Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0558.Canning et al.87-09-23?‘:’ 1% oNTm:o CROWN mfPLOY~ES GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD . Between: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD OPSFk (D.W. Canning et al) The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Griever Employer Before: I.W. Samuels, Vice-Chairman I.J. Cowan, Member S. Schachter, Member ‘._ For the Griever: T. Hadwen C0Wl5el Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers & Solic~itors For the Employer: D.W. Brown, Q.C. Law Officer Crown Law Offic,e Civil Ministry of the Attorney General iicsarihgs : October 3, 1986, February 2 and 3. .June 9, 1987 ,. CONTENTS Introduction The Realty Services Branch The Job of the Appraisal Supervisors The Job of the Negotiation Supervisors The Job of Chief Property Administrator The Relevant Class Standards Conclusions Appendix 1, Background Information prepared by I. J. Cowan Appendix 2, Position Specification, Appraisal Supervisor Appendix 3, Position Specification, Negotiation Supervisor . . Appendix 4, Position Specification, Chief Property Administrator Appendix 5, Class Standard, Real Estate Officer 2 Appendix 6, Standard, Supervising Appraiser, AM17 Appendix 7, Class Standard, Real Estate Officer 3 2 5 6 8 9 9 9 18 21 23 25 27 28 -.’ 31 2 Introduction The grievors are Appraisal Supervisors and Negotiation Supervisors in acquisition and sales in the Land Transfer Section of the Realty Services Branch of the Ministry of Government Services. They are all classified as Real Estate Officer 2, and they say that they are improperly classified. They claim the classification of Administrative Module 17 (hereafter AM17), either on the basis of the classification standards, or because they are doing essentially the same work as certain employees who are,already classified as AM17. The Appraisal Supervisors are Messrs. Canning, Spiers, and Pestl. The Negotiation Supervisors are Messrs. Hamilton, Codato, Krauze, Parton and Davis (the latter is now classified higher, but is interested in this case for purposes of retroactivity). This case has a tortured history, and it is necessary to recapitulate some of it briefly so that the reader will understand how we got to where we are today. Before 1980, there were a number of classifications, including that of Real Estate Officer 2, all the members of. which were excluded from the bargaining unit, because it was felt by management that at least 50% of the employees so classified were in fact performing managerial functions. This history is known well to Mr. I. Cowan, one of the members of this panel of the Grievance,Settlement Board, who was the Personnel Director of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications during this period. Mr. Cowan has been requested to provide a written summary of this part of our story, and you will find it attached as Appendix 1. Around 1980, management introduced the Management Compensation Plan (known hereafter as MCP), which was a system of classification designed exclusively for employees performing managerial functions. At the same time, employees who were in classifications excluded from the bargaining unit, but who individually were not in fact performin& 3 . ,, . ., managerial functions, were reclassified into bargaining unit classifications. In some cases, as in ours, the whole classification was moved into the bargaining unit. Hence, thereafter Real Estate Officer 2 was a classification within the bargaining unit. Employees who were in the RE02 classification, but who were considered to be performing managerial functions, were reclassified into one of the classifications in MCP. When all of this happened, the grievors were unhappy that they were still REO2s, whereas three gentlemen, whom they considered to be doing the same or lesser jobs than the grievors, were reclassified as AM17 in the MCP, and were now earning more than me grievors. The three other employees were Messrs. Brown, Horgan and Faulkner; who were Interim Property Management Supervisors in the Property Administration Section of the Realty Services Branch. Mr. Faulkner is no longer with the government, but Messrs. Brown and Horgan continue in their positions, now classified as Chief Property Administrators. The grievors immediately made it known that they were unhappy with these changes. It is clear that then for several years, the grievors and their superiors attempted to rectify matters. Mr. Canning, who had become an RBO2 in 1981 or 1982 following a competition, was told that the only thiig which held up his move to AM17 was a grievance by several of the unsuccessful applicants for his position, and the reclassification would go through when the grievance was resolved.; .- Mr. Parton, one of the Negotiation Supervisors, recalls being told by Mr. Wolvin, the Manager of Acquisitions and Sales North and East, that there had been a drastic mistake and he would rectify it. Mr. W. Ljebjuk, a classification officer who has left government service, studied the jobs of the grievors. In 1981 or 1982, Mr. Ljebjuk told the grievors he was done and his recommendation for a reclassification was at the Civil Service Commission. Neither the Union nor the Employer could shed any light on this recommendation. There appears to be no record of Mr. Ljebjuk’s work, Just before Mr. Ljebjuk left the government, Mr. Wolvin said that the grievors had succeeded and were 110~ 4 AM17s. Two weeks later, when nothing formal had come, Mr. Patton went to Mr. Wolvin to see what was happening, and was told that Mr. Ljebjuk’s successor, Mr. C. Renaud, refused to sign the necessary papers. And this appears to be the situation until today. Mr. Renaud has made it clear that he feels the grievors are properly classified. Mr. W. Jobe, the Assistant Director of the Land Transfer Section, testified that in December 1982 he met with Mr. Renaud, and the latter suggested that, because the grievors had been promised AM17, if management wanted the grievors in the Administrative Module, the grievors could be reclassified to AM16. But this would mean a lnss of salary of $500 per .year, and management wasn’t interested in doing this favor for the grievors! ‘In 1983, the grievors filed their first grievance claiming reclassification #to AM17. At first, this grievance, went to the Grievance Settlement Board. But before a panel was established to deal with the grievance, it was decided that the Grievance Settlement Board was the wrong forum for adjudication of the matter, and the grievance was referred to a panel of the Public Service Classification Rating Committee, chaired by Judge W. Little, which decided in its award dated May 16,1984, that, because the grievors were then in the bargaining unit, the PSCRC had no jurisdiction and their grievance should go to the Grievance Settlement Board. So the grievors filed another grievance, and found themselves back in the hands of the Grievance Settlement Board: The parties appeared first before a panel chaired by Ms. G. Brent to make submissions concerning the possible remedy in the event that it was found that the grievors were improperly classified as RE02. In the decision of that panel, dated July 5, 1985, it was held that it was possible