Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-2036A.Ross et al.92-07-10 j ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LACOURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE CPMMISSION DE EMSETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: (4 16) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUE57, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M50 IZ8 FACSlMfLE/TELECOPIE. (416) 326-1396 2036A/87, 2036M/87, 2036Q/87, 1107/87, 186/88 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Ross/Budmir/Kline/Wilson) Grievor - and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Employer BEFORE: M. Watters Vice-Chairperson J. McManus Member D. Montrose Member FOR THE S. Watson GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE M. Failes EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HEARING November 29, 1991 February 19, 1992 i j phis proceeding' arises from the grievances of Mr . G. Budimir , Mr . L . Wismer and Mr. R. Kline, all of which were filed in early July , 1987 . At that time , these grievors were Electronic Technicians in District 4. That District includes the Hamilton and Burlington areas and encompasses a number of 400 series highways. The grievors each claimed they were improperly classified . The Union requested that we issue a Berry order on their behalf . Compensation was claimed commencing twenty ( 20 ) days prior to the date of the grievances . The class standards and position specification for Electronic Technician are attached hereto as Schedules 'A ' and ' B ' , respectively . Mr . Kline was the sole grievor to present evidence . He was advanced as a representative witness . The remaining grievors agreed to be bound by his evidence . The Employer elected not to call any evidence . Counsel for the Employer noted that he was in substantial agreement with the facts adduced by the Union . These grievances are the second in a series of grievances emanating from District 4 in respect of electrical classiFications . This panel of the Board , in a decision dated January 25 , 1991 ( Swibb et al . , 1107/87 , 2036/87 , 0186/88 ) , determined that four (4) Maintenance Electricians were improperly classified and that a terry order should issue as a consequence . During the course of Mr. Kline ' s testimony , he was presented with certain excerpts from our earlier award . He substantially 1 adopted the finding of facts contained therein . The relevant portion of that award reads : In our judgment, the major changes in the job are as follows : ( i ) Highway lighting systems have become more sophisticated and complex over time. Initially, the grievor was called upon to install , repair and replace one hundred and twenty ( 120 ) volt incandescent lights. The grievor described such work as relatively straight forward. It involved a limited number of components including lamp, socket, switch and power source. Subsequently , a transition was made to mercury vapour lighting and -then to low and high pressure sodium lighting. These systems are of much higher voltage and are comprised of a larger number of component parts. More recently, greater use has been made of variable lighting . This form of lighting requires programming by the Maintenance Electrician so that the intensity of light will vary according to identified driving conditions . Reference was also made in the evidence to the grievor' s work in respect of high-mast lighting . ( ii ) A similar development has occurred vis a vis' traffic signals. It was the grievor 's evidence that fixed time controllers were employed in or about 1967 . The timing and sequence of the signals were then pre- set and would not respond to changes in traffic flow or 2 i road conditions . The grievor stated that this type of system . "had no brain" and simply performed "a set task" . Fixed time controllers were contrasted with the traffic actuated-computer operated system in use in 1987 . The timing of such a system is determined by the Extent of traffic flow . Detectors that are installed in the highway send signals to controllers which , in turn , change the signal as necessary . This system also recessitates programming on the part of the Maintenance Electrician. This programming will identify the tasks to be performed and the periods of operation . The grievor advised that he works with every component of this new system from power source to traffic heads . He also referred to his responsibilities in respect of "too-fast signs" . The grievor stated that much of this work required specific training in programmable controllers . He also expressed the opinion that electricians from outside of his office could not perform this type of labour without first being trained in the system. ( iii ) The Freeway Traffic Management System ( F . T.M. S. ) has been in use in the