Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0090.Zakrewski et al.90-06-22 ~.qGwN EM~,.OYEE$ ~ GRI ANCE C MMI ION DE S EMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS ~0, RUE ~NDAS ~EST, ~REAU ~, TORONTO (~TAR~). MSG IZ~ FAC$~M~/~E~CO~E .. 90/88, 95/88,~110/88, 425/88, 433/~8, 468/88, 681/88, 723/88, 871/88, 696/87, 1096/87, 1'207/87, 1344/87, 1345/87, 1348/87, 1473/87, 1523/87, 1634/~7, 1994/87, 1995/87, 1996/87, 1997/87, 2011/87, 2034/87, 2131/87, 2272/87, 2455/87, 2504/87, 2505/87, 2506/87, 2548/87, 2562/87, 435/85, 439/86; 440/86, 441/86, 442/86, 608/86, 609/86, 729/86, 770/86,.771/86, 1124/86, 1757/86, 1307/86, 1343/86, 1344/86, 1345/86, 14!8/86, 1419/86, 1557/86, 1558/86,'1559/86, 1639/86, 1758/86, 1997/86 IN THE RATTER 0FANABBZT~ATZON. Under THE CROWN EHpLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before T~ GRZEVANCE SETTLERgNT BOARD BETWEEN: . OPSEU (Zakrewskt e~ al) Grievors - and The Crow~ in Right of Ontario (R£n£stc¥ of the Environment) - and BEFORE= J.W. Samuels Vice-Chairperson G. MaJesky Member A. Stapleton FOR THE N. GRrEVOR= Counse! Gowling, Stra~h¥ & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE D. Cos~en EMPLOYER: CounseI Managemen~ Board of Cabine~ BEAR~NGS: November 7, 1989 April 4, 19, 1990 We have been asked to hear and determine 91 grievances in which employees of the Ministry of the Environment grieve their classifications. This is a monstrous assignment! These grievances were filed in 1985 through 1988. They involve 19 different situations, the only common thread in all these situations is that all of the grievors were, at the time of their grievances, classified at some level in the Environmental Technician series. Most of them are now classified at equivalent levels in the Environmental OffiCer series. The grieVances claim .a wide variety of remedies various specific classifications, or simply to be '"classified appropriately". Whether or not this over-burdened panel of the B~ard would ever have been able to wade through all of these grievances is a question which will not be answered. As we shall explain in a moment, we will begin the resolution of this mountain of grievances, and will leave it in the capable hands of othet panels of the Board to complet~ the work. The 19 types of grievances may be grouped into four categories: · Grievors who, at the time of their grievances,, were classified as ET3 or ET4, and are now classified as EO3 or EO4, who work in the Abatement area of the Regional Offices of the Ministry, and who claim that they should be classified as EOS. · Grievors Who were in the Technical Support Division of the Ministry who claim that they should be classified as EO5. , Grievors classified as ET3 at the 'time of their grievance who claim that they should have been classified as ET4, and therefore now claim E04, which is the current classification of the former ET4s. · Grievances which have no commonality with each other or with the three first categories. At this stage, we are going to deal With the first categorY of grievances. The basic issues are--firstly, are environmental officers whose 3 work is abatement pmperly classified .at the 1:.O3 or EO4 levels? And, if not, would they be properly classified at the EO$ level? After this award, is issued, the panics will decide how they wish to proceed with the second and third categories of grievances, and the Board will be asked to schedule hearings with respect to the grievances in the fourth category, using separate panels for each of the dissimilar grievances~ The Ministry is now organized into a number of primary units (an organization chart, prepared in June 1988, is attached 'to this award as Appendix 1). One of these mits is the Operations Division. This Division has two elements--an Investigations and Enforcement Branch ("IEB"), which handles investigation and preparation of cases for prosecution throughout the province; and six Regional Offices around the province. The Regions are divided into Districts. Abatement is one of the functions carried out by the District and Regional Offices. Briefly, an Abatement Officer identifies sources of pollution and is involved in the .establishment of abatement measures to reduce the introduction of contaminan£s into the natural environment. A typical position specdicarion for an Abatement Officer is attached to this award as Appendix 2. The Abatement Officer derives authority from the Environmental Protection Act. (EPA), Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA), Pesticides Act (PA), Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA), and the Provincial Offences Act (POA). Generally, each Officer is assigned to a geographical area or a particular industry or a particular company, or a combination of the three. The Abatement Officer is a "Provincial offence Officer", with many of the powers of a police officermto enter premises, to search and seize, to issue offence notices. 4 The Officer is involved constantly in the monitoring of industrial, municipal' and other activities which can give rise to the release of c'ontaminants into the natural environment. The Officer collects samples and takes statements from wimesses (bough not sworn statements). The Abatement Officer acts as an expert--giving evidence in court; advising members of the public, industrial clients, and others. · When the Abatement Officer finds that contaminants are being introduced into the natural environment, the Officer prepares an Occurrence Report, which will include recommendations for action, and the Officer may issue a ticket under the Provincial Offences Act if the offence is a minor one. The recommendations for action go to management, to the Legal Services Branch, to the Investigations 'and' Enforcement Branch, or to some other appropriate authority. The recommended action may invotve (with the empowering'legistation shown in b/ackets) · a warning to the person responsible for the contamina.,at in the formof an Action Request Notice or a Violation Notice (EPA and ORCA) · a voluntary agreement for abatement with the polluter, known as a program approval (EPA) · a Control Order, requiring the polluter to meet certain conditions of operation (EPA orpA) · a Stop Order, requiring the polluter to cease the polIufing activities immediately (EPA or PA) · an Interim Order, enabling the appropriate Director to take immediate action (OWRA) · an Emergency Order to take certain action (OWRA) · an Emergency Notice (PA) · an Order for Repair of Damage, to repair the injury caused to the environment (EPA) · some other Order, Direction, Licence, Report, Requirement, Permit or Approval authorized by th? relevant legislation. · prosecution. · an Injunction or Restraining Order from a court, to deal with an offender who has failed to abide by a previous imperative order' · some Other Court Order necessary.to achieve abatement. Often, if {ction is to be taken,, such as the issuance of an Order, the Abatement Officer will be involved in the preparation of the Order. At spill sites, often the Abatement Officer plays a leading role in the immediate response by employees of the Ministry.of the Environment, police, municipal officials, and others. If the action to be taken is prosecution, then the Investigations and Enforcement Branch takes carriage of the situation'..Investigators from this Branch will take all steps necessary to investigate the alleged offence. An InvestigatOr will lay. the charges. The Branch will prepare the court briefs for counsel. And the Investigators will be 'involved hea.vfly at trial giving evidence, The Abatement .OfFicer, who first filed the Occurrence Report concerning the situation, will generally assist the Investigators and may give evidence at trial. But it is clear' .that,.