for the grievors to claim AM17, though this was a classification outside the bargaining unit and part of the MCP system designed exclusively for managerial personnel. The basic tests for reclassification would still apply. As the Board put it at page 20: However, where the bargaining unit employee could show that he did the 8ame work as the excluded DC r 5 on who occupied t.he 5 classificatl~ claimed, or that his work was virtually iden~tical to that dcne by those who occupied the classification, or that it was virtually identical to the work of the classification claimed, or that the core functions of his job fit within the classification claimed, in other i words if he could meet the test for recldssification into the classification claimed, then the claim would have to succeed. / This decision was appealed to the Divisiqnal Court, which held in an unreported decision dated April 17, 1986, that the Board’s award was “Clearly not patently unreasonable”. Indeed, Mr. Justice Southey considered . it “to be a reasonable approach to a difficult and important problem in labour relations inthe public service” (at page 7). Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was denied on May 26,1986. Now the grievance is before this panel of the Grievance Settlement Board to determine whether or not the grievors are properly classified, and if not, whether they should be classified as AM17. And the Union claims retroactive compensation back to 1980, when the first complaints were made by the grievors. The Realtv Services Branch The Realty Services.Branch of the Ministry of Government Services handles land transactions for many other ministries in the provincial government. If it is desired that a piece of property be purchased, sold, or leased on behalf of the Government of Ontario, the value of the property must first be appraised. Requests for appraisal may come from any one of 26 sources--ministries and administrative agencies. 73e appraisal is done by the employees in the Appraisal Unit in the Land Transfer Section. The grievors who are Appraisal Supervisors are involved in this work. Once the value of the property is appraised, it is up to negotiators in the Negotiation Unit of the Land Transfer Section to negotiate with potential sellers, purchasers, lessors 6 or lessees, to obtain terms which are within certain limits of the appraised values. The grievors who are Negotiation Supervisors are involved in this work. Property which is held by the Government of Ontario for any period of time must be managed, and this is done by the employees in the Property Administration Section to whom the grievors compare themselves. Our evidence concerning the details of the jobs of all of these people was not extensive. We heard the detailed testimony of Mr. D.. W. Canning, who is an Appraisal Supervisor. We have the position specifications for the ( grievors in both positions, and for Messrs. Brown and Horgan in Property Administration. We heard very briefly from Mr. A. ,Parton, who is a Negotiations Supervisor, but he was asked little about his job. His evidence concerned the history of the grievance. And we heard briefly from Mr. G. MacDonald, who is the Chief Appraiser, and is the immediate superior of Mr. Canning and the other Appraisal Supervisors.. Thus, with respect to the Appraisal Supervisors, our evidence comes from Mr. Canning, Mr. MacDonald and the position specification. With respect to the Negotiations . Supervisors, our evidence is entirely documentary. It consists of the position specification. With respect to Messrs. Brown and Horgan, our evidence is almost entirely derived from their position specification. Mr. Canning and Mr. MacDonald did have some comments concerning the jobs done by Brown and Horgan, but these remarks were not based on intimate knowledge of the jobs done by the two other employees. .. The Sob of the ABar;iiisal Sunervisors The position specification prepared in 1983 for Mr. Canning and the other Appraisal Supervisors is set out in Appendix 2 to this award. It will be seen in the specification that these employees are charged with supervising appraisals of properties for purchase, sale, or lease on behalf of the Government of Ontario, and to provide personal appraisal expertise when the matter is controversial or involves high value. 7 The three Appraisal Supervisors are intimately involved in the running of the Unit. They meet weekly with their immediate superior, the Chief Appraiser (who is classified as an AMlS), to discuss operations. It is the Appraisal Supervisors who have direct knowledge of what is being done by the twelve junior employees, who are classifed as Real Estate Officer 1 or Property Agent 2. The Appraisal Supervisors will assign the work to the junior employees in most cases, and will offer advice or training as necessary. The Appraisal Supervisors recommend outside fee appraisers, when it is necessary to go outside the service for assistance. ~Though they are not authorized formally to do the hiring of the outside personnel, in fact their recommendations are generally followed. The Appraisal Supervisors will recommend the terms of reference for the outside appraiser, and who should be engaged.. The Appraisal Supervisors review all appraisals done by the Unit. They may have an appraisal re-done or amended. There are too many appraisals to be reviewed personally by the Chief Appraiser, so it is the Supervisors who really check all work done. The Appraisal Supervisors are called on to do the most complex or difficult appraisals. They are expected to have the same technical expertise as the Chief Appraiser. They may appear as witnesses at hearings conducted by y,arious administrative tribunals which are called on to decide matters related to the value of property--for example, Hearings of Necessity, which are part of the expropriation process; or Boards of Negotiation, which deal with complaints from vendors who are unhappy with the expropriation price. The Appraisal Supervisors are involved in the evaluation of employee performance for the REOls and PA2s. While the Chief Appraiser actually signs the performance evaluations, it is the. Appraisal Supervisors who provide most of the input, because ,the Chief does not have a great deal of direct contact with the staff below the Appraisal Supervisors. When - 8 preparing an employee evaluation, the Chief will interview the employee concerned. The Appraisal Supervisors schedule staff vacations. Final approval is given by the Manager (who is the Chief Appraiser’s immediate superior), but it is the Supervisors who know the complement required in the Unit, and therefore when it is possible for vacations to be taken. The Chief is not involved in this process. The Supervisors have some input when new staff is hired. They may formulate questions to be asked at the interview, and they may sit in on the interview and help score the results. . According to Mr. Canning, ‘the Supervisors are m involved in “grievable discipline”, but they may reprimand for lateness or for missing deadlines. The Appraisal Supervisor may recommend to the Chief that discipinary action be taken. Indeed, Mr. MacDonald, the Chief Appraiser, testified that he depends on his Supervisors to bring matters to his attention. The Supervisors check employee expense accounts and recommend them for payment. Their recommendations are invariabIy accepted, subject to mathematical errors, or illegitimate expenses. In 1983, &hen the grievances were filed, the Appraisal Supervisors would act for the Chief when the latter was away. They would assume virtually all of the Chiefs responsibilities. -~” Th s e Job of the Negotiation Sure rvisor The position specification for the Negotiation Supervisors is set out in Appendix 3 to this award. It is similar to the specification for the Appraisal Supervisors, except for the purpose of the position. Whereas the Appraisal Supervisors deal with appraisals, the Negotiation’Supervisors deal with negotiations. But the Supervisors appear to do similar tasks within their respective Units. The jobs are considered interchangeable, and on occasion an Appraisal Supervisor will act as a Negotiation Supervisor, and vice versa. 