Burlington Skyway area since the early 1980 ' s . In total , it constitutes a highly sophisticated advisory system which monitors and maintains the flow of traffic . F. T. M. S. has a number of components including surveillance , detection , 3 and lighting . The Maintenance Electrician works with all parts of the overall system. in this regard, the grievor testified that he installs , repairs and replaces the following items: cameras , television monitors, communication pedestals, amplifiers, joysticks , computer keyboards , loop detectors , changeable message signs, blank-out signs , variable lighting , photo cells , photo sensors , fibre optics, satellite compartments , and micro-processors . Some of these parts also fall within the scope of work performed by the Electronic Technician . As with the signal systems noted above, the grievor routinely is called upon to program the changeable message signs and blank-out signs . This is done through use of a keyboard which permits him to eliminate old . information and to input new instructions. It was the grievor 's evidence that fifty percent (50%) of his time is devoted to work relating to F. T.M . S. Such work is unique to District 4 . We were led to believe that similar work in other Districts is contracted out. ( iv ) The changes and developments described above has led to the use of more complex and sophisticated testing devices and tools. These include the spectrum analyzer , the protocol analyzer, and the osciliscope. Additionally , the grievor is engaged in the cathodic protection process which combats rusting on reinforcing 4 i bridge structures . He also works with explosive a.:tuated tools and hydraulic aerial devices . In i summary , the grievor estimated that ninety percent (-30% ) of his duties involved contact with technology that did not exist as of 1967 . ('r ) It is beyond dispute that traffic flow has increased over the years on 400 series highways . This has impacted the safety procedures utilized by the grievor . ( vi ) Lastly , the grievor has been called upon to inspect electrical work performed by external contractors to ensure it is in conformity with Ministry standards . The quantum of such work has increased since 1980. At that time, such task was largely performed by a sole employee . " ( pages 2-5 ) Generally , it was Mr . Kline ' s evidence that the Electronic Technicians work with the tools , equipment and systems mentioned above . He stated , more particularly , that they are primarily engaged in diagnosis , repair and modification in respect of problems arising with same . To perform this task , the Electronic Technician must possess an understanding of the equipment's circuitry . Mr . Kline testified that, in contrast, the Maintenance Electricians deal with matters relating to the flow of power , current., and signal . in his estimation , the Maintenance Electricians can only work in the electrical field "to a certain j I 5 i point" . Once that point is reached , repairs will require the application of expertise possessed by the Electronic Technicians . Similarly , it was Mr . Kline' s assertion that the scope of his programming is "a lot deeper" than that performed by the Maintenance Electricians . By way of example, he stated that he can actually create a message ab initio on a changeable message sign through the use of a P. C . keyboard . We were led to believe that the Maintenance Electrician does not have this ability as their expertise is restricted to the programming of certain standard messages . Counsel for the Union took Mr . Kline through the position specification at some length . Mr . Kline accepted the description of ` Purpose of position ' as contained therein . His major caveat was that it did not specifically allude to the communications aspect of his work . Mr. Kline agreed that he performs all of the duties and related tasks listed in the specification . He also cited several additional functions which he performs . Generally, he left us with the impression that he believed the document does not fully capture all of the ccmplexities inherent in the position . His observations as to the level of supervision and qualifications required are dealt with elsewhere in this Award . After considering all of the evidence, the Board is satisfied that the position specification provides a reasonably accurate description of the job of Electronic Technician as performed by these grievors . . B The Union' s challenge to the class standards focused on the following elements : ( 1 ) Supervision received; ( ii ) Supervision given ; ( iii ) Qualitative change in the position ; and ( iv ) Qualifications . We address each of these areas below. SUPER4.ISION RECEIVED A flow chart of the ' District 4 Winona Electrical Operations Centre ' was filed with this Board (exhibit ' 8 ' ) . The