-once it is decided that prosecution may be the ~appropriate actiori', ii is ~'ihe Investigations and Enforcement Branch which will take over ~ the p~e operator. The Abatement Offiser generally; has compieted'~'a ~omrnunity college program or has a university degree. In either event, the Officer will most likely have taken courses .relating to the environment..As well, the Officer will have taken many courses offered bY the Ministry on environmental investigation, water treatment, water wells, sewage treatment, air pollution control, transportation ~f dangerous goods, and the like. The Abatement Officer is given .aone-week training course at the Aylmer Police College. 6 When they filed their grievances, the gr~evors were classified as ET3 or ET4. They are now classified as EO3 or E04. The Class Standards for these latter classifications are attached to this award.as Appendices 3 and 4. The grievors claim that they are improperly classified, and want reclassification at. the EO$ level. The Class Standard for the~EO5 is attacI~ed to this award as Appendix 5, Before coming to our conclusion concerning the appropriate classification for the grievor$, it would be useful to review some of the developments in the Ministry in the last ten to fifteen years, because the' grievances before us are really a product of the explosive growth of the Minis,try and its-activities in response to the growing awareness and concern about environmental contamination in this province and the world generally. · In the 1960s and early 1970s, the common person began to hear what scientists had been telling us for some time--modem people and their way of life were causing serious and irreversible harm to the earth's ecology. It would be necessary to take legislative steps to protect and conserve the natural environment. In Ontario, this growing awareness and concern led to the creation of. the Ministry of the Environment, and much legislation giving the Ministry increasing' authority to take the measures necessary for the protection and conservation of the natural environment. ThroUgh the late 1970s and 1980s, many employe~s' of the Ministry found their jobs transforming in response to the new legislation and increasingly active role the Ministry was playing. In particular, technicians like the grievors, whose primary tasks involved the measurement and analysis of various substances, found themselves involved more and more in actively implementing the overall goal of reducing the amount of contaminants, introduced into the natural environment. The "Technician" 7 became an "Environmental Officer", and was increasingly inv0Ned in the implementation of various abatement measures. By May 1980, ali of the Environmental Officers were appointed as Provincial Offences Officers for the purposes of enforcing environmental legislation. They were issued with badges and identification cards; and sent for a one,week training course at the Aylmer PoliCe College. In brief, the Environmental Officer, having identified a source of pollution, woulc[ now be involved in abatement of this source through Coercive powers or by arranging for voluntary .measures to. be taken by the polluter. In the late 1970s, these employees were classified at various levels of the Environmental Technician seres, which was issued in April 1975. As the Preamble to this series said: This series covers positions responsible for investigational, inspectional, data. collection and preliminary evaluative and interp~tive work on matters relating to environmental assessment and pollution control in the natural environment. But the jobs were outstripping the positions envisaged in the Environmental Technician series..Beginning in 1980, grievances were fried because of this development. · In February 1984, the Ministry began classifying some of the Environmental Officers'as Chemical Technician 5, on an atypical basis. On its face, this classification .was not appropriate, but it provided more adequate remuneration for'the Officers involved in investigational work. It was not until mid-1985 that any of the classification grievances came before a panel of the Grievance Settlement Board. A panel chaired by Mr. E. Palmer heard the grievances of Messrs. Baldwin and Lyng (539/84), who were classified as ET4, and who claimed that they ought to be classified as Securities Commission Investigator I (a classification which was obviously not appropriate but which seemed to reflect more of the level of responsibility and other attributes of the grievors' jobs). This hearing concluded at the end of November 1985. The award would come out some time later. In June 1985, the Ministry formed the Investigations and Enforcement Branch ("IEB"), which took over much of the work related directly to prosecutions. In 1980, the Ministry had established the Special Investigation Unit ("SIU") to deal with offences involving liquid industrial waste and hazardous waste. The SIU took over responsibility for some of the prosecutions previously undertaken by the technicians. Members of the SILl took a two-week course at the Aylmer Police College. Now in June 1985, the SIU was replaced by the Investigations and Enforcement Branch, which would-conduct investigations of and prepare prosecutions for all activities which contravened the environmental legislation. The Branch would ensure a uniform enforcement program across the province. Much of the work now done by the iEB had been done up to that time by technicians in the Abatement Division. But' the Ministry lost .several cases, which it attributed to inadequate training for the officers and therefore inadequate preparation for thai. Now, the Investigators in the new Branch' would receive a six-week training program at the Aylmer Police College. At the outset, IEB Investigators were classified at the Chemical Technician 5 level, on an atypical basis. It was this classification which provoked most of the grievances with which we are dealing in this award. The gfievors, who had been doing much of the investigations and prosecutions work now done by IEB Investigators, were still classified as ET3 or ET4. · They could not understand why the IEB Investigators should be classified at a higher level than the technicians. In October 1986, a Fast Track Committee was established to review the entire matter of classification of environmental technicians. In April I987, the Committee issued its report and recommended that the Environmental Technician series become the Environmental Officer series and that the four levels