9 The Job of Chief Prouertv Administrator The position specification for Messrs. Brown and Horgan is set out in Appendix 4 to this award. Messrs. Canning and MacDonald testified that any Appraisal or Negotiation Supervisor could do this job, but the reverse is not true. Messrs. Brown and Horgan do not have the expertise or recent experience to handle negotiations or appraisals. However, the testimony of Canning and MacDonald is admittedly not based on intimate knowledge of the job currently done by Brown and Horgan. And the latter two employees / were not called as witnesses at our hearing. There are some ‘apparent similarities between the Chief Property Administrators and the Appraisal and Negotiation Supervisors. All report to .AMl8s, and all have REOls reporting to ‘them. There are no RBO2s in Property Administration. Thus, the middle group in Property - Administration are AM17s, whereas the middle group in Appraisal and Negotiation are RBO2s. Apart from this, with no more than the position description before us, ..: it is difficult to know in detail what Messrs. Brown and Horgan do. It is significant that the position description, in point 11 of the Statement of Major Responsibilities; says that they are responsible for “grievances at first stage” / and “disciplinary action”. This is a clear difference in managerial function from the grievors’ jobs. The class standard for Real Estate Officer 2 is set out in Appendix 5 to this award, and the standard for AM17 is in Appendix 6. As well, it may be relevant to consider the standard for Real Estate Officer 3, so it is set out in Appendix 7. Conclusions Our first conclusion from all of this is that we simply do not have enough information about the jobs done by Messrs. Brown and Horgan to 10 base our decision on the suggestion that the grievors do essentially the same work as their colleagues in Property Administration. For example, the position specification in Appendix 4 speaks of “provides assistance and guidance to subordinates”---what exactly does this mean? what is the nature and extent of the assistance and guidance? Or, to take another example, the specification says “recommends to supervisor changes in procedures and guidelines required to reflect area conditions”---what exactly does this mean? how big a responsibility is this? Without a better appreciation of the nature of the work done by Brown and Horgan, of the extent of their responsibilities, we cannot conclude anything about the relationship of their jobs to the jobs of the grievors. So our first, question is whether the grievors are properly classified as RE02, within the class standard for this classification. In order to better understand the class standard, which is set out in full. in Appendix 5, it is necessary to consider the Preamble to the Real Estate Officer Series. In the Preamble, it is provided that .Ranking is based on the following factors: a) responsibiiity for comnitment of funds, and the amount cotittpd. b) responsibility for developing, modifying, implementing and evaluating policy and procedures. C) responsibiliQ for evaluating other employee's work. d) to&l administrative responsibility, and ‘the size. of the unit administered . e) whether the responsibilities of a particular position encompass one or more than one of the functions tabled above. It is necessary to consider these factors, because the class standards themselves in this series are so terribly vague. There is little to distinguish one level from the other, if all one does is read the standards themselves. It is also clear that, in order to understand what is meant in the RE02 standard, one must look too to the KE03 standard. 11 Thus, the first paragraph in the standards for RE02 (Appendix 5) and RJZO3 (Appendix 7) differ only in the last few words. The RE02 works at the “intermediate management level”. The RE03 works at the “more senior levels of management”. We’re not sure what these words mean, nor at which level it can be said that the gxievors work. The second paragraphs of these two standards do differ, but again it’s not absolutely clear to us where the grievers fit. The language in these two paragraphs which seems to most closely capture the grievors’ positions is the last sentence for RE03---“They are responsible for developing and implementing procedures: and for reviewing the work of more junior staff, for adherence to procedures, and for general proficiency”. Though it is not immediately clear how this differs from the words in the REO2 standard--- “responsible for the direction and supervision of a..number of technical staff’. And looking at the third paragraphs of these two standards, again it is hard to see ,where the grievors fit. Are the grievors “responsible for the activities reIating to specific elements of one or more of the functions of the unit” (REO2), or do they “a& as assistants to the senior.Real Estate Officer in a relatively smali specialized property unit” (REO3)? Perhaps, given this great uncertainty in the standards themselves, it is better to consider the factors which govern ranking as set out in the Preamble to the Series. “Responsibility for commitment of funds, and the amount -~ committed” ---the grievors may be responsible for very large amounts. “Responsibility for evaluating other employee’s work”---they do a great deal of this. “Total administrative responsibility, and the size of the unit administered”---the grievors have considerable administrative responsibility and we know that the three Appraisal Supervisors work in a unit with twelve junior employees. “Whether the responsibilities of a particular position encompass one or more than one of the functions tabIed above”---the grievors’ positions do encompass at least three of the four factors listed above. Now, given that there are six levels in the Series, and the grievers are 12 touched by several of the factors which govern ranking, it does seem that they are not correctly classified at the second of six levels. This analysis leads us to conclude that the grievors are not properly classified as REO2. They claim that they would be properly classified as AM17. This standard, set out in Appendix 6, fits the jobs of the grievors who are Appraisal Supervisors very closely, except that their work is not related to CMHC. The nature of the appraisal work, the atimistrative and supervisory functions, and in particular the knowledge, judgment, accountability and contacts,.are very close to the jobs done by Messrs.