grievors ' immediate supervisor is Mr . H . Blaine, Co-ordinator of Electrical Crews . Mr . Blaine , in turn , reports to Mr . S . Fernick , Superintendent of Electrical Operations . The grievor acknowledged that he receives his orders from Mr . Blaine. He suggested , however , that his written orders are general i.n nature and that , essentially , he has been instructed to repair any problems arising with the FTMS . Mr . Kline also indicated that Mr . Blaine or Mr . Fernick might assign a specific task to him for early completion . Additionally , they might ask that he attend a meeting for them. Mr . Kline testified that "they are there to help" if he experiences a problem. He stated that, for the most part , the Electronic Technicians perform their duties with very little direct supervision . He further described the supervision received from Mr . Blaine as "very limited" . Mr . Kline noted that he would only seek out Mr . Blaine or Mr . Fernick if some "major problem" occurred at the work site . He also stated that he might consult with these gentlemen on a technical matter prior to speaking with a manufacturer , consultant or designer . Mr . Kline I 7 denied that the Electronic Technicians receive general supervision from the Maintenance Electrician Foremen . He claimed that, to the contrary , he provides instruction and direction to the Maintenance Electrician Foremen on matters relating to electronics . It was the position of the Union that the Electronic Technicians do not receive the type of supervision contemplated by the class standards . Firstly, it was submitted they receive no supervision from the Maintenance Electrician Foremen . Secondly , it was asserted that they do not receive "general supervision" from "other supervisors" . Counsel argued that the Electronic Technicians receive only " limited" day to day supervision form Mr . Blaine. He further suggested that such supervision is only "nominal " in respect of technical issues. We were urged to find that the employees in question have a high degree of responsibility , much of which is exercised independently . The Board was referred to Beggs et al . , 453/88 et al . (Wilson ) and Cabeza et al . , 0909/86 et al . ( Epstein ) in support of this position . In response , it was the position of the Employer that the class standards adequately describe the type of supervision given to the Electronic Technicians. Counsel submitted that Mr . Blaine and Mr. Fernick could be considered as "other supervisors" for purpose of the standards . Further , it was argued the standards 8 i contemplate that the Electronic Technicians will receive a looser form of supervision . Reference was made to the fact that the class standards indicate only major problems will be referred to the supervisor for direction . Counsel considered that this was in accord with the thrust of Mr. K1ine ' s evidence as to his practice . Lastly , it was submitted that the class standards do not impose a level of technical supervision . From the perspective of the Employer , the Electronic Technicians are expected to be "the skilled technical people" in the area of electronics . The Board is satisfied that the class standards sufficiently describe the level of supervision given to the Electronic Technicians . It is clear from the evidence that they no longer receive general supervision from the Maintenance Electrician Foremen . However , we agree that both Mr . Blaine and Mr . Fernick may be considered as "other supervisors" for purposes of the standards . Further , we think that -the type of supervision they provide is "general " in nature. They do not tightly supervise the grievors , as the Electronic Technicians are the experts in the field . The supervision , therefore, does not need to be technical in nature . Mr . Kline ' s evidence confirms that he refers only major problems to his supervisors . This is consistent with the expectation of the class standards . 9 SUPERVISION GIVEN TO OTHERS Mr . Kline testified that the Electronic Technicians provide both internal and external supervision . With respect to the former , he stated that he instructs and directs Maintenance Electrician Foremen , Maintenance Electricians , Apprentices, Linemen , and Contract and Summer Help vis a vis electronic work . Mr. Kline further advised that he supervises work crews in the field even in situations where a foreman is present . This assertion was not contested by the Employer . It appears to the Board that the supervision given on site is primarily technical in nature. That is not surprising in view of the expertise held by this group of employees . On occasion , the Electronic Technicians may also be asked to take charge of the shop area in the absence of Mr . Blaine and Mr . Fernick . In terms of external supervision , Mr. Kline advised that he regularly supervises and inspects the efforts of outside contractors to ensure their work and materials meet Ministry specifications and guidelines . Additionally , he acts as a resource to the contractors for problem resolution. It would appear that this form of supervision and inspection has increased over the years of the grievor 's employment with the Ministry . The Electronic Technicians are also empowered to sign force accounts which serve to authorize contract extras . The Board was told that the Ministry will pay the cost of the extras on the basis of this signature. 