be extended to six. At about the same time as this Committee issued its report, the Palmer panel released its award in Baldwin and Lyng, 539/84. The Board found that the grievors were notproperly classified and left it to the part/es to work out an appropriate classification. As a result of the 'award in Baldwin and Lyng, the IEB Investigators were reclassified as Standards Officer 2. · In May 1987, a panel of the. Grievance Settlement Board chaired by Mr. I. Samuels concluded its hearings into another pair of classification grievances from environmental technicians. Messrs. Pingue and Wolarduk (540/84, i597/84 and 1598/84) were classified as ET3 and. they claimed that they should be classified in the same classification as Messrs. Baldwin and LYng. This was to be accomplished in two stages-,fh's.tly, the samuels panel was asked to f'md that they ought to be ET4, rather than ET3; and then the parties agreed that, if they succeeded in this first claim, they should be treated in the same fashion as ordered by .the Palmer panel for Baldwin and Lyng. The Palmer decision was released between the second and third days of the Samuels' hearing; Before the. conclusion of the Samuels' hearing, the parties agreed, "without prejudice to or concession to the claims and grievances of other environmental, officers. who allege that' they are improperly classified", that the grievors would be reclassified as ET4, pending the final resolution of Baldwin and Lyng, and that they would· be reclassified to the same classification as Baldwin and Lyng, when this latter classification was finally determined. Notwithstanding this agreement, the Board was asked to record the events of the hearing, and to make some comments on the Case, based on the evidence the Board did hear, for the purpose of offering, some guidance to the parties on dealing with this type of case, given that there were akeady well over a hundred more grievances from other environmental officers who claimed they were 10 improperly classified. The Samuels panel did this 'in its award issued in late June 1987. Because Messrs. Pingue and Wolaniuk were doing jobs very similar to the jobs of the grievors before us now, it would be instructive to recall at length what was said in that award at pages 4 to 12: In Ontario, the Environmental Protection Act provides legislative control over activities which may endanger the natural environment. The primary focus of the Act is the prevention of the introduction of "contaminants" (which are very broadly defined) into the natural environment~ Section 2 says that "The purpose of this Act is to provide for the protection and conservation of the natural environment". In order.to accomplish this purpose, the Minister and his designates are given wide powers. For example, under section 3, they may appoint committees to pedorm wi~ the approval o! mere or person rehdnl to tm ~tectioa or maser- radon of the natural environmeaf. Under section 6, when a provincial officer reports that a contaminant' is being discharged into the natural environment, the Director may issue a control order to any person to prohibit the discharge of contaminants. Under section 7, when the Director has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the discharge of a contaminant poses an immediate. danger to human life, the health of any persons,' or to property, the Director may issue a stop order closing:down an operation. Under section 8, it is provided that no person shall construct something which may discharge a contaminant' into the natural environment, or alter a production process with the result that a contaminant is discharged into the natural environment, unless he has' first obtained a certificate of approval issued by the Director for the construction or alteration. Under section. 9, .the Director may issue program approvals to persons who are responsible for a source of a contaminant and who submit a program to prevent or reduce the emission. Under section I{S, the Minister may order the repair of any land, water, property or plant life Which is damaged by the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment. 12 Under section I46, an offender may be prosecuted for failing to comply with any provision of the Act. And these are only examples of a whole catalogue of administrative and enforcement tools put in the hands of the Minister and his designates. The point of it all is to protect and conserve the natural environment by preventing the introduction of contaminants. The Ministry's response to each harmful situation will depend on many factors---the nature of the contaminant, the record and character of the person or source of the contaminant, the circumstances of the natural environment into which the contaminant is being introduced, and so on. There is a great deal of judgment which goes into the decision on how to deal with each particular situation. Now,. turning to Mr. Pingue'and his role in · all of this as' an environmental officer. He was stationed in Welland, serving the South Niagara section of the Ministry's West Central Region. The Purpose of his Position, according to 'his position specification, was to identify and describe sources of pollution in indusn'ial, municipal, agricultural, commercial, and private facilities in the District, assist in the implementation of abatement programs, maintain good liaison with the general public and client groups, 'monitor sources of pollution, including municipal utilities, and enforce environmental legislation. He is in the front .line of the Ministry's attack on the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment. He must discover and monitor the sources of pollution. He must assist in abatement programs. He must enforce environmental legislation. The position specification sets out in detail the duties and responsibilities which flow from this general statement 'of the purpose of his position. This Summary reads: · 13 (here followed a description similar to the one for our grievors today) The critical point which is apparent from a reading of' this ·Summary of Duties and Responsibilities is that this is a job which will necessarily grow with the incumbent. The en'~ironmental officer will perform this job at a Ievel' which depends On his abilities and experience. For example, if an officer is called to a spill, he may be able to deal with the situation entirely on his own because he is the Person who has all the expertise needed to handle it. He may wind up directing the operations of the fire departments and police departments and other agencies which are called to respond to the situation. Or, if the environmental officer, is tess experienced, he may have to call in other employees of this Ministry, or ~from other agencies, to assist in determining what has been spilled and what will be the 'consequences to the natural environment and what has to be done to prevent or reduce the damage, Or, to take .another example, if there is a contaminant being introduced into the natural environment, the environmental officer's response will depend on his. individual expertise and experience. He will have to determine