~Can&g, Speirs and Pestl. We conclude that these three gentlemen should be classified as AM17. ‘What about the grievors who are Negotiation Supervisors? Negotiation and appraisal are different tasks. However, the new “broadband” classification system, within which.is found the AM17 standard, requires a very broad and general consideration of factors in determining the appropriate Ieve of classification. This process is described in the decision of the Public Service Classification Rating Committee in Zoellner, C-789177. The Committee said (at pages S-11): In this, the second award, the Clas,sification Rating Committee deals solely with the classification of the griever's position under the system aptly called "broadbanding". The term refers to the . %~' stratification of the class and salaries of managerial staff members, i.e. those who are excluded from the barGaining unit. This procedure has resulted in the reduction of a multiplicity of salary levels to some 23 salary band s in the professional module in ri5lr.g orc'er asd with a small amount 05 overlap betxeen con:~~ucus bazds, as is not uncowon in the systematizing of salary administraticn. Ye turn now to the system whereby positions are allocated to their respective salar:~ bands. This is termed the Bcnci?nark Factor 13 CCG;ZrisCn Evaluation System. The full and extensive details are available and it wculd be impracticable to try to repeat them here. They are cbtainabie From t, ,re Compensation Division of the Civil Service Commission, Ciassificeticn (Mnagement) aranch. However a sketchy outline appears to be ;&/is&j?* .ATT empioyees who are not in the bargaining unit have been, or v/ill be, al:OCZtei- t0 one or Other of five "modules":- Administrative, Professional, Technicai, Clerica!, and Operational. Groad occupational groupings have been established 'within each mcdule. In the present case the grievor's PositfOn.of Design Engineer has been assigned to the Engineering and' ,. Surveying group (PEN) in the Professional module. The group embraces roughly ten salary bands towards the upper level of the salary scale. The griever's position was assigned to salary band Ii and selected as a "key" position. (See p. 12). The Position Code i~.PEfj 17. For each salary band in each group certain positions are designated by the Commission as benchmark positions. Each of these provides a basis for comparison v/hereby other positions of roughly similar rank are classified as calling for a salary band above, below, or at that of the benchmark position; a. The previous gr.ade description Class Standards have been replaced by Benchmark Factor Comparison Standards Referred to ?.s Elanagement Compensation Plan Evaluation Standards. The Fosition Specification Form has been re-designed to em;tasize different data and is called a Position Description. The first four items appear in conventional form. They are: (1) Position Title, (2) Scoervisor's Title, (3) Purpose of Position (evidently to be stated succincti:/ and 14 briefly) and (4) Major Responsibilities, i.e. those that the incumbent must be able and willing to assume in achieving the purpose (3). The next and conc,luding section is headed "Factorial Fna!:/sis" and consists of'four "benchmark factors" considered to be the main elements of comparison on which the "worth" of the position is to be based. !,lorth in this sense must be assumed to mean monetary worth since the end res~l: of the comparisons is assignment to a specific salary band. The four benchmark factors are: 1. Knowledge (a) Formal education (b) Skills 2. Judgement 3. Accountabi 4. Contacts 1ity It.will be noted that the four factors are based, not on what the incumbent has to do, but on the personal qualities and abilities demanded of him by the position. The evaluation form provides ample space' for recording a description of the work, or parts thereof, as it relates to each of the -.~' four benchmark factors. It is the opinion of the Corrmittee that the factors have been well-selected for the purpose of isolating and organizing those mot-e or less intangible elements that ccmbine to form the basis of worth. It was emphasized by representatives oi tSe Coirnissio!, tCak ro numbers, either of rank or quantity, are generally used in the f:ckr;aI analysis. Factors are not weighted thus the Iword "factor" as used is not a mathematical .term. Rather it is a metaphor and the factojrs must be understood, as non-quantitative coefficients. t!o~ver, for Certti:: . . 15 positions, numbers are used, e.g. numbers of staff, budget figures, etc. In actual practice the position to be classified is ?Escri;?i in detail on the Position Description form in such a manner tba: t::a description relates specifically to the qualities towards which eih factor is intended to relate.. The person(s) responsible for the . CTasslfication must form a mental assessment of. the i,mportance of ZiCh factor in relation to the corresponding factor as described in the benctmark,position. Obviously if each of the factors is adjudged to carry the same weight as the corresponding benchmark factor the position would be given the same band number as-the benchmark position. Nhen one or more of the factors appears lower or higher in value or influence than the ccrresponding benchmark factor, then an aSSeSSfm?n~ of all factors in combination would have to be reviewed. A decision would have to be reached as to whether the classification should be higher or lower than the benchmark classification, and jf either, whether it should be moved up or down by one or more salary bands; or whether it should still'remain at the original band. It is difficult to describe in any definitive way the mental activity which the above method of ranking involves. The Committee does not Propose to attempt such a task at this juncture, Position comparisons are not confined to positions in th,e same salary band. Benchmark .positions in adj-,- 'arant band; nay be used to aid the ass2SSOr in forming an opinion as to re:ative worth of a position. Al so it niay be necessary to prexr- a several benchmar!< positions in reference to one salary band. This is done where types of xork are so lifferfnt in character that direct cxparison *with other r~nilar t:/ces is no: feasible. . ‘. 