10 i was the position of the Union that the class standards focus entirely on internal supervision and that they do not speak to thE� supervision of outside contractors . Counsel submitted that the standards did not , therefore , encompass this aspect of the grievor 's work . In response , it was the position of the Employer that the class standards contemplate the supervisory function . It was submitted further it could be implied from the statement that Electronic Technicians "may act as sub-foremen of electrical crews . " Counsel also argued that the inspection function performed in respect of the contractors is caught by the word "check " in the first paragraph under 'Characteristic Duties ' . After considering the respective positions , the Board has been persuaded that the argument advanced by the Employer should prevail . It is apparent from a review of the class standards that the Electronic Technicians are to exercise a supervisory and instructional function in respect of internal staff such as helpers . while they do not act as sub-foremen of electrical crews , we think that a supervisory role can be implied from that reference . This role would encompass employees who would normally be part of the crew such as Maintenance Electricians , Apprentices , and summer staff . It is likely that the class standard did not envisage technical assistance and direction being given to the Maintenance Electrician Foremen , in view of 11 -y the fact it states they will be providing the "general supervision" , We do not think , however, that this renders the class standard inoperative as the type of supervision and instruction given by the Electronic Technicians remains the same. It is technical in nature and simply reflects the increasing emphasis towards the use of complex electronics in highway systems. The Board notes that under ' Characteristic Duties' the Electronic Technicians perform a checking function . Further , they may be required to instruct and supervise unskilled workers or "other tradesmen in this work" . This language is broad enough , in our judgment , to include the work done vis a vis the outside contractors. We acknowledge that the language on this point is not as precise as it could be. Nevertheless , the Board finds that the aforementioned responsibility may be reasonably implied from the general language found in the class standards . In this regard , the Board accepts the following comment from Aird et al . , 1349/87 (Slone) : For a classification grievance to succeed , the grievor must show that his job does not fairly fit within the relevant class standard . The class standard must necessarily contain some general language , but it must not be phrased in such generalities as to make the description meaningless . Like the strings of a musical instrument, the standard. must be neither too tight nor too loose . " ( page 4) In this instance, we have not been convinced that the general language renders the class standard meaningless . 12 i QUALITATIVE CHANGE IN THE POSITION As noted above , Mr . Kline accepted the finding in Swibb relating to the changes in technology which have occurred in respect to highway lighting systems, traffic signals , the F.T.M. S. , and testing devices and tools . He testified that approximately seventy ( 70 ) to eighty percent (80%) of his time is spent working on the F. T.M. S . He also stated that almost all of the F . T . M. S . equipment and testing equipment was either not used or not available when he commenced employment with the Ministry in 1975 . It was the position of the Union that the job of the Electronic Technician has changed qualitatively since the class standards were first drafted in 1962 . Substantial reference was made to the F. T . M. S. on which Mr . Kline spends the majority of his time . It was submitted that the system, and the new technology incorporated therein , has changed the essential character of the duties performed by the Electronic Technicians . We were urged to conclude that the level of electronics work contemplated by the class standards has been surpassed as a consequence of technological development . More specifically , counsel argued that F . T .M. S . constitutes a complex communications network , with a computer base , which is materially different from a traffic light or signal . It was hi's submission that the system is not captured by the words "complex electrical equipment" as found in the 'Class Definition ' . Ultimately , it was the Union ' s I 13 f� 1 position that the level of complexity of Mr . Kline's work exceeds that envisaged by the class standards. Simply put , we were asked to find that the overall standards have become so dated as to be outdated . The Union relied on the awards in 5wibb; Cabeza; and Brick et al . , 564/84 ( Samuels) in support of its argument. In response , it was the position of the Employer that the core duties of the Electronic Technicians still fall within the parameters of the class standards. Counsel submitted that the grievors continue to perform "skilled technical work at the journeyman level involving installation , adjustment, repair and maintenance of electronic devices and complex electrical equipment" , including "traffic and lighting controls, highway lighting and illumination systems" . It was argued that the result in this case should not turn on whether the job, and the equipment required to perform same, has changed. From the perspective of the Employer, a change in the job should not determine the propriety of the classification . Instead , it was asserted that this issue should be resolved on the language of the class standards . The Employer claimed the the new duties here are not of such a kind , or do not occur in such a degree , to justify a conclusion that the job has changed materially. Counsel submitted that the Electronic Technicians continue to perform electronics work . In this regard , reference was made to dictionary definitions of the words "technical , " "electrician° and "electronics" and to an excerpt from the 'World Book 14 P i Encygl.gped;a ( 1961 ) , volume 5 , to support the submission that communications and computers are an integral part of the field of electronics , as commonly understood . Further , it was argued by counsel that the class standards are not "technology specific" . As a consequence , a change in tools or equipment should not automatically lead to a finding of improper classification . Counsel suggested that the class standards before us should be interpreted with respect to "the current state of the art . " Reliance was placed on the awards in Aird ; Re Wilson Concrete Products Ltd . And United Cement , �Jme And Gyosum Workers , Local 424 ( 1973 ) , 3 L .A .C . ( 2d) 32 (Weatherill ) ; Sovereign , 241 /91 ( Low) ; and Parker , 107/83 ( Draper) . This aspect of the case is , without doubt , the most problematic . We accept the evidence presented by the Union that the relevant technology has changed significantly since 1962 . As stated previously , a similar finding was made in our award in Swibb. It is also clear that the Electronic Technician standard is neither technology nor equipment specific . We agree that it may tolerate certain changes and still remain viable. Ultimately , the Board concludes that the core duties of the grievors ' job must be assessed opposite the language of the class standards in order to properly determine whether the job, as performed , is something other than the type of job contemplated by the standards. After considering all of the evidence presented , it is the Board ' s judgment that the work of Mr . Kline 15 i and the other grievors falls within the scope of the class standards . Firstly , we are satisfied that their work is "skilled technical work . " These grievors possess considerable expertise in the field of electronics . Secondly , we are satisfied that the complexity of their efforts is sufficiently accounted for by the reference to "electronic devices and complex electrical equipment. " We find that these words continue to generally describe the components worked on by the grievors . While the grievors no longer work on toll payment controls at bridges, much of their effort is directed to traffic and lighting controls and highway lighting and illumination systems . Simply put, the Board finds that they are still performing skilled technical work on sophisticated and complex electronic and electrical equipment. On our reading this type of work falls within the scope of the class standards . The development of technology , including the F. T.M . S . , has not rendered these standards outdated or inapplicable , as was the case in Swibb . In that instance , it was much clearer that the actual duties performed by the Maintenance Electricians no longer fit within the intended scope of the class standards . The Board found , in that case , that the standards contemplated routine electrical work which stood in contrast to the type of sophisticated and complex duties actually engaged in by the electricians . On that ground those standards are distinguishable from those being interpreted here . 