of the employees concerned During this redundancy period we will endeavour to place all surplus employees in vacant positions for which they are qualified elsewhere in the Ministry or in other Ministries. As long as no job offer has been made you will continue to be paid at the rate of pay of your current classification level and be provided with meaningful work that is in keeping with your qualifications, experience and ability to perform. If you have any questions in relation to your career opportunities or entitlements, please do not hesitate to discuss them with your Manager who will do his/her best to provide answers for you or will refer you to a Human Resources Officer for more detailed information. The Human Resources Branch in Main Office and the Regional Human Resources Officers will play an important role in this process, and will provide the best possible information and advice. As a matter of policy, I have asked that the ontario Public Service Employees Union be kept fully informed of our plans and progress I regret the necessity of this action and hope you will be placed in another suitable position I assure you again that every reasonable effort will be made to assist you in doing so, in order that your career may progress in a fulfilling and challenging manner 19. It was submitted that there was nothing in Exhibit 15 to indicate that the Grievor's seniority had been considered 20 Reference was also made to Exhibits 16, 17 and 18 which are as follows: July 30, 1992 Article 26 Committee - Midhurst District . ;. ......; - 17 - I would like response on the following concerns All of these relate to the staffing process 1 Throughout reorganization process, up to and including organizational chart dated January 1992, there is no reference to a bilingual Conservation Officer position in Midhurst district What happened between January and June, 1993 to change this designation 2. contained in a document titled "Update on staffing Process" dated May 14'92, there is an item "J" which talks about removal of F L S designation with specific reference to F L S Conservation Officer position in Midhurst District - Who would be "the manager" referred to? - What criteria were used to decide that there was no old jOb/new job match with existing Conservation Officer positions? - Is "the manager" still in a position to review this as described? 3. I request a list of continuous service dates for all R T 4 - CO. 's within 40 km of my work centre Thank You! Tom Wilson Bass Lake Office P.O. Box 2178 orillia, ontario L3V 6S1 (705 ) 326-7054 - September 8, 1992 Mr Tom Wilson Bass Lake Office P.O Box 2178 Orillia, ontario L3V 6S1 Dear Tom: I would like to respond to the questions you raised in your letter, dated July 30, 1992, which was forwarded to the Article 26 Committee I -. --- --- ---- ....,. :lj - 18 - The decision to designate the first vacant Conservation Officer position in Huronia District as bilingual was made in 1986 by the District Management Committee At that time Huronia District was designated bilingual under the French Language Services Act (FLS) and reaffirmed during the reorganization process Reorganization has given us the opportunity to provide FLS in the compliance field in recognition of MNR's commitment to the provisions under the FLS Act to provide appropriate services This commitment was reiterated in George Tough's memo, dated May 1992, wherein he stated "French Language Services must become an ongoing and integral part of our program delivery practices". The auditors report on French Language Services, completed in the fall of 1991 and published in March 1992, states "Management at all levels of the organization must be committed to the principles of the FLS Act and understand and accept their ongoing responsibilities relative to program delivery in French". In response to your query regarding item J in the document "Update on Staffing process" the reference to "manager" means the manager in a district office. The criteria used for an old job/new job match to the Conservation Officer (FLS) position was the requirement to have advanced oral and written French language skills to ontario government standards. The advanced level is required to enable the Ministry to provide a full range of services in French within the designated areas of the province. Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act we are unable to provide you with a list of continuous service dates for all Conservation Officers within 40 krn's of your work centre I trust I have addressed all your concerns relative to issues brought before the Article 26 Committee Yours truly, - Michael J Williams District Manager Midhurst District - September 17, 1992 Michael J. Williams ... .0..' - 19 - District Manager Midhurst District Dear Michael Please be advised that I did receive yolir letter of response to my staffing concerns on September ~, 1992 As you are probably aware there was considerable discussion around this subject at our last article 26 meeting I advised the committee that I was not satisfied your response had properly addressed my concerns Subsequently, the committee requested that I go back to you and try to more clearly elaborate these My personal staffing concerns, as expressed in my earlier letter, revolve around two issues. I will attempt to lay these out separately 1. One of the guiding principles for the reorganization process was "the promotion of maximum employment continuity for all M.N R. employees"-. My own interpretation of this is that reorganization should not be used to displace existing staff where job duties are continuous. I think this position is clearly supported in section J of the staffing process document to which I referred to in my original letter. My questions around this issue which remain unanswered are: Did the district manager review this designation as indicated? If so, then what criteria were used to decide that an old/new match could not be made with existing Conservation Officers? If not then is the district manager still in a position to complete this review? 2. My other staffing concern involves access to a I seniority list which was denied in your letter of response It remains my understanding that this ! information shall be made accessible, through article 26 committees I believe that Bev paish is currently investigating this. It is clear that M N.R reorganization must operate within the confines of The Collective Agreement, particularly Article 24 This is continually referred to in staffing process documents Also, I recall the staffing review given by Roger Gordon at the Article 26 training session, in July.. On a paper flip chard, Roger outlined the process using a typical OAG series in a district office During this example, he stressed that these staff lists be prepared in order of seniority. ...