the method of identification of the contaminant, the appropriate administrative or enforcement tool to use. In particular, if it is decided that a control order should be issued, the environmental officer will prepare the draft order. Or if it is decided that a program approval would be appropriate, the officer may be involved in the development of the program with the person responsible for the introduction of the contaminant. There is so much scope for individual initiative, and there may be an enormous variance in the way in which the job is Performed by different officers. It simply isn't possible to set. down in a 'policy or manual how 'one should respond to a spill. Every spill is different---a 14 different substance, a different polluter,-a different natural environment. And it isn't ' possible to set down with much precision how best to deal with any particular source of contamination---it Will depend on the type of contaminant, on the record and character of the' polluter (is this the type of person with whom it is possible to work out a program? or will this person respond only to prosecution?), on the particular natural environment into which the contaminant is being introduced. Necessarily, the level, at which the officer does his job will depend on his abilities and expertise. This does make the job of classification very difficult. Generally, this Board has made it clear that it is the job which is classified, not the incumbent. An incumbent may be over-qualified for the job, but this does not make any difference. to the classification. It is what you are required to do which matters, not what you are capable of doing. But in this case, the general rule does not work. This is a job with a v~ry flexible top end. The environmental officer is called upon to deal with contamination. The job may be very complex, it may involve a great deal of responsibility, it may involve a great deal of judgment---it all depends on whether the particular officer is capable of doing the job at a very complex level, or is capable of undertaking a great deal of responsibility, or has the ability and experience to exercise a great deal of judgment. The Class Standards for Environmental Technician 3 and 4 are attached to this award. The Palmer panel of this Board, in Baldwin and Lyng, 539/84, has already commented on the inadequacy of these standards once the environmental officers were given major responsibility in the area of enforcement. As Mr. Palmer said, at page 3, "This, in terms of day-m- day work, put the grievors in the role of a "prosecutor" rather than someone who tested the environment". The reader will note that the standard for Environmental Technician. 3 commences "This class covers positions involving inspections and investigations ........ "It is clear that now environmental officers have significant responsibility beyond inspections and investigations. They are now required to take an active part in responding to the findings of their inspections and investigations. It will not always be a matter of prosecution, because there is a wide range of administrative and enforcement machinery which may be brought to bear on any particular situation. But whatever is done, the environmental officer wi11 be significantly involved in much more than merely finding and monitoring the contamination, We would go on to point out the difficulty of defining precisely the grievors' jobs in a way which will necessarily lead to classification at the 3 or 4 level in the existing standards. The critical difference between the 3 and 4 is the §eneralist nature of the 3's job, and the "technically complex and specialized'.', nature of the 4's work. The ET4s "either function as recognized experts in specialized work such as the inspection/investigation of complicated malfunctioning municipal or industrial water, wastewater or emission control installations ....... OR they exercise advanced responsibiIities across a range of several areas in the environmental and pollution control field ..... ". It occurs to us, after looking at these standards, and after hearing several days of testimony from 'Mr. Pingue, that some environmental officers will work at the 4 level l~ecause they are in fact the recognized exPerts in a specialized field. Some officers will function at the higher level by virtue of their expertise and experience.. Indeed, in the classification of these employees, it may be that great emphasis will have to be put on ~the level of their education and experience, ~because the level of education and experience will have a great beating on the actual level of the individual's job. 16 We did not hear all the evidence concerning Mr. Pingue's work (the employer had not yet called its wimesses), and we heard almost nothing ' about Mr. Wolaniuk's work (he had not yet been calIed as a witness)', so we will say very little about their particular situations. But it is worth noting that Mr. Pingue has been with the Ministry since lune 1973. He came to the Ministry with a degree from Ryerson Polytechnical Institute in Public Health Inspection'and EnVironmental Sciences. Since joining the Ministry, he has taken a host of courses and seminars at University, offered by the Ministry, and elsewhere, He has had wide experience with the Ministry in various positions. His primary expertise is in microbiological organisms found in sewage and water. Our remarks are done. We hope that they 'will offer some assistance to the parties in resolving the many grievances still outstanding concern, lng the classification of' other environmental officers. Finally, we must say a word about the Work of the Ministry and its environmemal .officers. We are learning more and more each day about the terrible cost of pollution. In the long term, irreversible environmental degradation may be the most serious problem faced by 'mankind. At the international, national, provincial and local levels, we are beginning to respond to the perils in ways which may prevent the' collapse of our .ecosystems. There really can be no more fundamental role of government than "the protection and conservation of the natural environment". This Ministry and its officers are performing critical work. We were much impressed with., the little we learned about this work from the ~testimony of Mr. Pingue. And as Citizens of this province, we are very grateful for their service. 