16 i r' QUALIFICATIONS As stated previously , Mr . Kline commenced employment with the Ministry in 1975 . He started as an Apprentice. After completing an eight-thousand ( 8 , 000) hour apprenticeship , he was certified as an electrician . Mr. Kline subsequently took a one ( 1 ) year course in electronics which led to the issuance of an Electronic Class D. Licence . He started as an Electronic Technician in 1985 . Thereafter , he completed a number of shorter courses relating to the F. T. M . S . and the tools and equipment required to efficiently perform in the job. These courses included the following : ( i ) a ' 170 course ' relating to the operation of microprocessors ; ( ii ) Bell Canada courses on electronic communications ; ( iii ) a fibre-optics course ; ( iv ) a safety regulations course offered by the Electric Utilities Safety Association ; (v ) a Linesmen course relating to safety , pole-climbing , aerial work , first aid and C . P . R . ; ( vi ) a three ( 3 ) day course on F . T. M. S . ; ( vii ) assorted follow-up courses on FTMS ; (viii ) a course on microwaves ; and ( ix ) a three ( 3 ) day course on programmable lighting . i It was Mr . Kline ' s evidence that the Qualifications required in the class standards were deficient in several respects . Firstly , he noted that an electrician ' s licence is required as an equivalent combination of education and experience" is no longer sufficient or permitted . Secondly , he stated that the job demands a certificate in electronic theory ( 309D) . Mr . Kline 17 ai 4 believed that the reference in the class standards to "some training in electronic theory" was an inadequate description of the qualification actually required . Thirdly , he expressed the opinion that the Electronic Technician now must demonstrate a working knowledge of a much larger body of tools and equipment. Finally , Mr . Kline testified that more than one ( 1 ) years related experience was needed . He stated that it took him about one ( 1 ) year to become reasonably competent in the duties arising from F.T .M. S . He suggested that an Electronic Technician coming in from elsewhere would not be able to perform his job without first being trained in the various systems unique to District 4 . It was the position of the Union that the 'Qualifications ' set 'out in the class standards no longer apply to the needs and duties of the Electronic Technician . Reference was made to Mr . Kline' s identification of the perceived deficiencies . Generally , in terms of training , it was submitted that "a heightened degree of specificity is now required in the Dri st r i ct "given the development and utilization of new and more complex technology , In response , counsel for the Employer noted that completion of a " recognized apprenticeship in the electrical trade" is contemplated by the class standards . He conceded that an equivalent combination of education and experience is no longer permitted . In his submission, the inclusion of that option is irrelevant given the provision for trade certification mentioned . 18 I above . Counsel further argued that certification in the field of electronics is adequately covered by the requirement for "some training in electronic theory and practice at a recognized trade or vocational school . " The need for additional training was conceded. This was described as on-the-job training in contrast to training that must be taken prior to being eligible for the job. In summary , it was the thrust of the Employer ' s argument that substantially the same qualifications are required "then and now After considering the respective submissions , the Board concludes that the qualifications listed in the class standards match the needs of the job. Clearly , they speak to both certification as an electrician following apprenticeship and the need for additional training in the field of electronic theory and practice . We are prepared to find that the latter reference is sufficient to encompass the one ( 1 ) year course leading to the Electronic Class D Licence . We have not been persuaded that the minimum period of related experience is inadequate as claimed by Mr . Kline . We think that the one ( 1 ) year minimum is likely sufficient for entry into the job . The Board recognizes that further training is required to work with the complex technology employed in District 4 . Nevertheless , we are unable to conclude that the need for same transforms the job into something other than that defined in the Electronic Technician class standard . 