~ 1;" . - 20 - I would still like a review of the seniority list for R T 4 - CO's in the former Huronia district If there are person(s) on this list with less seniority than myself then I would suggest that we are in contravention of Article 24 of The Collective Agreement. The Article 26 committee was certainly pleased to hear that the surplus list is shrinking, but all members were concerned that the outstanding staffing issues are dragging on I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience and that we soon arrange the next suitable date for a committee meeting. Yours truly, Tom Wilson Bass Lake Office P.O. Box 2178 orillia, ontario L3V 6S1 21. Reference was also made to Exhibit 21, being a letter, dated September 30, 1992, to Mr Wilson from Michael J Williams, District Manager Midhurst District, being in reply to Exhibit 18 I will try to clarify the points you raised in your letter of september 17, 1992 ~nd your previous letter on this matter. Through the staffing process during reorganization, we reviewed all of the Conservation Officer job specifications and their geographic patrol areas This review included your own position You were the only Conservation Officer without a permanent patrol area because of your duties as Assistant Park Superintendent during the summer months. When you did work as a Conservation Officer, you covered off for the other Conservation Officers when they were off duty or on vacation You also spent a good portion of your time on Lake Simcoe and working the deer yard in the area north of the Severn, which has been transferred to Parry Sound District. As such, your position prior to June 26th, was not identifiable to a specific geographic patrol area and you were not deemed as a match to a Conservation Officer position ----- --------- . ,.. ,.. - 21 - Given that we used the geographical patrol areas as a factor for old job to new job match, seniority was not a factor in the staff ing process governing the Conservation Officer positions I will explain this to the Article 26 Committee as it may remove the necessity for reviewing a seniority list of the Conservation Officers Seniority for all RT4's in the former Huronia District will be discussed, if necessary, with the Article 26 Committee Given your direct involvement in this case, I feel it would be a conflict of interest for you to be present during these discussions This list is not available to individual staff and should not be available to someone on the Committee who has a personal interest in the list Therefore, if you are agreeable to stepping down from the chair and removing yourself from the room, seniority could be reviewed with the committee members. I have reviewed the French language designations on our organizational chart and determined that the designations will remain I hope I have responded to your questions and a copy of this will be forwarded to the Article 26 Committee 22. Reference was made to paragraph 3 of Exhibit 21 in support of an argument that the Employer had acknowledged that it was necessary for it to consider seniority in relation to the application of articles 24 1 and 24.6 1. 23 Reference was made to Palanqio, 227/83 (Verity), where the majority of the Board stated, at p.7. Pursuant to Article 24 2 1 [now Article 24 6 1] where an employee is identified as surplus, he or she is then assigned, if qualified to perform the work, to a vacancy on the basis of seniority within the Ministry "within a 40 kilometer radius, and wi thin certain salary perameters in one of three possible situations - a vacancy within the same classification I ! ......c: _. - 22 - - a vacancy within a class in which the employee has served during his current term of continuous service - another vacancy 24. There are certain differences in article 24.2 1, referred to in Palanqio, and article 24 6 1, however they are not material for the purpose of deciding the issue before me 25 Reference was made to the following statement found at pp 8-9 of Palangio It would appear that Article 24 provides a certain measure of job protection in the sense of guaranteeing a job and the avoidance of a sudden lay-off, but does not provide classification protection The purpose of the Article generally is to provide employment stability and salary stability on the basis of seniority Assignment of employees on a seniority basis means that the more senior the employee, the earlier the assignment. 26. Reference was also made to the decision of S D Kaufman, who dissented in Palangio, at pp.3-5 As a result, less senior employees can be assigned to positions with higher classifications than employees with an earlier seniority date This conflicts with the controlling principle of Article 24, which is that employees' assignments "shall be in accordance with seniority, subject to the conditions set out in this Article " The "shall" is mandatory Assignments then must be in accordance with seniority. This is only subject to the - conditions set out in Article 24. Article 24 does not require that the assignments be accepted immediately or that the surplus employees be removed from consideration on a surplus list if they refuse the assignment That inflexibility is not in Article 24, it is in the system propounded by management as set out in Exhibit 12, and in the evidence of Nancy Navkar and Thomas McIntosh , ,~ -, - 23 - Thomas McIntosh, then Project Coordinator of the Kingston Relocation project of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications advised this Board that if an employee refused an assignment, for example, for medical reasons, management would permit the person to refuse the assignment and allow him to remain on the surplus list Thus, even the Ministry was giving a temporal dimension to its system The discretion to allow employees to remain on the surplus list after refusing an assignment for which they are "automatically" qualified, i e., they are the most senior person on the surplus list and qualified when the job is available, is not absent from the scheme, notwithstanding that the Collective Agreement is silent on the point The question then becomes, should the discretion to allow the Grievor to remain on the surplus list have been exercised in this case, should it have been built int<;> the system, and what would have been reasonable time to allow her to remain on the surplus list In my opinion, the Grievor should have been allowed to remain on the surplus list This would have had the effect of maintaining seniority as the controlling factor. The system as presently structured and in its present "mechanical" operation overlooks the employee's right to a similar position within a reasonable period of time. - In my opinion, it would have been reasonable to allow the Grievor, ,and others in a similar situation to remain on the surplus list until August 15, 1983 It would have been reasonable to oblige them to accept the first position in the same class or position that came available for which they were qualified and to offer them a vacancy of the class or position in which they had served during their current term of continuous service as they came available. The most senior person could have first choice of the latter position If no position came available in the same class or position as any particular employee until August 15, 1983, the employee, in this case, the Grievor, would be required to take whatever position within 24 2.1 was available to her for assignment in the time remaining before the lay-off date. - The risk would be on the employee, if no position described in 24.2 1 came available in the remaining period before the proposed date of layoff 27 Reference was also made to