16 Thus, the emphasis is on the four “benchmark factors”---that is, “not on what the incumbent has to do, but on the personal qualities and abilities demanded of him by the position”. In our case, it was accepted by all concerned that the knowledge, judgment, accountability, and contacts, in terms of the personal qualities and abilities demanded by the position, are the same for the Appraisal Supervisors and the Negotiation Supervisors. There was never any suggestion that they should not have the same classification. If the Appraisal Supervisors are properly classified as AM17, so are the Negotiation Supervisors. Turning to the question of compensation, the employer argues that the grievors should be limited to compensation as of 20 days before the grievance which came to this Board was filed in 1983. But, in our view, this general rule would simply not be appropriate in this case. As we explained at the beginning of this award, the grievors were absolutely clear from the time that they became members of the bargaining unit in 1980 that they considered themselves to be wrongly classified. We have already explained the tortuous process that led the grievors before this Board, None of the delay or troubles can be~attributed to the grievors. They have been told by supervisors that they were already reclassified. Then they have been told that reclassification was coming. They went to the Grievance Settlement Board, which sent them over to the Public Service Classification Rating Committee, where they were told that they should be before the Grievance Settlement Board. At no time did the grievors withdraw their complaint ‘or do anything to lead management to think that they had abandoned their claim to reclassification. In these circumstances, they ought to be compensated from the time they made known their complaint. This accords with the Board’s jurisprudence (in particular, see Hooper, 47/77, atpages 18-19). Some of the grievors (Mr. Canning, in particular, and there may be others) were not in the RE02 position in 1980. For them, compensation would run from the time they became~RE02s. There should be interest on each and every sum at 10% compounded annually, from the date on which the sum was to have been paid 17 to the date on which it is finally paid. We will reserve our jurisdiction to hear and determine any matters related to compensation which the parties are unable to agree upon by themselves. Done at London, Ontario, this 23rd day of September ,1987. 2y-hd-g J. W. Samuel& Vice-Chairman “I dissent” (see attached) I. J. Cowan, Member Jd- S. Schachter, Member Given the verv :or!g arlti corl:loin?~rd h-lstory of this classification grievance there is no doubt ti7a: its resolution deserves anti ?!as receivwi very :,:a.r~.hi; attention from a;i :ho.sr> involved including tne presenters of both positions anti tne chairman and members of this panel Wniie I certainly agree with my colleagues in the statement on p.10 concerning the vagueness 0: the RZ0 class standards I cannot agree with the conclusj~on that the grievers are incorrectly classi fled based on the quasi mathematicai analysis at the bottom of p.11 which states that “given there are six leveis in the (RRO) series and the grlel;o:s are touctieci bv severai of the factors which govern ranking it does not seem : teat they are COrreCtiy c;assifier: at ttie second of six levels." There was ?.ot, in my view, sufficient evidence presented to lea6 one to t'ne view that the grievers did She same warc as any excluded person at the ievel ciaimed (i.e. AXi?) ?.or tha: they were incorrectly ciassified as REO2. Zver. had i been convinced that the grievers were incorrectly classified as REO2's I would not have required that they be reclassified as AMi7's since classification in the Management Compensation Plan is preconditioned on incumbents meeting the CECBA criteria for exclusion from the 8.U. Alterna.tively I would have required the employer to reclassify appropriately in fuil recognition of the difficuity this mipht \ Ian COPEm, Member APPENDIX 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION During the presentation of evidence on October 30, 1986 and February 2, 1987 it became apparent that some sort of historical appreciation of the background against which the actions giving rise to this grievance took place would be of assistance to the board and perhaps. also to the parties since none seemed in possession of such a appreciation. As a result of discussion between members of this panel and counsel for both parties it was agreed that I should attempt such a appreciation. The information which follows is from memory and some inaccuracies may be present in terms of chronological sequence and dates. Sin,ce this is not evidence but simply background info I do not feel that minor inaccuracies of this kind will be significant nor harmful. While the Civil. Service Association of Ontario had existed to further the lot of provincial civil servants since the early 1920’s no distinction, had been made between those who it represented and those who represented the employer until late in the 1960’s. In 1962 the Joint Advisory Council ‘consisting of representatives appoinred by C.S.A.O. and by Government had been set up to discuss subjects of interest common to employees and employers although no differentiation was made between the two and in fact many very senior civil servants were, at that time, members of the C.S.A.O. During’ the mid 60’s it became increasingly apparent that some definition was required to differentiate between those who were represented by C.S.A.O. and those who spoke on behalf of the employer. Efforts were initiated on a Ministry by ‘Ministry basis but no common level could be agreed upon above which employees could be excluded from representation by.the Association. In 1968, Judge Walter Little of Owen Sound was commissioned to examine the state of labour relations in the Ontario Public Service and to make recommendations for the modernization and improvement thereof. His report in that year established for the first time in the Ontario Public Servicefhe basis for differentiation between those represented by the C.S.A.O. and those excluded from such representation; Very simply put his recommendation was that any employee in a classification wherein fewer than 50% of the employees exercised managerial or supervisory responsibilities would be considered to be represented by C.S.A.O. and those in classifications where more than 50% exercised such responsibilities would be excluded from such representation. He further recommended that a Tribunal be established with, among other responsibilities, the power to determine whether an employee was included or excluded. 20 Tn o~~t:o’nel~ , : 369 t!!FI ?, ?, A, i7 ,-,A:: c-?,:-:~j ;-;t:yj r!‘; t;;r ‘!,;i,!.qi,i!!l.:!!. age!xt for @ntario ?uh?ic Serva!:ts as the result 0: anotb,er r)- .;W7e Li?t?e’s rrcomme~rxia: .;r,r!:; ai!d oh~r::~j t.hCrea:+.. :ihr (:, 5.~. 0, became the OPSEU to more accurately reflect its status in the new labour relationship in the Ontario Pub:lc Service. Not surprisingly both parties felt that some adjustments were required to the bargajning unit definition resuit:ng from t:-p' Judge Little report and some abortive steps were taken to reecr agreement on changes. 3y mutuai agreemer.t these efforts were abandoned in favour of awaiting the setting ‘up of the Tribuna: recommended by Judge Littie, an action which resu;ted from passages of the Crown ZmDiOVees Coiiective 3arga;ning Act some - _ several years later. Some time subsequent to the appointment of the ?rlbunei OPSEU, no doubt in an effort to increase the pace at which fina: definition of the bargaining unit was moving, submitted a challenge regarding the pr~0priet.y of exclusion of the majority of . positions at that time eXC’iUCieb cla'im'icg :iat ise ;L .