17 As we said, the award in Pingue and Wolaniuk was issued in June 1987. In September 1987, the Employer issued the Environmental Officer series, with the six classification levels. And thereafter, bearing in mind the decisions of the Grievance Settlement Board in Baldwin.and Lyng and · Pingue and Wolaniuk, the Ministry reclassified the environmental technicians. By and large, ET3S became EO3s; ET4s became EO4s; and IEB Investigators became EOSs. Baldwin and Lyng came back before the Board in 1987, for a determination of the issue of retroactivity of their reclassification. A panel chaired by Mr. M. Mitchnick issued its award in ApriI 1988, granting retroactivity back to December 1982, but excluding a period from September to December 1983. In October 1989, an interest panel chaired by Judge Oral issued.an award setting out the salaries of the six levels-of the new EO series, · · retroactive to September 1987. This panel made it clear that its decision .r had no impact on the outstanding classification grievances. And that brings .us to our case. Are the grievers, properly classified as EO3 or EO47 The first point that has to be made is that we cannot determine the appropriate classification for each of the individual grievers. We heard evidence concerning the work of the. Abatement Officer generally. Our task is to determine whether the EO4 class standard would be an appropriate classification for an Abatement Officer who is fulfilling all of the expectations of an Abatement Officer. As was said in ?ingu¢ and Wolaniuk, it is difficult to classify the individual officer, because the officer can grow into the position. But once the officer has matured sufficiently to .fill ali of management'S expectations 0f an Abatement Officer, .is the EO4 classification appropriate for the position? 18 Secondly, it is imPortant to establish clearly what our role is in classification cases. This Board does not write the class standards. It is management which has the authority to write the standards. This Board does not have the ai~thority to set the level of compensation which ought to be paid for the services of employees. It is the parties who bargain the level of .compensation or the. matter may be .,determined by an. interest Board of Arbitration. Our authority is simply to determine whether or not an employee is properly classified according.to-the existing class standards. l.f there is no appropriate standard, we can order that management must create an appropriate standard. The Union argued that the EO3, EO4 and EO5 standards are on one continuum, and that the individual Abatement Officer should be placed on the continuum according to the Officer's level of eXperience and'expertise. In our view, it is not correct that these three standards are a continuam with respect to the work 'of an Abatement Officer. The preambular paragraphs of the EO3 standard (Appendix 3) say that this classification covers a' wide range Of positions, involving "inspection, investigations and enforcement activities in the environmental assessment and pollution control field", The first paragraph of the EO4 standard (Appendix 4) says that employees in' this classification have the responsibilities of the E03, and in they "exercise advanced respo_nsibilities' across a range_ of severa1 addition ~areas in the environmental a~nd pollution control field". In ~-~s~-eco~ flaragraph, there are three types of position covered. The A_bate~ment rC~ficer falls within the second category. _ -- they may be recognized senior environmental officers who have the ability and wide variety of t' experience to function independently and to .assume significant responsibility. They will ' 19 exercise judgement and initiative to identify and resolve complex and contentious problems. This language caPtures well the full responsibilities of'the Abatement Officer. The Union suggests that we go on to consider the Abatement Officer as involved in "the advanced investigation and enforcement' funition", which is the third category in the second paragraph in the EO4 standard. But in our view, this is not correct. Two points seem fairly clear from the evidence we heard. Firstly, the term "'investigation and enforcement" is used in the Ministry to mean the type of work done ih the Investigations and Enforcement Branch. This work involves detailed investigation of the circumstances 'of an alleged violation of environmental laTM, the laying of charges, and the preparation of evidence for use by counsel at trial. It is a task which commences after an Abatement Officer, or some other person, ha~ fried an Occurrence Report concerning an alleged violation Of the law. The EO series was drafted after the establishment Of'the IEB, and it is fairly' clear that the term "investigation and enforcement" is an echo of the name of the Investigations and Enforcement Branch, Secondly, once it is determined that prosecution may be the most appropriate action to take, the role of the Abatement Officer clearly becomes, secondary to the IEB Investigat°rs. It is the IEB which has carriage of the activity which takes place after this. determination is made. It is the IEB which does the "investigation and enforcement". Thus, in our view, while the Abatement Officer fulfils a vital role, and does undertake tasks which can be characterized as "investigation" and "enforcement" in the general sense, this Officer's position cannot be characterized as one which involves the "advanced investigation and enforcement function". The core of the Abatement Officer's position is not "investigation and enforcement". Rather, the Abatement Officer is. involved in monitoring and identifying sources of pollution, in the establishment of abatement programs, and in recommending various forms of action. Turning to the EO5 standard, it does not say that it encompasses the EO4 responsibilities plus additional elements. Rather, this standard is reserved for three particular types of positions--program implementation co-ordinators, designated specialists for branches or regions, and officers in the "investigation and enforcement function". This standard does not form part of a general, continuum with the EO3 .and EO4 Standards. It does form part of a continuum with respect to the "investigation and enforcement function". At the.EO5 level, the officer "must make decisions independently, using only their knowledge, sk~l]s and experience as guides in such matters as eollecting and analyzing evidence such as financial records/company books/waybills, gathering intelligence on violators and preparing' and assisting ministry lawyers with prosecutions".' This type of work is virtually the whole of the job. of the officers invoIved in the "investigation and enforcement function"--the IEB Investigators. While the Abatement Officer may become involved in some of this work in the early stages of an incident, it is not a maj°r part of the Abatement. Officer's work. 'In sum, we find that the EO4 classification is appropriate for an Abatement Officer who is fulfilling all of the expectations of this position. A less experienced, less qualified Abatement Officer would be properly classified at the EO3 level. We will reserve our jurisdiction to determine the classification of any individual grievor, and to determine any matter concerning compensation where appropriate. Having come to this conclusion, we want to reiterate several points which have been made earlier. -Firstly, we are not making any comment on the relative worth or contribution of the Abatement 'Officers and the IEB 21 Investigators. It is up to management to establish the class standards and up to the parties or an interest Board of Arbitration to establish the levels of compensation for the (~arious classifications. Management has determined that the E05 standard is reserved for three particular types of position, one of which is the. "investigation and enforcement function". We are saying simply that the grievors' pOsitions cannot be characterized as within the' "investigation and enforcement function".' Secondly, having heard the testimony concerning both the role of the Abatement Officer and the IEB Investigator, we repeat what was said in closing in Pingue and Wolaniuk: 22 In r he long term, irreversible environmental degradation may be the most seriou4 problem faced by rn~,~kind. At the international, national, provincial and local levels, we are be~nning to respond to the perils in ways which may prevent the collapse of our ecosystems. There really can be no more fundamental wle of government ~ "the protection and conservation of d~e natural enviroument'. This Minis~ and Rs officers ar~ 'pert'orating critical work. Done at London, Ontario, this llua day of :une ,1990. I. W. Samuels, Vice.