Peterson, 560/83 (Swan), at pp 7-8: "(i;;.. - 24 - The Employer argued that the answer to this grievance lies in an analysis of article 24. That article provides, in great detail, for a sequential approach to an employee who is identified as surplus to his position. Clauses 24.2 1 [24 6 1], 24 2 2 [24 6 4]and 24 2 3 [24.6.3] are the initial response required by the Collective Agreement. Each of these clauses provides that an employee "shall be assigned on the basis of his seniority" and none of these provisions has any element of competition as between tha surplus employee and any other person The only tests to be met by the employee is a threshold test, whether he is qualified to perform the work. If assignment under these provisions is not possible, the employee is to be laid-off. Clause 24.6 1 [24.9 1] then provides a detailed code for bumping by the employee subject to lay-off over another employee with less seniority. This clause, like the provisions of clauses 24 2 1, 2 4.2 2 and 24 2.3, does not contemplate any competition with such other employees, and relies solely on seniority. 28. Reference was also made to the statement contained at pp.11-12 of Peterson. In the present case, the complaint is that the grievor's rights to positions which became vacant were not considered either in priority to or concurrent with the rights of employees who had subsequently been identified as surplus. In our view, this does not offend the agreement As we have already pointed out, the provisions of clauses 24 2 1, 24 2.2 and 24 2.3 do not contemplate any competition whatsoever; once the position becomes vacant, the surplus employee must be considered. for that vacancy, and the test of whether he is to be appointed to that vacancy is whether he possesses the basic qualifications. Similarly, that employee then becomes eligible to exercise his seniority rights through bumping pursuant to clause 24 6 1, where once again the only test of his right to bump another employee is the threshold test of the basic qualifications t() perform the work of that employee. It will be observed that bumping rights are the second level of relief for employees newly declared surplus. Employees who have already been through the procedure and have been laid-off have no such rights after lay-off It would seem unusual, therefore, if employees newly declared surplus had to compete with laid-off employees for vacancies to which they may be assigned under clauses 24 2 1, 24 2.2 or 24 2 3, but did ., ... ,. - 25 - not need to compete with anyone when exe~cising bumping rights. In other words, we think that the employer's view of the article is correct, that it creates sequential rights for employees whose jobs have become redundant in three stages. 29 Reference was made to p 4 paragraph J of Exhibit 12 J. French Language Designated positions In some cases, a position seems to be an old/new match except for the removal of the FLS designation. The manager should review the extent to which the provision of French Language Service was a core duty of the old position and determine if the removal of the designation affects the position sufficiently so that the old/new match could not be made. If the French Language services was not a significant duty of the position then an old/new match can still be made Steps 6,8,9,10 Employees, cannot J::>e assigned to a vacancy on an underfill basis, as the Collective Agreement requires the employee to be qualified. For purposes of these assignments employees need only have the minimum qualifications, not necessarily all the qualifications of the full working level. - I If the salary parameters can not be met then the employee remains surplus and only through a competition could an employee access a vacancy outside of the +3 and -10% salary parameters step 11: During the assignment to organizational units and Area Teams managers can not rationalize the staffing that was made during the old job to new job matches. Rationalization to org units/area teams can only be made to employees assigned to vacancies. Example: If an employee has an old job/new job match to an area clerk, the manager CANNOT move this employee to a support services clerk position and move a support services clerk to an area clerk. Old job/new job matches CANNOT be disturbed After the organization is in place there may be an opportunity for lateral transfers as provided by article 4 6.1 of the Collective agreement 'u. - ~ '" - 26 - GENERAL INFORMATION Managers can not approve/sign waivers on moving expenses. If an employee volunteers to pay their own moving expenses to affect a placement, the manager cannot make such an agreement RPT's can retain their jobs through the old job to new job exercise Managers must ensure that not only are the core dutie~ the same, but that the hours of work remain similar RPT's cannot be assigned during steps 6,8,9,10 Any RPT not placed on the old to new match, will be surplus and will be eligible to bid on vacant positions that may go to competition The ONE JOB OFFER does not mean that the job offer has to be within the MNR As long as the offer/assignment meets the obligations under the Collective agreement and the Public Service Act, (which could be an assignment in another Ministry) our obligation to provide one job offer has been honoured. . Employees who refuse an assignment within 40 KM. have opted to be laid off. They can be allowed to work for the balance of their notice period and at the end of that period will be terminated. The effective date will be June 26, 1992 -All assignments (both position and salary) will be effective on that date 30 The Employer should have, on the facts of the case before us, applied its mind to whether the Grievor could perform the duties of the position, and submitted that there was no dispute that he could not do so. 3l. The Union had made a prima facie case that the Grievor could perform the duties and carry out the responsibilites of a Conservation Officer's in Tiny and Tay Townships even though he was unilingual and notwithstanding the French language designation ,.:,,~ ... ~. ..' , I - 27 - 32 Reference was made to the last paragraph of Exhibit 21 "I have reviewed the French language designations on our organizational chart and determined that the designations will remain. II 33. Reference was made to Beck, 196/89 (Watters), where the grievor applied for a position that stated that one of the qualifications for the position was "advanced oral French-language skills II The position of the union in the Beck case is set out at p.9 . . that the French language requirement per se was not reasonably related to the needs of the position. It did not contest the case on the basis that advanced oral French, as opposed to some lesser level of skill, was required This submission was premised primarily on the fact that an English speaking person had satisfactorily occupied the position in question for some 20 years and that services in that period had not been offered in French. It was argued that this history served to distinguish this dispute from that brought before the Board and Giasson, 2250/87 (Watters) and MacKenzie, 1243/87 (Ratushny) as in both of those instances bilingual services had been provided for prior to the adoption of a French language requirement. It was also submitted that alternate methods existed for delivering the service. In this regard, reference was made to there being ten bilingual persons within the District Office and to the existence of a bilingual service centre in Toronto, ontario which could be accessed by telephone Reference was made to the statement concerning the MacKenzie case, found at'p 13 of Beck where ". . the Board did not consider the suggested alternatives to be feasible in the circumstances " ~.