-‘cehr’agt i \ exclusion was double or even triple the percentage to be found in other Provincial and in the Federa? pubiic service. US The employers response was to the effect that a unique and separate compensation plan ~was in the process of being introduced and that, as part of that process, a rigid examination would be undertaken to ensure that only those employees who met the exclusion criterion contained- in the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act would be placed in the new "Management Compensation Plan.” All others would be classified in the existing ciassification system a& would be within the Bargaining Unit. The process of separating employees, who since 1968 had been excluded from the bargaining unit under the Judge Little 50% rule, into "bargaining unit" and "excluded" status was painfui:y SiOW, pooriy understood and in many cases, fiercely resisted by senior and subordinate managers. In many cases employees previousiy ciassified in the same classification and identically paid fotind themselves separated into bargaining unit classifications and Management Compensation Pian bands usually at different pay ievels. sn the grievance currently bef0r.e this panei of the aoard the v grievers and those emoioyees classed.. as AXi in tlhe &2agemet-!t Comrersarion ?Ian. wit:? whom t:?e grlevors are 6*jmperlng t?elr posltions were aji 2EO 2’s (Xeal ZState Officer 2) prior tr, ,~trOd~iCtiO? Of t::e Xanagement: Compensation Siar!. " 5. e decision made j y w -; n i ~3 7 r yr rcan+gemer?r ci u r i ? c 2mplemenratjon of the KC? was wi:ether 0T Y!n:: a?? e:no:oyet?, 74% -he restLit of :ne imp:ementatlon of t"e !4c:? was wneryner i?r 30 f i: i-:y>: I)':,t" ;ifi : ? tx r e '; ,I : t tr .: !Vi.,,~. l.~F';:.;)<)TvL; 1.:; .; ;, <: ieF: ir!;!c :??1,1' i ? 7 :x. c _ ?,,S j t-j ,.,J~! .? e i] c : Tj , ,r " 7 '1) ,I.. c~-: : '- I. ,- i:, ,? I4 : ', :?I= 7 :: c 3 !. ,l " .j~ :: IJ I‘ ; .: f c; - exe i-.ls-;o:l. 3psrpn<j i ng ;;yiori t l?c. ~TISWP y’ t I~I TV hi s C!UPLF?. IOZ : t?r ,a:npioyees posTt--on wa-, c;;issified iv the tredit'io?d: ciassiticat ion ri~~strm a:ld +:,e. i~::,!,,rr~;;rt. ;'"itrP'i i n '!~ : ! P iwrga~ -! i T?( i !i 1 1: 5,) 1~ I !,A Ti!lj.l ; r,yrr w,=l'-i 'XC' ; :>:' r,i : i'tl,yr :I,- : ,,,',~.,.! ::, :!',!1 :i:l;: A.?(: 7 !'~~. I,<>$:: ,nrl was g:acwi ; 1~) ::,I,-, 'ii;l,'!:t!!‘*,!,??! r:~~;,;!-rr.?c;,t~lrl', ?:?I?!, 21 While the faegoing cannot, in any way, influence the outcome of the current grievances it is hoped that it may lead to a better understanding of the climate in which these grievances ar0s.e. “I. J. Cowan” 22 APPENDIX 2 PART 1 IQrrmnntL Apprdwll supcrvioor “” PREVIOUS ?aERIon ~1n.E~ cuss,II,. CuEa CODE Appraising Superlvsa;. ‘- 1 l&al Estate Officer 2’ 1 01002 Ul!DIATE wE”Ymm* l,lL, Chief Appralaer YIy-v D‘“IuOU Goverime& Servlcee ” .’ Services Group 8saIcH ,,CllDN LDcATmN,.DD”EssI . Realty Service8 ’ gland Treasf e ., ._ . Queen’s Park To sUpetiBe*Appr4iatim of properties for pirrchmc’rale or laaee on behdf of the Government ‘. of Ontario, and~to provide pereonal appraisal expertise e~pa~i~~~~tp,~ootrov~rplal or high : ‘. value. properties.. .------w--w--. ._.- . 3illnx Jtlt’uq _. -. ,eIDtlljlO IliqMnu3 ,i:uhjrllll *I twl1 I? li9::.l ~,r,i’,,ll,:,...,r-,J’, ,111 i. ‘:*.i .:.i .i ! .’ 3.SUMMARY OF DUTIESAND RESPONSlB!L’lflESth3~1~~ra~cem~:o~’~.nwr~ &~‘,~,,,&r\iwmp#& :;.I;:. c..:ai I :. wmu?sEcce acE,4mL~. IIDRI1wQ*DlnoHI uNuIu*‘ FEA?uaE* WCJ ; .33:. ~ :,I.a-,‘,‘r.; 2,“ . I 1. Under the] generali aupervlsion, nf: supervisor,, provfdee .technicaMeadershipi and; :,; 3’; . . euperv+lonrSor ~,group,pfIiepp~alsa~,staff. by:::..;!i.l:.:,:! I.~,~; P~:~:IJ~,,.,.; :“.f~..:: ; 1 ,. , :I. .~ y - dlscwsing assignment vith supervlaor, obtaining relevant information, $nclud,lag client 502 request, aaeessment records etc.; dlacueeing appraisal approach, contacts, use of extend reeources etc.; . : i!.’ .i..:,q :..‘,{,.i!., !i*,:,l:;~.:d i’.;,Jc., . . .1: I:~.. .’ . .* *, ~r~P~elgnlagi,~ppra~~al, ppje@s: fo.: WSlpedi staff,-bJgh.Ught&ng spe@J1 %w,t~ctiops, ‘I. - ~eadllnes, etc.; i,!~LI1.~~ IEls..Ji.siiti?l lvlti’ ;!Js,;.y 11 ~.Itr,!z.rj 2uo!t1.v _, , ] _ - instfGctit@;sf#fj on,the..conduc.t.apd: completion of.1 apprr~m&i.;I,! :,I!. :~:.!;j:! :, i-; ‘::.: - -.:$roviding technfcal Information, guidapcc; and.,qusWancc to rtaff~condu~ting appraisals: - ~ersonal~y,handlfgg 0ri 866fatl~~yti e,tsff: on, more complex: appraisals,: or: appraisala *of. .- . :\ I,_ -bIgher valuer, including client +$aison, deaLlng.vitb;,oandors.r.sudclp42 officlals.,fi. ,*tc.;, l ubmlttlng such~appraisals..;to~supervisPr.for~ appr~.~al;::,) -4 .,I;. I.,,,J .: @- re~evlpg,.all,rppraisals: carnled .out .by: etaff!.aad fee, appraisers to; eneureia fair,, accurate and acceptable market; .va.lue; for purchase,,saJej orl Jesse;.. this, includes a .. ievlev of ac~epfed,mef~odo~ogy.~~~pprppr~~te.munic~pa~ data.ti:.tares,.bylaw, photographs, 3 ’ ~.techniques uaed - income, cost, etc., registry office information, topography, etc.) - keeping supervisor and client Ulalstry Informed re progress of appraisals, advising of serious concerne, recommending solutions. 2. Provides pets&I expertise to appraisal process by: 8 - revfevlng controvers,ial appraisals; (5’ trf.8-j ,2es!L,!‘;:.;.. ! ‘LL-, :--;. . - en&wring more complex, controversial and,high value properties receive rpeclel C 30% ,attentiop;. ~intaiaiqg.,~ont~nuing.:awar~ae~g .of.,+ethodology,, i progress, of .nuch appraisals; - person(llly;FoaducjLnel,seCopd .sppraisal,..to,cnsu,r.e accuretel,aad. fiir..mprket value;; : ‘. maintalai~ on-going Iiaiaoa 61th supervfsor’apd/or;manager,+g~e~ure. ~persoaal a.$ . ‘branch avarenese of mtatue of controversial l ppraleale, including problems, t complicatioue, etc.: fifelelng end co~rerpoadleg with cUeat mlnl;trlee, ..~-*-,iT,y’ ” ‘.“. muaicipal offfcldl~~‘publl~~~~cctor no dlecuri l ay relevaat.,conslderetlcw .&ad to eaawer questions of eppral$ techniques, I &hta on prop+y, .a+; :~ - pertlclpatlag’iea *experb&tneeb 4n’~Board of JNegotiatloa,nBea~~e~:of! Necessity; . -’ . etteading epeclal meetings and hearlngs:‘(e.~.+Lani! Compensation Board He’arlng);. : a ‘lfldb re&red’; ,nOfYa. ,ir,‘~ni ~nw&,~ ,.,II! ;1..9 !:, ,:,,,itj cit.4 i ,:: :lyi:’ in., ,e ,,,i ::.:,. .!,: : - 3(# i.:. J ,:!~xifno~, ,~l>~o-~.~qfi J,ir:t:,;q+ ,;*! :::.u:.;?il, ;.‘,I’, kt!l*dIY,~J !(!d. 0 t?l.: .‘ ,.! .:i.: ., .*Y’ 3. Performa other related duties such es: ::,7’i:..:,.‘.,~, 1 :. Ii -- C~ILISA~DKNOWLEDGEREDU~REDTOPERPORMTHEWOAK~~~~~~T~~.~I.I~~~;EWER,E~~~ Detailed hnovledge of eppralrral principlea normally obtained through completion of real etnte courew leedlag to accredltetlon from a.recognlced Negotlation/AppralsaI Institute or Aeeocletion, ~eupplemented by~progreesively reoponei,oe experience in the real catate field. :. ~bvl~~e;‘or’.bo~-~nt~ ‘$61iCi&&ti hi ~ioce&r&s ~.re~~gpr&al..St: Kn~l&e: of appropriate ‘, Provla~lel’ hi Federal! ~egislatlon:~~~Ablllt~~~tb~ effectively ‘communicatei dreIIy and in v . 24 APPENDIX 3 &AT 1 raJl)(u nIIu . .._ .“-...LTa IX liegotlation Supervisor I ly NEW a REVISE0 Ev,OUS PamoN lm.‘ SUD t,n. rn,flO” coos Negotiating Supcrvieor I Real Estate Officer 2 18-5120-08 r.m*n EwE”“mo”~ llll., COII~ION CODE Chief Negotiator’ U-5120-04 UET”” Dt”IuO* Government g ervicee Servlcea Group UIU 1EsIION LocA,IO” lADDIEPI, Realty Services Land Transfer WWMIENTE mamo*1 WE”YDED lWNY,Ewl EW‘“Y,,ED ygy 1 rnDI”ISR” 0,” CT ” &s-b INDIIIOL” Queen'8 Park ., ,_ 'URPOSE OF POSITION mar ooenus mstnw EXIS,,IIATL OOALS WECTWEE mu To l uperviae aegotlatlone of acceptable tenu for land trmrferr oa behalf of the Government of Ontario and to pereonally negotiate high value or very complex traneactio~..