~ersOn "T. D:~SS'~q~" (D£ssen~: attached) O. Maje.dcy, Member " 'A. Srapleton, Member I~ & ~TT~R OF AN &SBITRATI(~ ~ (Zak.~.,-~ et al) ~he Crmm ~n ~isht of Oatario In considering the award of the majority tn this rotter, have concluded that I must dissent. ~The proposition in this award supports the Continuum theory, whereby, there is a syst~atic, and lock step pro~reseion .through the various levels of the claes series. This In a practical sense means that there are clear lines of demarcation separating the levels (lnv~eible ceilings and- floors). Using th~.e perspective restricts' the board in appreciating the "top end flexibility" which does-exist in the Environmental Officer 4 series. The board should have given ~ore weight and rec. ognition of the duties Environ~entaI Officer 4's perform. The board ~ould have 'then seen that the duties ~r. ~alet2e performs .clearl~ ~shee him through the roof of the series. Secondly, many' frequent .pronouncements have been ~ade by this board that. the Job is rated, not the incumbent. Particularly, the board ~n 'P~ngue & Wolan~uk, OPSEU and ~nist~ry of Envir~,~nent, 540/84, 1597/84, 1598/84, (Samuels) at page 9 reiterates this principle: "This does make the job of 'classification very difficult. Generally, this board has made it. clear that i~ is the job which is classified, not the incumbent. An incumbent may be over-qualified for the Job, but this does not make any difference to the classification. It is what you are 'required to do which matters, not what you are capable of doing." If the ~h~irman applied the same lo~ic frcm l>Xn~ue & Wolln~Lk in the instant matter, we may have superficially evaluated Mr. M~lette's testimony. More precisely, I believe the board may have overstated the' releVance of the Class Series, and conversely, understated the testimony of Mr. Malette. The only true window into the workplace of Environmental Officer 4 is the testimony provided by the grievor. Frankly, this series is new, and given the dynast nature, role and political mandate of the Environmental Officer Series, it stands to reason that the-written class standard is too rigid to contemPlate and c~pture the or~nic and constantly evolving duties of the Environmental Officer 4 series. My concern stems from the fact that the representativ~' ~tness for the union, Mr. Malette, prov~'ded a high calibre, and extremely credible testimony, which in my estimation clearly demonstrated the soph~stication and complexi~y of his Job. Further, the ~estimony supports the **top end flexibility*' theory in the Environment Officer '4 series echoed by Samuels in l~n~ue and ~lolaniuk. The board was presented w~th two branches of evidence in determ~ning the duties and responsibility, of Environmental Officer 4's is., (1) refer to the class 8tandard, and (2) slve weight to the evidence preseu~ed b~ ~he grZevor concerning the work he performs. Clearly, the majority of the. boar~ has found that the lansaut~e, of the class series,' as well as, 'the duties performed by Environmental Officer 4 and 5, are ~wo separate jobs. Additionally, the board also found enough diss~eLilar core J~b functions to support the finding that the continuum breaks cleanly at the top end of the Environmental Officer 4 ceiling. This nantnee cannot except that proposition of the board. Althoush the class standard, as ~ritten',- seems fairly constructed.. It is nonetheless a recent creation, and given the d~nam~c nature of the Job, is constantly trapped in ~ historical context of what the Job 'required yesterday. Consequently, the class standard is a victim of continual dynamic obsolescence. It c~nstantly provides a rear-view mirror on what the gO4 Job entails. That is a fatal flaw. Additionally, when you examine the ·class standard for Environmental Officer 4 and 5 In the series, several glaring flaws become obvious. In the preamble of the E04, reference Is made that: "in addition to the responsibilities described in the Environmental Officer 3 standard, exercise advanced responsibilities across a broad range of several areas in the environmental and pollution control field." [emphasis added ] This 're~erence bridges the E04 and anchors it to the E03, which .in essence would apPear to support the continuu~ theor~y between E03 and EO4. The difficulty I have, Is when you- exa~ne the construction of the E05 preamble, it doesn't make reference that E05 consists Of many core Job functions of the E04. By inference, we can look to 'the lan~ta~e and construction of the .preambles, as well as, the compensable factors is., ~nowledge, Judgement, &ccountabil[ty and Contacts, which appear identical. I'would also point out that there are no percentile references to assist this board in deterudning the relative weight of each of the compensable factors. The only real difference between the construction of the E04 and E05 series is that the E05 series makes reference to managerial, responsibility. This is the only real distinction. The fact someone is perform~n$ mans~erlal duties is a dubious distinction at best. From a societal perspective, that is a class Bias in Believin~ that work performed by m~nasement ende~Lcally more valuable, and thus, better renumerated than non-supervisory personnel. The E05 standard mentions in a senior level as progr~n implementation co-ordinator", . ."project management responsibilities", "co-ordinate the neces~ry h-mu ~nd/or lnfor~tion resources", "co-ordination of program and staff/decisions", and "continu~n~' contacts with ... management levels". We are lulled into believin; that the ECS's are the glue, both intellectu~lly and politically that keeps the Environmental Officer Standard .functioning. Well, how did this hr~nch operate w~thout the E05 st~nd~rd ~or the last ten years, since S05's are a relatively' new position. By' ask~ns that question, we can quickly a~certain that the level of mnagerial responsib~ li ty in the ~05 sta=dard negliEible. Frankly, those dutie~ were recently grafted onto the newly created EO5 atand~rd. But in a operational sense are merely' words, since they were manufactured by the M~nistry when they set about to create the E05 standard, and needed to 'distingu~sh the new ECS fro~ the existinE E04. There ~as an underlyinE political purpose to th~s, which I will touch on -latter. Additionally, when