~ .... .. - 28 - It was submitted that the Employer, in the case before us, was under an obligation to consider whether the Grievor could fill the Conservation Officer position in Tiny and Tay Townships even though he was unilingual. This, notwithstanding the fact that the Union did not dispute the right of the Employer to designate the position as bilingual. The designation as bilingual does not end the matter, as the Employer has to explain why it waited for the reorganization to designate the Conservation Officer position in Tiny and Tay Townships as bilingual when it could have done so four or five years prior to reorganization In the alternative, it was submitted that the Employer had, by its admission, other persons available to offer French language services in Tiny and Tay Townships - although it has admitted they are no longer there - which was sufficient to require it to redeploy the Grievor to that administrative district as a ! Conservation Officer. I ! 34 Reference was also made to MacLean, 782/89 (Gorsky) Arqument On Behalf Of The Emplover Ms. Gallop made the following submissions on behalf of the Employer. ... ...... -... ,. i': - 29 - 1 The Employer has the exclusive right to carry out a reorganization; to decide how many, if any, Conservation Officers or Parks personnel positions it wishes to have in an administrative district, and to decide if a position should be designated as bilingual Reference was made to s 18 (1) of the Crown Emplovees Collective Bargaininq Act which provides inter alia that. 18.-(1) Every collective agreement shall be deemed to provide that it is the exclusive function of the employer to manage, which function, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the right to determine, (a) employment, appointment, complement, organization, assignment .. classification of positions . 2 The Grievor's position was neither that of a Conservation Officer or an Assistant Park Superintendent at the time of the reorganization, but was a split position, as stated in the position title: "Assistant Park Superintendent/Conservation Officer." The duties and responsibilities set out in Exhibit 8, being the Grievor's position specification and class allocation form, were consistent with the split nature of the position and were contrasted with those of Conservation Officers, such as Mr Herries, as represented by Exhibit 9, where the position title is shown as Conservation Officer, and where the duties and related tasks are consistent with the position title, there being no split position 3. There was a difference in position title, class definition and percentage of duties and responsibilities assigned to the positions -...,- .oI!..'!S: c . ;. - 30 - in Exhibits 8 and 9. There was no issue taken on behalf of the Grievor with the statement of duties and responsibilities in Exhibits 8 and 9, and no challenge had been made to the Grievor's classification as a Resource Technician 4 Cons Off (Atypical) as found in Exhibit 8. 4 Accordingly, the Grievor could not be regarded as having either the same classification or position title as Mr Herries. For article 24 1 to be relied upon by the Grievor, on the basis of his greater seniority to that of Mr Herries, the "class or position" of both of them would have to be the same As a result of the reorganization in June of 1992, the "abolition of a position" that occurred was that of the Grievor's and not a position that he held in common with Mr Herries. 5 It was emphasized that all other Conservation Officers in the District performed one hundred per cent Conservation Officer duties and, unlike Mr Wilson, were assigned to particular patrol areas when performing those duties. 6. As a result of the reorganization there were no further split positions of Assistant Park Superintendent/Conservation Officer in the District, and the decision to declare the Grievor surplus was the only choice the Ministry could make. ~,,-~--- .. "" ,. ~ " - 31 - 7. As a result of the reorganization, the Grievor's spilt position ceased to exist in the District and, accordingly, the Ministry was within its rights to identify him as a surplus employee in accordance with the provisions of article 24 1 8 The provisions of article 24 did not require the Employer to assign the Grievor to the same class or position that he previously occupied prior to his being identified as a surplus employee 9. The Grievor's classification was also different from that of Mr Herries, and accordingly there was no failure to accord recognition to the Grievor's seniority under article 24 1, nor was there a vacancy in the Grievor's "same class or position" so as to bring article 24 6 1 into operation. 10 Addressing the argument of the union with respect to its claim that there was a vacant Conservation Officer position available in Tiny and Tay Townships, it was submitted that no Conservation Officer had been assigned to that area since reorganization In any event, the Grievor was not classified as an RT4 CO nor was his position that of a Conservation Officer under his Position Specification and Class Allocation form 11 Mr. Herries' position and those of the other Conservation Officers shown on Exhibit 24 had not been abolished at the time of reorganization, and there were no vacancies within the meaning of ~- - J ~". ~'~ '- ~, ~ - 32 - article 24 6 1, which would allow for the operation of that article to assist the Grievor, even if' it could be considered that he was in the same class or position as Mr Herries The operation of the latter article not only requires an employee identified as surplus to be "qualified to perform the work," the vacancy must be "in the same class or position as the employee's class or position" 12 . Ref erence was made to Read et a 1., 1548/89 (Gorsky), where the majority of the Board stated, at pp 21-22 . Displacement rights under Article 24.6 1 are subject to seniority, and displacement rights only arise after the failure to secure a position for an employee identified under Article 24.1 through the process of assignment What the Grievors' ask for is the creation of a right which they regard as "logical" This cannot be achieved under Article 24 1. The other employees working for OHIP were not surplus employees. If they could be treated as surplus employees, then the Grievors would not have been surplus employees and would have had no rights under Article 24, which only grants rights to surplus employees What the Grievors really request is that the surplus list include them as well as the employees whom they wish to displace and they ask for an immediate right of displacement That is, displacement without going through the assignment procedure For the reasons above described, this is not what the parties have