\; ..1 ..,t -:&;.L-.‘-,!;: .___ .._ . . superv+ion~,tp a, (iroup.,of )kegotiation s-tiff by,:, ,., ‘: ,,I i I, : ‘., ,,str,i !’ .:‘I.:;-:’ . . . . . .I: . ‘.~. dealing with clienta, municipal officials, etc.:~ - reviewing offers to sell and agreements to purchase pn teqhnlca13content.and values; rec.ommend,lng acceptance to ,auper+aor; .,, L, , , 1 ,.: :,:.i,‘: : . ~evievlng ali negofiatioria ‘cnrried dut by staff &“&ure i &ir ‘md ecceptable reemeant conolntent vith:aegotl”ation practicer and, +Ilet:ry pollcier; ,: TL - ensuring ,tha,t all ,documentat,lon required ,to complete tranaact,iona ,ia present ,and correct prior to recomminding keptance and aubmlttfngsame td supervfeor; I - reviewing ,and .recommending amount and :timing of ,dth,er ae,gtClements ,(e.g; damage claim), or unusual coume of.actida (e.g. expropriation); -;kceplng supervisor and,client.Mnietry lnformed.rc’ prcgres’~Tdf’negotiatlo~, advising ‘$f aerldua complications, ‘recommending aolutlond; ,. ,2iYi :::..I, , - maintain&g files and recorda~for,;all ,negot,iation ,projecte;: ..: I :..,: , -tronafer, lncludlng: - revlwing n.emigmeat with auparviror, euauriug awereneae of particular probler,,.coaplex 30% :lmue, hlmtorlcnl background, etc. ; 1 i f coaducting perronally or through staff data collection, field investigation, verlficatioa of npprai6al~information, etc.: ; negotiating vith vendor to nrrfve at beat possible trrm vlthia the limit of appraisal by direct cgatact vlth vead,or explaining the.reaaon for the transaction, hov the value V&B ariiiiid ‘dhd &p~Aining' ‘th6~ rehV&nt pioced$ree And policies; -(uintaining on-going 1lAleon uith Aup&vledr iatj/or’da&er ~to onaure personal And &rnnch Avnreneaa of l tatw of negotiation, including probl-.' ~omplfcatlon;'..~, h, li~lrlng And correApondit$'blth client.,&iatrleA, munlc'ipal offi~~dle;publfc~sector iit0 diecues say relevant !co&ideiitlone *&rid ‘es anher qties”ti’&i’s of irope.FT and status ef;&go’Ygt.**ji; I;:..::‘8 ,‘,I. ..i 1, .: 1 i! 1. .:;~’ ‘:: I . ;;I ; .: .I.‘. i::, ‘; . _ ArrAnei& .for czifc’;;l&j&, ‘,&ct’~&~‘ng ‘io.r ten,,;i~ag $6; !iele;;~’ i :‘. ,I:;‘. i, ,j . . - attendl~ special meetings And heari-& (e.g.! Land C~I?+M,A~~ Board Bearings); - "'ti' requ'ir;d; :.I r', ..!i'.,T : .,I >. ,I j I,. . I. I .! . . .j . I,, ;. )I'* ,;a!, I*,i': I:, il.:: .! '.,;x ,. !.: .i ',I .,J:,, : I .. 3. kCfli& 3~&;i’*&t& icif&l a~c~ kB’:-i...i i :‘~*.#‘I I’ ,’ ,v i; .:, ..I,!:-.- -:’ - iprepqiog a vnadety of +formatlo~ 10% .*tc.'; ',','.'., * ;. . I I. - technic~~,~.~,!ndnc'inl': ijtc; { .foi bud&t :laput; . .:I. i. -bJ i’::,i* ,,j . . . .."! ._ ;Tmdd*ne v.~i~d)(~~h;li~~i~~;p~rts :;& l&is@& 'fipl*&;: ? :* .I:: 0 I ~- ,enauring ‘eteff ‘are ‘prop’etly’iya$&d 'in negotlatlon,"end C&e .&are of negotiation ' nethodology,.prAc'tlces 'And iiaiatry'~poli~iee;'~ ! ' * " " "' ' I ,': ,'i pr6pAring eOi&Atfon of titldff ‘~iifonmace;’ diAcus&g A*k$th euperv~e~r; . ~.echeduling.ettif 98cat,ione for Approvnl ~of ,manageri'. ; -'providing tcchnltil infometlon fbr eup&vfeor’e decfefod’fn matt& ‘such as merits, ~'prOmOtiOnE%, reclaeeificAtione, disii~lide, teguhr #tiff Appointmentq, etc.; i providing technical lnpuf~iato recruit&t decisloae:‘~ ! .” .: i! 4. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDDE REOUIRED TO PERFORM THE WORKur*rs~wunar.rrullrlffi.rxrtni~~l~r my :i F-?ailed knowledge of negotiation prfnclplee normally obtained through com&ldh of,real i 1. .atq coursea ;eading.to AccreditAtionfrom A recognized pegot~ation/ApprAisa1 h!..BtftUte or I. '; Asbciatlon; '&pplesiented,hy ,progreea~vely~.reeponalble~~experien~e ,in ,the,,renl eatate field. : k&sledge of &&ment 'p&iea‘and 'proceduree re"iand'transfer 'includir&,expiopriations. Knoyledge'bf apprdpriate'Provlncia1 and Federal legislation. Ability to effectively communicate orally And in vriting. Damonatrated supervisory skilla. i ‘i 26 APPENDIX 4 L . . . . : “.. )‘. ,._ . ,,,. <, ,. : ~. . ‘i., I 27 Work requiree en extensive knovledqe of policies, procedures, doc,,mcntation, =equl~uons, leqieleUon, etc. emsoSieted with leasinq end property management en e qmerel knaladqe of buildlnq conetruction. The bmulsdqe is normally ecqoired after OemnQry school prsduation end subetentie., cxprience in property appreisa yt+etlon and leeein . kMni~tratlW Tm P-' ordinates. 8 m required to Bshedols end supar~iee wrklosd of sub- Good cmmmications skills to nsqotiate learse end prepare reports. The incunbant works with considerable independence, referrinq to supervisor fog advise on only ccrqlex MC unueoel problems. Work is oontrolled w branch and ministry policlee, proondvxea, and quidellnes qoperninq the interIn property man*qementpmqram. Judqaant ie retired to eet+blish work priorities er,C eeeiqr, projects to subxdinetes, to remrmd solutions to subordinatel on 1eABe Mqotiation or mmaqenant problemsi to raviev and dev&,p prowdures cod guidelines and to deeida on e COUIII~ of action in the neqotiation of~oont,,nti~ ahd politically eensitiva laeaos. rith Luqai BIMch, diewseI, mntentioue probldme Involving legal interpret+le. lith tanante. parsonally noqotiatss co+ex and contentiooe leases. ,ith re~resent.eUv~s of other levels of qmernm,nt end other tinnietries. to rssolv ~slatively -1s~ pxoblanrs resultlnq frm r&ion-+ik?n.by se orgmintions.’ ., :~ . ./ . . _: APPENDIX 5 28 REAL ESTATE OFFICER 2 This class covers the positionsof those employees who, under the direction of a more senior Real Estate Officer or other unit official, performs ‘a variety of duties relating to the apuraisa. acpuisition and management of property, at the intermediate management level. . In some positions, as supervisors of -Area or Regional Property Units, comprised ,offrom two to four sub-units, these employees are responsible for !’ the direction and supervision of a number of technical staff, who are assigned duties relating to one or more of the functions of the unit. They may be located permanently in the field, or work out of the head office of the property organization. They may also act as assistants to the supervisors of very large property units, comprised of more than four sub-units. -w In other head office positions, these employees are responsible for the activities ‘relating to specific elements of one or more of the’functions of the unit, such as arbitration and expropriation; review of negotiata procedures in cases of unresolved difficulties., for settlement or referral to arbitration; the review and investigation of claims for damages ; and other special assigments. These employees may spend a considerable time in the field, and work entails the review of work methods and procedures, recommending changes, and as&ring in implementation. They may coaxait funds of up to $lO,OCO, either as c-signer, or on individual signature tithout reference to higher authority. * SKILLS Am lamEKE REQUIRED: 1. Demonstrated technical competence required at this level. 2. The ability to communicate clearly, both orally and in writing. 