you'review the class standard for the E04 and E05, they both entail w~rk v~th the m~l~a. Once again, we are lulled into thinkin; that there is s~ne kind of '- equiv~lency between the nature, frequency and sophistic~tion in their contacts with media. That is utter nonsense. As a public relations specialist, I find reference to media involvement very ~tsleading. To put =Y concerns into context, the k~4 will' always be on site at accidents, spills, or other industrial environmental mishaps. When one ez~nes the media dyna~Lcs of Hagersville, Inco emission, problem, as well as the recent Psra Paints spill of toxic w~ste, it was the Abatement personnel, like ~r. ~lette who were on the site in~nediately, and co-ordinatin~ all lo~istical aspects of the hazard, especially' the n~dia. You cannot cc~npare this n~dia contact, · and find a parallel between some E05 ~ho gets scrtuned by the local press when they ~o to court in Rainy River. Within the scheme of the media world, the true 'media personnel in the claes standard are the EO4'e.. Politically, they' are the crux for any damage ~control in a media sense, thus, are more central and si~nlficant then EOS's. Though the reference in .~he class standard makes the~ appear to perform equivalent media duties, that in practice Is incorrect. ! find that the class standard is misleading. It certainly isn't very difficult to appreciate the union's position. Basically, we 'have a croup of employees (EO4's) who at one tt~e performed both all p~osecut~onal, as well 'enforcement/abatement functions. The ~inistry then concluded they needed .& special squad, of specialty enforcement officers (E05) who could handle prosecutional duties and enforcement at a supposed .hi~her level. The. inequity developed when after hiving off core Job functions fro~ EO4's, they ~aVe theSe. .duties to EO~*s. Not that EO4's lost prosecutional duties entirely, but, the M~nistry w~shed to enshrine proeecutional duties within the E05 standard, ae ~uch as possible. The M~nistry fouled the mood of the ~rkere by ~ivinj the EOS's more money '~nd r~t~onalized that EOS's .perf°rm a more important ~ob function. I come to that Conclusion because society still values our worth by ho.w nmch we are Paid, and accordin~ly, although EO4's perform.~ hi~her order of ~rk the class seri. es, .a~d did most of the duties of the newly for~ed E05, they could not accept the lower · remuneration compared to. E05' e, At the very least, their work is equal to, and in my opinion, ~n excess of the skill and knowledge required at the E05 standard. ~hen ~e look s~lll deeper at the E04 .standard, we must be co~nizant and appreciative of 'the unique capacity for these employees to go beyond narrow policy and procedural parameters and deal w~th crisis', that have no standardized solution ie., Hagerevllle Tire Fire. These. employees are the intelligentsia of the Environmental Officer Standard. They are called tnto court as expert witness. Further, the E05 series also makes the same reference ie., called as expert witness. Fran the ~est~mony, this is another example ~here in reality, the E04 are the sophist~cates and technocrats In environmental matters, and not the EOS's. But, whoever cons. tructed the Class Standard threw in the "expert witness" reference, to once a~ain make it appear that EOS's are equal to and greater than the E04' s. Additionally, the compensable elements of "judgement" and "accountabili.ty" were argued by the employer to somehow distinguish EOS's from EO4's. is., "As environment investigators, judgement is r~qutred to implement appropriate legal action. J~dgement is also required when collecting evidence/~aking stat.ements/obServlng rules of evidence/preparing and serving' legal documents." My concern tn the .above ts, if EOS's.are on staff of the Investigations and Enforcement' Branch, why are they no~. doing just prosecutions, as was the raison dbtre of IEB and EOS's7 Why are EOS's doin~ the full range of duties, simtlar' and parallel to the EO4"s? That appears to me to present a 'conundrum, since the emplOYer argues how different these-Jobs are, ~and when we examtne the written record and the testimony, ! am hard pressed t'o see the distinction. I would So so far as to say that EO4's are equal to the EOS's, at minimum. When you simplify the requirements of the' E04 and E05 standard, EO4's fit nicely into that part of the E05 standard, especially under · the factors of Judgement, Sk~ll, Accountability and Contacts. Additionally, EO4's still perform prosecutorlaI functions. Although the E05 standard mentions 1~ secutional duties", the fact is that EO4's are also required and have those same duties ie., require a thorough knowledge of investigation and enforcement p~ocedures. This is really a semantical debate. FEnally, my overall concern with this c~se stems' frown uneasiness I have w~th the runner in which the employer set out to create another step in the class standard. This nominee is of the opinion that to add a little muscle to the r~nks of the Environment M~nistry, management made a conscious decision to hire former members of the constabulary. Thus, they would be able to show their teeth and add a further line of intimidation in the policin~ function.. The problem that '~tnlstrF staff encountered ~ that the .ula~y level, of would have been to low to entice recruits. That, I-bel.~eve, is the genesis of this case. In order to make the proposition of workin~ ~th the M~nistry of Environment lucrative, something had to be done with the salary level. This nominee has no problem ~n beefin~ up the enforcemen~ function, certainly, cannot entertain E04' s bein~ usurped by especially since the br~in trust ~n this class standard is. the EOt's. That is p~tently unfair. In the final analysis, I see the par. ai!~l' ~nd sim~larity between the role and duties of the Abatement Officer and ~he IEB Investigator. .Accordingly, I would have found l~ favour of the ~rievors, and would have so ordered. APPENDIY 1  APPENDIX Position Specification & (.;lass Ailocailon-C~(.; 6150 {Refer to back of form lot completion instructions) .. . 