agreed to. The reasons above described, in the immediately above noted quotation, are set out at p 20 In drafting Article 24 1 as they did the parties created a scheme that is much more consistent with the establishment of a mandatory process moving from assignment to displacement to layoff. In each case subject to certain rights and subject to the penalty of a loss of those rights where an employee does not accept an assignment as provided for in Article 24 4. ,,",.,. ~ :; - 33 - 13 Reference was made to the Peterson case relied upon by the Union, at p 12, where the Board noted that the provisions of article 24 create "sequential rights for employees whose jobs have become redundant in three stages " 14. Reference was also made to p 5 of the Palanqio case relied upon by the Union . Article 24 provides a certain measure of job protection in the sense of guaranteeing a jOb and the avoidance of a sudden lay-off, but does not provide classification protection It was submitted that once the Grievor was declared surplus, the Employer's obligations were satisfied and his rights under article 24.6.1 were not violated 15 There was no obligation placed on the Employer by the collective agreement or the Crown Employees' Collective Barqaining Act to create a vacancy for the Grievor, nor was there any statement in the case law to that effect 16. As there was no vacancy for a Conservation Officer in the Midhurst District to which the Grievor was assigned, it was irrelevant that he was qualified to perform as a Conservation Officer In the circumstances, the arguments made on behalf of the Grievor relating to the Conservation Officer position in Tiny and Tay Townships being declared bilingual under the French Languaqe services Act need not be explored That is, it did not matter "i. "' #ii' ~ .i:J .~ - 34 - whether the Grievor could perform that job without being bilingual Such an issue would only arise if there was a vacancy for a Conservation Officer 17. The only limit on the Employer's right to institute a French language qualification is in the context of job posting cases where the French language qualification must be shown to be reasonably related to the job in question 18. Reference was made to Ansara, (Verity) at pp 17-19: Under the management rights provision of s.18(1) of the Crown Emolovees Collective Bargaininq Act, the Employer has the right to establish qualifications required to perform a particular job It is now well established that the appropriate standard of review is to ensure that a particular qualification is reasonably related to the job in question. I . . I In our view the French Languaqe Services Act. 1986 provides an important context in assessing reasonableness of the French language qualifications . 19. Referring to the information statements (Exhibits 12, 13 and 14) relied upon by counsel for the Union, it was submitted that such information statements and any correspondence relied upon by the Union from the Ministry did not confer on this Board the jurisdiction to interpret anything other than the collective agreement, and we were not able to determine whether there had, in fact, been a breach of the Employer's guidelines. I? .... ... , ~ - 35 - 20 In any event, it was submitted that there had been no violation of the Employer's guidelines Reference was made to Exhibit 12 at p 4, which must be read along with paragraph I Paragraph I states: I As managers are determining old job/new job matches, they must review "real" duties of the current positions Do not rely on just reviewing the classifications Example: Manager reviews real duties of employee and determines that this employee classified currently at an RT2 level has sufficient duties added to his/her job to be considered to be placed as an RT3 This employee will be placed in the pool of employees available for placement as an RT3 within 40 km The total pool of employees available for RT3 placement will then be assigned to the RT3 positions within 40 km as per the process If at the end of the assignments the former RT2 is the most junior and cannot be placed, he/she will be surplus at the RT3 level * Not all RT2's are automatically eligible for RT3 placement This is an individual decision that the manager must make by carefully reviewing the real duties. Paragraph I merely gives to managers the right to review an employee's duties and responsibilities to see whether they are sufficient to enable placement in a higher classification. However, this could only be done if there was a vacancy within the meaning of article 24 6 1 21 It was submitted that, on the facts of the case, para J was not applicable as it deals with the removal of the French language I I _n --- -,- "- ..,......' - tJ~ - 36 - service designation, and there was no evidence that the French language requirement had been removed 22. Reference was also made to Exhibit 13, being the R&R Bulletin dated June 10, 1992 paragraph 1 1. Managers review the job specifications and the duties outlined in positions in both the old and the new organization The managers determine which positions have not changed, or have changed somewhat but can still be identified with an employee who was performing most of those duties before the reorganization staff in positions that have remained generally the same will retain ownership of their positions in the new organization In some cases, these positions may have changed enough to be reclassified either up or down, but they will still be considered the same job These positions will not be available for further staffing action. 23. In the case before us, Mr. Herries' position had not changed and he would, therefore, retain ownership of his position "in the new organization." 24 Reference was also made to the second paragraph on the first page of Exhibit 14, where the "cornerstone of the entire process" is identified as "identifying old job to the new job matches from old organization to new organization," which was said to recognize "that employees continue to have rights to their job should they remain largely unchanged by the reorganization " -------- "!, ~ ~~" ::~ v - 37 - This is said to have resulted in Mr. Herries' retaining his old position This was not the case for the Grievor, whose ,old position was abolished on reorganization Discussion 1. There was no evidence to indicate that the Employer had abolished the Grievor's position as Conservation Officer / ( Assistant Park Superintendent for other than valid operational considerations. 2 The Employer had the exclusive right under the Crown Employees' Collective Barqaininq Act to classify the Grievor, arid that his classification at the time of the reorganization was Resource Technician 4 Conservation Officer (Atypical) For the purpose of this grievance it was not suggested that there could be no atypical designation in the Grievor' s cla'ssification. Rather, it was submitted that based on his duties and responsibilities his classification should have been Resource Technician 4 Conservation I officer, without the Atypical designation 3 In order for the Board to accede to the suggestion made by counsel for the Union with respect to the Grievor's classification, we would have had to regard the grievance as being, in effect, two grievances One relating to improper classification, and the other --.