19 � a For all of the above reasons, the Board is satisfied that the class standard sufficiently describes the core duties of the position of Electronic Technician . The claim for reclassification must therefore fail . It is likely , however , that our decision here and in Swibb will result in wage compression between the two ( 2 ) classifications at issue . The parties are urged to direct their attention to that development should it arise. Issues relating to the appropriateness of the wage structure are beyond the purview of the Board in a classification dispute. Our conclusion in this case is premised entirely on the evidence and the language found in the class standards. The grievances are , accordingly , denied . Dated at Toronto ,Ontario this 10th day of duly , 1992 . o-0,CAC V,- Via ea' M. Watters, Vice-Chairperson J . MCM us , Member D. Montrose, ember 20 I i 17646 i ELECTRONICS TECINICIAN CLASS DEFINITION: This is skilled technical work at the journeyman level involving installation, adjustment, repair and maintenance of electronic devices and complex electrical equipment. This would include toll payment controls at bridges, traffic and lighting controls, highway lighting >„d illumination systems. These employees receive general supervision from Mai.ntenaiice Electrician Foremen or other supervisors, referring only major problems for direction. They may supervise and instruct helpers and may act as sub-foremen of electrical crews. These employees may be required to perform related maintenance tasks but at least sixty percent of their work requires electronic-electrical skill. t; IAMCTF-RISTIC DUTIES: Oieck, repair and adjust such electronic and electrical apparatus as bridge :oil equipment, electronic amplifiers, sun switches, circuit breakers, traffic light controls. Make necessary repairs to highway lighting and illumination systems. Mty instruct and supervise unskilled workers or other tradesmen in this work. Carry out routine cleaning and maintenance on electronic and electrical equipment at regular intervals. SAE. FICATIONS: 1. Completion of the recognized apprenticeship in the electrical trade; some training in electronic theory and practice at a recognized trade or vocational school; or an equivalent combination of education and experience. 2. At least one year of experience as an Electrician engaged in the repair and maintenance of electronic and electrical equipment. 3. A .working knowledge of the tools, equipment, methods and practices of the electrical trade; a working knowledge of the by-laws and regulations relating to electrical installations; ability to work from manufacturers and designers wiring diagrams; instructional ability; good physical condition. Revi,;cd, February, 19G2. Posltlon 5peclllestlon III Class Allocation-CSC 61 (Ref r to back of form tar= +sum Instructions) Ontario , Data recelad he+tw=*W ntwo" New wriat nwnpw Well only t,hatition utte eieit+sa tiwt taw w. lectronic Technician f}6-5115-75 Sdt./Na,wwa IN./.T,►am.entyl CLm ads eeeey a we p w r ew r wwru Coddet u.tetianei a V Mar Q se"❑ a. Fe❑ U00 W4 s"p"a'°wt Iraitk,aft Electronic Tech. 06-5115-35 Elect oncs Technician 17646 w Trans ortation S Communications Central Re ion District 4 Burl in ton 58602 oridee Oreup iaroffel pre: m n u her a tltie nor a twn too No.olowdmn Na.ofpleme off""°-o~r �nacor of Electrical 5 Crews 06-5115-27 2.Ptupsea of ptiMtfoe twhy doss this t>astlewi sxktff Under general supervision of supervisor, incumbents carry out a variety of skilled work relating to the testing, repairing, modifying or rebuilding of electronic devices in the District Repair $top and as required assisting with the installation of complex electronic equipment in the field. Requisitions materials, maintains equipment history records and up-to-date schematic diagraml of all eguipirent �.Dutkte elld related mike ItehM b wriptpYag rebeYed m do,mmw aM telty7 lnme�m pareanta'et dew.Pant me each"Yl Duties induce: - working independently, incumbents repair faulty electrical and electronically operalee equipment such as: controllers, and timers for traffic signal systems, sun switches. photo electric cells, amplifiers, circuit breakers, etc. which have been replaced ano referred to the shop for repair. carrying out bench tests, by referring to manufacturers schematic diagrams or from personal experience, by using specialized equipment such as VOM meters, inductance meters, osciloscope, Huntington Tracker, transistor tester, spectrum analyzer. maintaining microprocessor systems of 170 and 190 types and their related equipment such as DC power supplies, monitors, detectors, load switches etc. instructing Electrical Crews in operation of microprocessos and other electrical and electronic equipment, Maintaining Freeway Traffic Management System, Burlington such as: - Closed Circuit Tit! (Cameras, Modulators, Demodulators, Monitors etc.) - Changeable Message Sign Subsystem (Controllers, Modems, etc.) - Broadband Coaxial Cable Subsystem {Amplifiers, Splitters, Directional Couplers) - RS-232-C/ Coaxial