3. Well developed supervisory and management.ability, good judgement, tact. HIX’fL?4 ST.4FPlX STAXDARDS : 1. Education - Grade 12 s!!! Accreditation in the Appraisal Institute of Canada (AACI) or the equivalent, such as accreditation in the: TPIC - Town Planning Institute of Canada CIQS - Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors RI.5 - Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Craduazion in T. closely related field, from a Comtiry Csllege. ,,, .:. ai, . .I 5) t'ne determination of land benc!marks for all geographical locations involving the development of assisted housing for use by the mur.iciRalities and ministq in the determination of maximum Rroject costs; 7) the :eviev of local labour rates and material costs for t‘ne p~rxxs.e of establishing construction costs: 9) the carrying out Of <?e duties of Chief Appraiser dilring sbsenC~5 and Bs required. xnowledge: Work requires a thorough knowledge of the principles and proper application of appraisal techniques and cost estimating of a wide variety of buildings as well as the appraisal of various foms of land tenure, in order to provide accurate valuations; a sound working knowledge of the National and Ontario Building Codes, Mortgage law and legislation affecting internal and external policies and appraisal processes; administrative skills are required to co-ordinate end suoerrise subordinate and fee-for-service staff; good communication skills ate required to e%plain appraisal decisions and to prepare concise reports &d-procedun&-m Judqement: work is performed under the general direction of the Chief Appraiser, within accepted procedures and appraisal review guidelines. Judgeavant is exercised in determining the validity of an appraisal report based on subordinate appraiser's ability to correctly judge and interpret the available facts: co-ordinating work of subordinate staff and Fee A?praisers; determining the impact of legal requirements sxh as Residential and Tenancies Act and other legislation related t0 the residential rental/sale market; ensuring that there i's no undue impact on communities due to rental rates set by incumbents and C.ft.H.C.; determining land benchmarks for all geographical locations involving the develooment of assisted housing; providing adequate explanations of the decisions taken to all parties concerned and assisting in the development of unit prices, rates and allowances. ACCOmtability: The inci;nbent h&s direct accountability for: *rosra.7 - The supervision 2nd co-ordination UF all appraisal se-iczs withm a geographic area’; the :omulation and updating of building cost procedures and manuals for the various regions within the are-?. - -1 \ I / I material and.Financial The certification of mcnies to be 1st and secured by mortqacje to private lenders under the communit/ housing programs; the recommendation of regular travel expenses of subordinates and fees of independent contract Fee Appraisers .Athin appropriate delegation. 3rrors in judgement could involve the'nhistr? and outside agencies in financially llnsound commitments or the loss of 'a good offer to ixuchase resrrlting in direct substantial financial loss. Incorrect I appraisals on future profits from land development could cause public criticism and embarrassment to the ministry. Setting unit rental rates ,too high could have a detrimental effect on the community and could leave the agency with a partially empty unprofitable building on its hands. Contacts: Internal Frequently provides senior ministry officials with appraisal advice; as requested provides middle management with appraisal reports. Pxternal Regularly deals with C.M.H.C. to establish cost guidelines; with municipal officials to provide appraisal advice and direction in the resolution of problems; with real estate officials,and developers to exchange information. . 29 APPENDIX 6 i aod”h f Cm”!2 BCnChlNrt Cod. ADMINISTRATIVE PROPERTY ADNINISTRATION APpR17-1 iOB IDENTIFICATION DATA SUPZRVISING APPPAIsER CHIEF APPRAISER Puroose of Position: . To ensure the establishment of accurate value of land and buildings in order to determine lending values for mortgages from private lending institutions, purchases , sales and other purposes for all programs of the'ministry, its associated Crown Agencies and Municipal non-profit organizations. . ,Major Responsibilities: In a branch responsible fhr carrying out the valuation of land and buildings according to accepted methods as required by the Appraisal .I.nstitute.of Canada relative to all proposals for developent through purchase, rental, sale or leasing and within a large geographical area of the province covering a number of regions~, assumesresponsi- bility for: I) * 2) 3) I 4) 5) the supervision and review of the appraisal, studies and other tasks carried out by subordinate appraisers to ensure high level of service including the correctness of the certification of value under the C.X.H.C. Agreement with the Federal Gove-ment; the provision of appraisal advice to sen,ior staff and client S$'encies; the personal handling of or assistance in the more crmplrx appraisals such as combined high-rise and ccnunercial projects, town centres and industrial comPlexes; the supervision of subordinate appraisers and independent Fee Appraisers incluiing scheduling assigrxiants and reviawing work performance WalUatiQn, guidance, training, discipline, etc.; the particiPaticn with C.X.B.C. officials in the development Of miximtxn llnit prices, rates and allowances; , 32 APPENDIX 7 This class covers the uositions of those employees who, qunder the direction of a Senior Real Estate Officer, -perform a variety of duties relating to appraisals, pro.perty acquisition or property managanent, at the more senior levels of mar,hpnent . 1n some positions these mnployees are responsible’for the direction and 1 :ontrol of all of the activities relating to a major element, of a function of the property organizationi such as Urban or Rural appraisal, or the general review of appraisals and agreunents. They ere responsible for develop- and implementiag-procedties; and for revietig the mrk of more juior staff, for adherence to procedures, and for general proficiency. .In other positions at heed office, these employees act as assis-tznts to the sctior-- Real,..Estate ‘Officer in a relatively ~.%al”sjeciali::‘ed property unit, and are responsible for the day-to-day direction and supervision oft-subordinate staff In still other positions these employees are responsible for the supervision and direction of a very large Regional or Area property unit comprised of more than four suLunits. SKZiS .UD X??CIUMGE REQI;IRED: 1. Demonstrated technical competence required at -S.s level. 1. The ability to communicate clearly, both orally and in writing. 3. A high degree of supervisory and management abiliq, good judgement, tact. . .A. ihca-ion - Grade 19 c - . -.” 2 Accreditation. ilr the Appraisal Instirute of Canada (.-!-Xi) or tie equivalent, such as accreditation in the: TPIC - Town Planning Instirue of Catid CIQS - Cardian Lvtitue of Pt;antity Sumeyors xs - Royal Institute of Chartered Suneyors OR Zrtixcioc in a closely related fiei;i, fnm a comtiry Coiiege. 2. ?kn~ years sf experience ds a Prcpe;?: kz.2: or ikzl Eszre Officer i3 a dep=iartmrnt . of th Gove-men- of Ontrris, . . . or tie eqtivziecr. in experience gained elsewhere.