~ ...-~ ~ '" i;~ - 38 - relating to the Emloyer's failure to co~ply with the provisions of article 24, as alleged 4 Even if we could regard the grievance as enabling us to deal with the classification issue, we would find that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Grievor was incorrectly classified His core duties contained a substantial number of duties and responsibilities that did not fall within the RT4 CO classification, anywhere between 25 and 50 per cent of his duties falling outside of that class standard. In addition, although the Grievor performed a significant amount of Conservation Officer duties, when viewed in their entirety his duties and responsibilities were significantly different from those of the other Conservation Officers referred to 5 In the circumstances, the fact that the Grievor might be called upon to perform Conservation Officer duties as described in Exhibit 9, cannot overcome the fact that the totality of his core duties and responsibilities, as described in Exhibi t 8, did not represent a best fit with those provided for in the class standard 6. The Grievor's appointment as a Conservation Officer (Exhibit 3) was for the purposes of the Game and Fish Act, and it would still be necessary to establish that he was a Conservation Officer under the class standard for the purpose of identifying his proper at .'S"cv: !i'" c ~.O' . - 39 - classification and to establish that he was a Conservation Officer within the meaning of the position Specification (Exhibit 9). 7 There was nothing in any of the bulletins or correspondence, when viewed in context, that conflicted with the Employer's obligations under the collective agreement or the Crown Emplovees' Collective Barqaininq Act. a If we had found that the Grievor was improperly classifed as a Resource Technician 4, Conservation Officer (Atypical), we would not have removed the atypical designation, but would have issued a Berry order This would not have the effect of placing the Grievor in the same "class" as Mr Herries, so as to bring seniority into consideration as suggested by the Union 9 The employees who, it was acknowledged, were properly classified as Resource Technician 4 Conservation Officer, and whose position title was acknowledged to be that of Conservation Officer within a 40 km. radius of the Bass Lake headquarters, were Messrs. Kitchen, Evans, Small, Brooks and Herries We find that the Grievor was classified as a Resource Technician 4 Conservation Officer (Atypical) holding the position title of Assistant Park Superintendent/conservation Officer at the time of reorganization 10 After reorganization Messrs Kitchen, Evans, Brooks and Herries retained their class allocations and held the same position I .~~..... .,,~.. ,~ ~ - 40 - titles as they had prior to the reorganization In the case of Mr Small, he held the same class allocation and position title except for the fact that the majority of his patrol area was more than 40 kilometres outside the radius from Bass Lake, with only a small part of his post-reorganization patrol area peing within Tiny and Tay Townships. There was no evidence to show that there was an increase in the number of places for persons classified as Resource Technician 4 conserva~ion Officer, holding the position title of Conservation Officer within a 40 kilometre radius of the Bass Lake Headquarters 11- Accordingly, there being no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Employer in carrying out the reorganization or by declaring that the Grievor was surplus, it was not required, to consider the relative seniority of the Grievor and Mr. Herries during the process of identifying surplus employees under article 241. The Grievor's seniority in relation to Mr Herries would only have been material if their classifcation was the same or if they held the same position. 12 When the parties agreed to article 24 they established a continuum of possibilities which were available to an employee declared surplus. Article 24 1 starts the process. It is, however, not a provision that requires that a junior employee be declared surplus in any event Read along with the other provisions of article 24, such as art 24 6 1 and art 24 9 1, it COb .fl.l~.~-:":' i ~' - 41 - is clear that in identifying an employee as surplus, and in considering seniority, the Employer is not required to look to the positions that an employee could perform, but to the employee's class or position, depending on the sub-article of article 24 being invoked. It is only when an employee has been unsuccessful in obtaining a placement under earlier sub-articles of article 24 that he may, under art. 24.9.1 (c) and (d) displace an employee in another class For the sake of completeness we would note that the Union did not endeavour to invoke the application of the provisions of article 24 9.1. 13. If we regarded article 24 1 as having the meaning suggested by counsel for the Union, we would be disregarding the scheme established for displacement under article 24 9 1. As that article was not relied upon, we will not comment further upon its possible application to the facts before us 14 In summary, on the facts before us, and on the submissions of counsel, we have found that the Employer when engaged in the process of identifying a surplus employee pursuant to article 24.1 was not required to consider the seniority of the Grievor in relation to Mr Herries As there was no vacancy in the same class or position as the Grievor's class or position, there was no basis -- --------------~-----~-- -~---~--- ------------- 1/~i.f'; ~(.i' - 42 - for applying the provisions of articles 24 1 or 24 6 1 in favour of the Grievor Article 24 6.1 and article 24 1 were the only articles that were said to apply to the case of the Grievor, and we do not have to consider any of the other provisions of article 24. 15 For all of the above reasons the grievance is denied Dated at Toronto this 18th day of May, 1994 .."".~- ~41tC.. ~7 M. Gorsky - Vice Chair ,/ {9- ~<t--C:::;; W Rannachan --Member 7rI t O)'~ M O'Toole - Member r:fl.~i" --- - ~.ItJdn ispectflcatlt" k- .:;!- @ .. eta.. AJlocatlon-CSc 6150 (Refer 10 back of , lor completlon Instructions) OntariO Dew recelved PrOYioua ....lel number N.w ...111 number For CSC u.. only 1 POIltlon tltl. (See _I Conservation Officer !~ '.. Work IA.P T POUt.onlyl C.ICIl. ___01_<<_.__) . _ 0 Somo 0 __ 0 ,.. 0 ! Supe"*,": o.itlon tlUI Posltlon Code I ~onservation 09-7112-16 3 41104 i Ministry o /vision i Natural Resources Central Brench .nd Section I Fish and Wildlife I No, of plica Provide. group 1....n11lp to: I No. ot position. No. of pl-. 