interface Subsystem (920C Modems) - Loop Detector Subsystem (Loops, Controllers, Modems) - Lift Bridge Interface Subsystem (Controller, Modem) - Audio Subsystem (C.B. Radios) - Outlying Blank Out Sign Subsystem. - Programmable Lighting. From instructions received from supervisor, carries out such duties as: - building and modifying electronic equipment i.e. timers, controllers, etc. to meet requirements of specialized lighting and/or traffic signals systems, requisitioning standard components required, wiring components to control cabinets, making 4.Skilb and knowktdye mqulted to pwform jab at full working teed,llrow=a wndut ryr a identyk or meaning.It 400kable) Certification as Maintenance Electrician D, _ 51. John Ambulance certificate. Ability to repair, maintain, adjust and install electronic: devices and complex electrical equipment. Ability to work from manufacturers' and designers' wiring diagrams. Good of thg electrical tr d DN 5.St4nattse fnntadlaw suoervlea► oars tart Den flay "Ith yew aey umth Yaw o'l 077 1 96 IJO . n7 LL6 Typo augwriaw'e net„. Type affkWt area Utie H. Blain, Electrical Foreman A.J. Percy, District Engineer G.clan aftation ctaw spa clam ease otatioationaI woete nwrmer tEneetw.don BLBC?RONiCS TBCHNICIAt7 17646 T5 - 01 01 0" Month Year 07 86 1 haee Cieselhed ON posit"tn aeexdenee with ti,e CMt Swvm C4MM Wpn CANWO atbn star,dwas fit the tanutwq reaaan: A. Incumbent performs skilled technical work at the journeyman level ,under the genir�al supervision of the Electrical Foreman involving testingt repairing; installing► building and modifying electronic devices and a. electrical equipment. Performs electronic-electrical work for at least 60% of the time. Q Confirming existing class allocation. swmwe of e 1"d Vaiust Date T vpe aNivator's netm D" Mo-it" Yew J. HENDERSON 7t,40.1072 IROW.101afi i Instructions for completing form CSC4150 use tow brm as irdkated belie 11w all tm#&wM est;W those aWAnd by pre E"mo a r- p- wft Aw I ll -0erawlf Coroarewron Pte er oeloe AdnriWeaNR Ora*. Cttlllsinstil ftttlf aid Ptlft4btts poaltlona; Fans to loot aeraplwed In 1119 00",ar M br the FWKMWral Goa§ttos 1A Seetloa I. Uncl@sWB d Seasonal Poaltioaa{Group 3Y.c w oste smove 1 ww s 4==pt ow vw FiarwoaN cow tors M Salton t.ate aM raw& oan rat more in Seawm a M othw poeftm : Carwteear d tor.ton§N l a a r as ore abw.tar Wrdartlled Serar§l PUMPAN .Is apnorrl. Instructions for Pottitbn Idendfbr fntgrtl OWN to Wdhig Seltaonid or%Pttltod coft (a§appaaeblN CW Mbed Poamp 111 w Whvtw 1p" 94ltarear Fag FU048M 1 aril ft* pert MW. Jane sw. PWHWW 2 oa+seaaare den. Apt. JUL Oct. UndeiilEed PGNtim wdw. Fee. Mew Aug. Abu. Orarp Z e SeMMO+rota Period 0 axrr§uadNa wee"or awe W ter Ndn 4 mGrrAte 1 INAd oaf§r kAWiva q SaaaanN wort pwlod 4 OWWPOWWO •Stlgle Neew%Le..SOM9 lxa FON arwrlh§w moe bra ter ere 12 rrrwalr 4 Grwp 2 S t.Irrafa§te i§e§or. ra,� nw.w❑ Gee 2.LMM @Wk.axle �p 1 e N 1§A harm bew Me M 011W traitor r •Multiot§aa§wa.La-Swnr .FOL Wb w Instructions for ow"Sots. Hrs. worst 1 hxkme rroea •ConwleM ttae bae Im R.P.T.t'aafllwra GF r. 2 tn§ert ride d§tart §r§on it reR hww bas. ter 0 am~w Orr •hdLmb Pd-, al theca to 2 daeiaal tt N=& 7 Faso.WM=*M d NOTE The a wspe al the wNd Nan warted Ilan wwtbrrel ear 4 arbeaptrart L t7 w 131. r coo I weete M R.P.T.anplotrer a§ogmill to a POSOM mW ttaaralde with tot§SOndried Mrs of wort 1d§nllS for 10 pa MM,Aey -1- N§to the Sdmtll.a MOM Of wort WIN raga•* the eatattNalWAN am d=fflWftAM of ■ .epee-- NOTE:ft lWe Odom What be aarrami"0 qLa y r am tiaemxrL t MUM Duties and related tasks cont'd necessary connection circuits, adjusting to suit specialized requirements, testing and ensuring equipment Is suitable for installation in the field. 25% - assisting field electrical crews in the installation and wiring of electronic equipmen! buildings, etc., climbing poles using spurs, making electrical connections, splicing cable, connecting transformer to existing power source working at heights up to 65' when working off aerial device, 2DO ft. when working on skyway bridges, approximately 70 ft. underground when working on Welland Canal tunnels and often In confined areas. 57 - maintaining history records of each piece of major equipment in use by noting periodic repairs, servicing, reviewing records regularly, ensuring equipment with poor record is checked regularly. maintaining manufacturers' schematic wiring diagrams of equipment used In District. contacting manufacturers of electrical equipment and requesting Information. as assigned. Skills and Knowledge cont'd Normally one year's experience as an electrician engaged in the repair and maintenance of electronic and electric equipment is required to perform satisfactorily at this position. Completion of a recognized electronics course preferred. Possession of a Class "0" or better licence. AU& a j