09-7112-14 ,/ i 3 Enforcement Coordinator l 12, PUrpoM of poIltIo" (wily d_ tfll. pooltlon Ixlltll I Under the direction. of, the Enforcement Coordinator to carry out law enforcement and I management duties in an assigned area, to provide enforcement services for other ! programs and to perform public relations and other related duties 3, Duties and rill'*' tlIIla (wlult i. Imploy.. reQulnod to do, t>ow.nd wily/Indicate percontagt of time _nt on .ell dutY) 1 Performs enforcement duties such as -enforcing the Gnme and Fish Act, The Fisheries Act, The Migratory Birds Convention Act, The Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, Provincial Parks Act, Public Lands Act, Forest Fire Prevention Act, Criminal Code, Fish Inspection Act, Motorized Snow Vehicles Act ! Off-Road Vehicles Act and other natural resource related legislation i -regular checks of licence issuers, fur dealers, bait fish dealers, commercial I fishermen, trappers, and inspecting their respective records for regulatory compliance I -patrolling assigned area, checking for violations, issuing warnings, laying charges effecting arrest, making seizures, preparing cases for court, preparing crown briefs, appearing in ourt to present evidence, prosecuting cases, etc 8S," -responsible for the adequate and safe maintenance, proper operation and storage of vehicles, boats, motors, snowmobiles, firearms, radios, etc , on his inventory -required to vear uniform and issued equipme,nt according to policy -maintaining ~ood skill standards through regular training (firearms, equipment, etc ) -provide advice and assistance to OPP, RCMP, local police forces, court officials, and animal contrel organizations -conducting sp!cial investigations includes planning investigation, survei lIence, I executing seal~h warrants. compiling reports for supervisor, etc ) I -training and 'irecting the daily activity of deputy Conservation Officers I I -assist other programs in their enforcement needs I -assisting in peak periods in various park programs 2 Performs other duties as assigned -liaison with trappers, anglers, hunters in his/her area to provide advice and i informat ion abO'lt legis lat ion and minis try programs, policies, etc (continued) i Skill. Ind knowledlll rtqulrtd t( perform lob It full workloV"ftl. (Indicate mlndetory Cl"Idlntlll1 or II......., \I oppflcabll' Technical skills and ~,nowledge at the level usually associated with the successful completion and graduation from a two-year course in resources management at a community college uemonstracea knowledge of law enforcement legislation, investigative and enforcement methods ce~hniques and procedu~es to enforce legisl~tion administered by the Ministry of Natural (conted 5. Slgn.turl ~~ OU. Mini ffk:l.1 Oltl ClY Month VI" ClY Montfl Yur Ct 13 10'7 I ~" - If TyPl Supervisor', n_ leltl'. ntmI .nd title T Boyd, Enforcement Coordinator J Winters, A/District'Manager 6, ~llu IlIocatlon C10a tltl. CIt.. COCII OCC\lllltlON1 group numOer EfflC't/v1 dote CIY Month Vea, Resource Technician 4 Cons Off 41106 TS-07 25 I 11 I 87 I lIav. clalliflld till. pooltlon in 1CC0rdo.1C1 with thl Civil Slrvlct Commlalon Cleanlcltlon Stand.-do for tll. tOllowlng r......,: A. Position of employeer. engaged in natural resource management activities who are appointed as Conservation Officer; pursuant to the Game and Fish Act, as Fisheries Officers under the Fisheries Act and as Game Officers under a variety of federal statutes B Responsibi I ities include an assigned blend of enforcement resource management and extension o:ervices duties i e Enforcement enforces fish and wi Idl ife and other ministry legislation patrol ling assignnd area, laying charges or warning offenders, seizing of evidence C. presenting evidence l~ prosecuting court cases etc Management: surveying resources habitat users etc !sslstlng and advising people with nuisance animals conducting hunter and trapper educatior examinations, etc Extension Services providing publ ic with advice and i nformat I on throl,gh wr i tten and verba I responses and public education sessions etc 1 gnatuno 0 .utll"" Cite Type ....1\Jator'. n.",. I CIY M;; ,i;; I .,2/ I T A Jones ~'~'--'.. _..~ If.. ... , Page 3 fa.... POSITION TITLE Assistant Park Superintendent/Conservation Offlcer POSITION CODE 09-7111-28 -assisting with variOUS fish and wildllfe management projects (resource surveys, user surveys, habitat manipulatlon, fur stamplng, predator control, wildlife trap/transfer projects, etc. ) -carry out hunter and trapper education examinations -participate 1.n resource management discussions with appropriate staff relative to surveys and management plans -assisting and advising people with nuisance animals -maintaining contact with all resource users and schools in hIs/her area to promote understanding of resource management principles, programs and legislation -speaking to groups, manning displays in public shows, presenting f Um and slide shows on Ministry programs -advising landowners about Fish and Wildlife matters pertainlng to pri.vate land J% 3. Other Duties as assigned Percentage of time al location are averages and are variable depending on I resource management priorities 2 special assignments 3 time of year SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED (continued) coordination of work programs. Working knowledge of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and those regu 1 a t ions made under the act t-Ortt apply to the work supervised or controlled Ability to communicate <:>ffertlvply with subordinate staff and the public both orally and i. n -w r I tin g Demonstrated knowledge of law enforcement procedures and objectivp.s clnd t-hp Provincial and Federal Acts and Regulations administered by the Minlstry of Natural Resources A working knowledge of the baslc pn.nclples of t-op fisheries and wildlife management and famlliarlty with practical manac]I"mpnl: techniques. Tact and good judgement. Ability to perform well under limited supervision and a willingness to work i r regu 1 i'I r hours incllldlnC) weekends and holidays when necessary Physical abil ity to mf'et the df"mdnr3s of enforcement and management work. Expe r ience in the operation ~nd maintenance of snowmobiles, boats and motors. A demonstrated balance of enforcement and management work experience A valid M T C Drivpr'R Licence. B information through written and verbal responses and publ ic education sessions etc C Th i s a I I oeat ion is considered atypical as the employee acts as an assistant park superintendent during the Spring and Summer months , _ . --. ., _tJvv...v.... ... 'W'ClQ AllOC8t10n.CSC61 ~.ej\~! I VV J ( (Refer to back ot on lor Completion instructions) ,", ' ...::L. On.atio Olte received I PrfV10uI ,..rI,1 numbtr N.w ..rl,l numbe' For CSC UIe only 1 Po.itlon tit II PoeJUOn ",onliNe, r.;.. .....' 1 . ~~l!!'tlilll Pa rk SUl>trtedu: Su rintendent .09-7111""28 Resource Technician"\ 411 () Ministry Oivl.lon Ministry of Natur~l Resources Central Region Branch and Section Location GeQ9. Loc. C.:-ce Auronia District/Parks Bass Lake provincial Park 1710 No. of PlIca Provides group 'I.mnhlp to: rmmNl.at. Supervisor'. titll Supe("'\(i\Oco', po';tion code No,ofpo.ltlonl No.ofpllCft Superintendent Bass Lake, Ma a 1 5 12 and cRa 0 nP ovincial P s OQ-7111-:' 2. Purpol8of posltJon (whyd~lIhl.po.ltlon..'''71 Spring/Swnmer - To assist the Park Superint~nden with the operation and development of Bass Lake provincial Park, and the administration of Mara and McRae Pt Prov Parks fall/Winter - To assist the Park Superintendent with the preparation of the work plan To assist the Fish and Wildlife program with creel census, de~r management, enforcement and other si~ilar duties 3. Out'" and related talkJ lwhlt" Imploy" rt<luJrtd 10 do, how and why? lridleatl per~nt"90 of timo ,pent on tach dutY) 1 Assists the Park Superintendent with planning and operational programs by , -interviewing and hiring appropriate parks staff 1 -preparing and implementing training programs including Health and S~f~ry ; -preparing work schedules and evaluating performance of subordinate stuf.f. recommending appropriate discipline .....-supervising the performance of seasonal staff at Bass Lake Provincial p.)!" )-ensuring that workers take prp.cautions to protect the health and safery ,) ~hemselves and others by complying with such acts, codes, policies procedures or accepted practices as may be appropriate Ensure that wOrKers are advised of known hazards and the rpquired precatltion~ 55\Ic-assisting with the preparation of the. annual work plan for Bass Lukf''1H and McRae Point Provincial Parks I-preparing operational plans for maintenanc~ security entry rontrol ln~ visitor services for Bass Lake Mara and McRae Point Provincial Park~ ~ -ensuring completion of records and reports as required by park poliry i water samples, park visitation, enforcement occurrences etc '1 -responding to and resolving complaints by park user!'! fc:acting as the duty officer of Bass Lake, Mara and McRae Point ProvIncial Parks in the absence of the Park Superintennent !contin'lf'd ) Skills and knowledge required to parform Job It full workinv level. IIndlcate mandatory eredentlal. Or IIclnetl, If Ippllcabll' rechnical skills and knowledge at the level usually associated with th~ ,uccessful completion of and graduation from a t"plated two year course of ~llld lt a community college A general knowledg(l of Provincial Parks and fish wd ~iltiliFp progl"ilm~. npmnn~1-r.:ltpti .:lhilit~ in thp pl.:lnning .:lnti /r-nntinl1p,l 1 Sillnature Immedlll~!)' upt IOf Dill Ini.try Offlelal 0,," -. "7, Cay Month Vllr ~ ), DaY Month 'Y", _.--<- ~ ' .27 I 6j ] $J./ -.~(..c-~ ;)..1 Ie c: Is oe Suoervisor', name I Type Official's name and titl. ' on Robinson John Winters, A/District Manager ClUJ allocation CIISS title (At i I) CIIII cOde Oc:eupttionl' group numbOr errec:I;VI date yp ca D.v Mont" " esource Technician 4 Cons Off 41106 TS-Q7 25 I \1 L- v, classified thiS POlition in accordance with the Civil S.rvicI Co,!,misJion Clanification Standard. for thl followfno ruto,,; osition of an employee engaged in natural resource management activities who are appoi~-~ onservation Officers pursuant to the Game and Fish Act as Fisheries Officers under the isheries Act and as Game Officers under a variety of federal statutes esponsibi I ities unclude as assigned blend of enforcement resource management and exte~ ," ervices dutIes ie Enforcement enforces fish and wi Idl ife and other Ministry legis\~ ~trol\ing assigned area laying charges or warning offenders making seizures presentln~ vidence or prosecuting cOurt cases, etc Management surveying resources users eTC ~bitat manipulation, predators control etc carrying out hunter and trapper education xaminations participating in resources management discussions with appropriate staff rele' o surveys and management plans Extension Services providing the public with advice nj ;M.tvr. of .ulno": lu.ror OUt Type .",eIUIfOr. M,m, I 0.'1- MGr\\'I\ ,<,,, I .., / 1/'9 I ?q -r- -r- ..0: -- ,. l ~'f~> ~ -- l". I.:~ .w~ ,atruetlons for completing form CSc. _ 50 UMthl.lonn II Indlcalld l*ow lor III ~ ItoN CO'Y'tfed by the EAtcUltve Compenaallon Plan, ManlO&f1*lI Comp4!\l41lon Plan Ol 0tf'aI Admlnlltra1lon Group. . Clanlfled Full and Part-tfme polltfah.: Fonn to ~ COO1~1d i1 III entirety excepC 'or !he Functional Code box In Sectlon 1 Unclaulfled Seuonal Polltlons (Group 3): Complete Secllona 1 and f1.xeept !of tt'4 Functional Code box In SeclIon 1 and the evalua- tion rationale In SectIon e. All other positions: Completion o/lhla Iorm In IuU Of II set out &bo.... for Unclassified $euonat Poeitlon.. la optional. InstructJons tor coding Position identifier Instructions for coding Seasonal WO", Pertcxl Code Code 1 2 3 (as appllcab Ie) . Classlfled Poeitlon, s...one Wlnt et' S pfing Summer Fall Full-Ume 1 and their Dee. Mar. June SGp. Part-tIme 2 conse<:utlve JIn. ~ Jul. Oct. Unclassified PQSltlona order. Feb. May Aug. Nov GfOIJp3 a) Seasonal wor1c period 8 consecutive wHka or mOte but lesa than " monttll 3 Build code .. follawl: b) SGll$OI\&I wont period 4 con_cuU.,. . Single Muon. I.'., Spflng Exarnp* monlhl or more but '"' than 12 morn'- " W'onlw 0 SlI1l_ 0 I 1 Indicate Muon. Coclt GfOIJP 2 5 2.IOMn l4llllic. code GfOIJP 1 8 In left hand box. ~ (jl FoIl 0 2 L.LL Other Crown 7 . Multipl. Muons, I..., Summer Fall, Winler Instructions for coding Sch. Hr.. Wor1c 1 Indlcale MIlO"'. 2. Inaert code 01 atar1 · Complet. 1Il1. box 10( R.P T PosItIonl only. season In left hand box. W'<1Iw (jl s..wnn. [jI C<<lo . · Include ponlon, 01 hour. to 2 decimal places. 3. Follow with codes of (jj .:.l:lL NOTe: The averag. of tile actual hou'" wor1ced (Ina Q....rtIm.' <N8f " subsequent consecutive SQnnq 0 FtIl consecutive week. by R.P T employtet ~ned 10 a position saasona. must coincide with \he Scheduled HOUri 01 WorlIldenllned for that position. Any change to the Scheduled Hours Of Work will requlr. the establt,hmenl and doCumentallor1 01 a separate NOTE: Mutllple seasons must be consecutMl(O qualify as one position. positlon. 3 DUTIES AND RELATED TASKS (continued) !I-supervising contracted services within the park including garbage collection. boat rental, major maintenance and capital development t2--co""ordinating special employment and volunteer programs for all three parks I ~ a~d. assis~ing with special events as pla~ned. " --11a1son w1th trappers, anglers, hunters 1n h1s/her area to provlde adVlce and information about legislation and ministry programs, policies, etc 2 Performs enforcement duties such as -enforcing the Game and Fish Act, The Fisheries Act, The Migratory Birds Convention Act, The Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, provincial Parks Act, Public Lands Act, Forest Fire Prevention Act, Criminal Code, Fish Inspect iOI Act, Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, Off-Road Vehiclea Act and other natural resource legislation 35\ -regular checks of licence issuers, fur dealers, bait fish dealers, commercial fishermen, trappers and inspecting their respective records for regulatory compliance -patrolling assigned area, checking for violations, issuing warnings, laying charges, effecting arrest, making seizures, preparing cases for court, preparing crown briefs, appearing in court to present evidence, prosecuting cases, etc. -responsible for the adequate and safe maintenance, proper operation and storage of vehicles, boats, motors, snowmobiles, firearms, radios, etc , on his inventory -required to wear uniform and issued equipment according to policy -maintaining good skill standards through regular training (firearms, equipment, etc ) -provide advice and assistance to OPP, RCMP, local police forces, court offtcials, and animal control organizations -conducting special investigations (includes planning investigation, surveillance, executing search warrants, campi! ing reports for supervisor, etc ) -training and directing the daily activity of deputy Conservation Officers -assist other programs in their enforcement needs -assisting in peak periods in various park programs