'Sr. Envtro~eucat 0t~tcer (~h) { 37'~8-32 ~ [nvtro~nC ~toell ~ract~l No. Of DIi~ Provi~ ~OuD leadgrlh~D to: Imm~iate SuD~F'S title SuOe~i~r'$ D~t,on ~ Supe~tior galas M~c ~nl. 37-~8-~ ZdenctE7 c~[~ problem~ ~nd' ioluctona~ provtde conaulcattve advtce and aJa%~C tn the ~nas~enC of c~Cenct~a ~eCr~cc; reco~nd 4nd eflau~e ~plwnc&ct~ of ~bec~e~C proKc~ai ~tncatn e~ecctve [~itio~ vt~ th~ %eMc&I pubTtc and client repre~encactveij as~e~l c~pltance end enforce envtr~ea~l [e$~ilact~ includes the tss~nce o~ Offence Noctce~ ~der ~e Provtnctal O~encel Acc. 3. Outifl ind relit~ ~s~ ~whet il employfl r~uir~ tO ~. how lad why? Indi~tl H~¢lnt~ Of time s~nt ~ each ~5% ~t mnagemenC of c~pl~ tis~s ~ - provtdtnl technical and procedural' tnfomact~ and ~[dance co leis ~rte,c~ mca~ vi~in ~e dllcrtcc~ - advising the DtotrtcC O~f[cer i~d ~e~al Hans%meat vtth re0~ct to aeMtc~ve i~a~l, [d~ct~y~ng ~ose tsars chat ere conceflc/ous ~nd are potentially volicile or ~ pro,tie, pr~td~n~ [n~o~tt~ and rec~end4ct~s ~or - car~tni ouc ~11 as~ccj of tn*ua I~aj~enc tacl~l devel~ac o~ ~ 4cct~ pl~, pre~raCi~ ocher Br~ches, M~/icrieo, [nd~crtef, and ~[cipaI[Cteo, rec~ndin~ ab4.c~n[ lcrJce~, foll~s ~Jure c~lt~ce CeFSeC ~Cel ifa leCi ~ c~rd[nactflS ~e p~bl[c ifl(o~4cl~ protein ~ ~e dtICricc ~ selected .lJsuel ~velv~S ~e publtc i~fomfC[o~ cenCFel ~d publLc MeCtaSI, c~CacCiflf parcicip~to, M~tn~ preJ~caciofll; repreJe~cin8 the MintoC~ off citizens* liaia~ c~/cCees; ~na~enC and $~rce operators Co ens~r~ th~t ~e7 are tnfo~e4 o~ ~rrtaC meatus and anticipated faults, reloluc~s of ~sauel. ~ rec~ag and ~leaenc abetment ~rosr~ ~der eta~al lupe~i~toa a~ tndustrial, ~tct~l, c~ercial and private sources by ~erfomtnl such du~tea - invesc/gattn~ and evalu~cin~ ~plain~s 4bout coflduccifl~ s~rces lu~eyl and [flveJci~it~ons ~ich nay [~clud~ obtaLntfl% process d~scr~pCtc~l, ca[cutiC~ ~certal end/or ener~ balancea, cclleccifl; ,~[el. i~d neu~rtfli not,e, opact~ and 4. Skills and k~owledge requi~ed to pe~otm job at fult working level..Gleelca;e ma~M~o,y credemt;11 ~r ~ce~ch, ~f Si~[f[caflC relevant ~pertence in the eflvtro~encal field rich exceflstve knovle~Be ~ ~e chee~, p~nctple, pr--C~ces cE industrial and ~flicipa[ envtro~eflCal ccncrolj vater supply ~yace~, pollution abaCeneflC p, ,/n~ practices; an extensive kn~tedS~ of Ippltclble envtro~tal les[slatton &~d ~[ntst~ ~lictes a~ pressures IXzties szxl r~Zaced C~skz ¢=ntinued APPENDI~ 2, Da~e 2. ~ppropria~e reco~enddcione ~nd prepar~i~ of ~n appropriate 0~da~ e~, C~ro~ Order or Order - rev~e~$n~ ~baCe~nC ~equ~remen~ and ne~oc$~cin~ canc~O~ .c~ed~a~ and .cr~ce~e~ v$c~ c~$encs; Co N~n~c~ poltc~es~ prostor, procedures and ~erc~E~cace o~ Approv~ requiz~nc~; prov~d~nl c~e operac~nA 4uchortc7 vt~ reco~ndac~on~ for r~edtal - revtev upset conditions and spells co dece~Zn~ ~ause and ensure ¢orrucC action ts betn~ taken co mtn~ze · - tnspecC~ns vests ~naseMnc, ~tqutd .~ndusCr~el and ha~lrd~ vafce d~sposat sites and sTsce~; d~ncZni tn ~tCZnl co mJtnCa/n f$les and conftm discussers vt~ cZieflCs; - obCatntflS dace.Co maintain inventories, tnpucctnS and retrieval co ~P sysco;' tssu/ns C~ckeca by ray of Offence Noctcel or ~PiFt l · ~vesc~Sac~n~, doc~enCtn~ and ~kin~ rec~ndac~s Co chi lenior s~aff for le~l action s~h as csncroX orders or referral Co lnvesc~c~one & Enforc~nc ar~ - ~ar~tnl ~c tnv~aCtaaC~ons of incidents including spills ~d prapar~l ~iCtal doc~anCaCZ~ich ~e basis for further acorn by ~e lnvescisactons ~d gnforc~nc 3r~ch el. collecctns s~ples, scaC~nCl and available evidence ac the site, etc.; ~nv~ro~enCal Asse~saenc Board and Eav~ro~eac~l Appeal Board; prepartns doc~encacton rich reco~endacicns - montcortns ~e'safec7 of drt~tn~ racer supplies and intctaCtnS pro~c res~nse Co unsafe condiC~ons D. Perfo~ ocher duC~es soch ~ ., - rev~evin~ and 'co~eacinA on applicac~c~ for various approvals iaclud~A Cercif~caCes of Approval C~pltance and land-use proposals such as official plans and plans of subdivision, z~tng chanses, ~ment3 and b~-lav revl~l; · li~tstn~ ~ch public, m~icipmltCZes, client [ro~s, n~s ~dta, c~er ~t~isCries and lover~en~ a~enc{es provide or obtain info~acion and ~platn Ntnisc~ ~licies ~nd practices; - prep~r~fl~ doc~ncac~on for submission Co ~P~; - acCendinl sptll~ and S~vtflS sdvtce resardt~s spills cle~-up, Ifld t~ ~eces~a~ tn c~su~cac~on rich ~e~iona~ end/or Spills Acct~ Centre - ~y be required co part,c/pace as an [~rsency ges~nse Per,on &feet reeler vorktn~ hours; v~ich viii be followed by~iCten reports; provtdtfls assistance Co Heal~ Ontcl resard~flS racer suppltes and Parc VII activities. ~lil ~ ~l~ ~ continued tS required, knovledse of industrial processes, m~ictpal racer supply .sysCo, levaSe disposal systems and vasCe ~n~emenC; an ability Co relate Cheo~ and principles Co practical ~perience ts rsqutred in resolvins compl~ p~obl~s; veil developed oral lnd vrtccen co~micacion skills includtnt an ~btlt~y co correspondence, use modern office cechnolo~, elco, pers~stveness, mature Jvdsenenc, ~d an ability Co deal rich people are essential; vsli~ driver's APPENDIX 2, page 3 p~nc~p~e~ and prlc~Lc~J o~ ~du~c~lZ ~d ~fl~ctpal envtro~c~l concrol~ ~lluc~on 4bace~eflC Ind land-use planning practices, pol~c~es and procedures ts required; kn~ledge of ~dusCrial process, m~c~pal vscer practical 'experience ~s required ~n resolving c~p~ prob~s; veil developed ora~ apd vr~ccen co~cac~ons skills~ tact, pe~suu~veness~ ~ture Judge~nc, an ~b~lic7 to_deal ~th people are essential. J~~ Vork ~s ~rfo~ed under m~n~al supe~o~On~ acC~fli ~ndependenCly ~n p~n~nl~ ~ecuC~on of special su~eys~ ac~on plans and aba~enenC scr~ceiies. Juds~enc Is exercised re~rcs) Lnce~recac~on of ~nfo~ac~n and d~ca, the dev~op~nt of r~ed~a~ reco~endac~ons ~nc~ud~ns abaca~nC and/or prosecuC~ons~ and r~presencinl ch~ HlnisC~ aC public and ~c~pal meetings, Judgement sk~llj are r~qv~red ~n incerprec~nl re~uIac~ons~ le~lslaC~on~ exercising sensitivity Co conCenCio~ or ht~ proftlt ~nv~ro~enCal ~e, tnc~benC ~0 directly acco~Cdbl~ for~ Ind~p~denC c~p-ltCion of cmpl~ york and provision oE con~lCaCive advice v~ a variety of concacCL lnce~recin[ ~d vcillt~i ce~nical tnfomcion co develop and ~pl~nC acci~ pl~s and abaCe~nC scraCeSieS. Vork ~enerally revved for consistency v~ M~n~sc~ polt~, ~l~ltnes ~d inappropriate stolon, unnec~ssaW ~tn~t~ ~nd potent/al env~r~nCal d~ale, public ht~iCh hazards ~d .nce~a~ - Re~Ia~ contact v~ch ~scricc,. Reg~ofi;1 and fiend O~f~c, sc;~ff to ~change ~nfo~c~on and develop soluCi~ Co problm. Exce~al - ~gular conCicc rich ~e public; ~fldusc~ta~ clients, ~e medh, ~nic~pal ~ff~cials, coflsu~C~ncs, ~evtl~e~l~ c~Cr~cCors) he&Zch o~f~c~mXs, afl~ ~eF~eflcy ~ch~f. Lni info.mOron, livins Cechflical advice ~d developtnl aba~emeflC pros~) mak~ns re~efldac~ons and · es~nS Co conc~flsen~es ~nd eflfoFctn8 pFov~flcial le[~JloC~ofl ~Fog~ isbn=ct of s~ons a~d ~eco~end~flS leSal aGe,on such as pFosecvc~ons ~fld Coflc~ol Orders. ~kes p~eseflc~ctoM ec pvb~iq meec~ngsocou~ meec~flSs and/o~ represents the H~ntsc~ on c~c~zen t~ats~/cechn~cal, co~LCceeJ as Feqv~Fe~ ~..oF~eF co exchange ~ ow. CLA~$TANDA~D$ APPENDIX 3, page ~ ~VlIOI/)f~EXT 4nv~owncat asi~ss~nc and pottuc~on control enforcMnc Ln ~y i~ao be ~efpona~bti loc p~ovtdLnS ~uetSency res~nse co ipl~L conc~nsenc7 t%c~lc~G~$ in4 pi&nc pc~ss ~psecs, co ~ntco~ and pTov~do rec~n~C~ons prepere ~rc~caCes of Approval. ~l c~lli i~lO covers positions vh~ch a~e respous~bLe ~or the oe~ecc~ou', operation 4nd mchan~cal iir, va~er resuLcLns in ~be production o~ vaZL~ced dace ~or use La env~ronnen~l~ assessmnc prosraes. The7 My a~$o provide assistance co ocher m~nLsCry sca/~ ~n conducc~n$ applied ctsei~ch pro~eccs or su~iys co ,ve~uace ney cecbnolos7, ~chods, and assesa the natural env~co~nc. level irt c~/cally re~lecced as ~ollovs: A vork~nl p~nc~pZes practices lndusc~i~l ~n/cipal envt'ro~ncal control, ~llucion ahcemnc, land use ~nd industrial pr~esses/~ntc~pal racer supply syscm/seval, disposa~ pr~edurel and tact a~e MndacotT, Vo=k is penford unde~ 8enera~ supe~tJLon rich Lnvesc~iac~ons and enforceMuc ~cc~v~cy. Judl~uc the preparation of J les~slstlou or .stabllsbed nin/st~ pr~t~ e~ precedents. , Znsppropr~at, r.c~uhtLous could result ~n sm uueta~ loss to the ~ preotiSe. 4. hntactl: leS~slacl~. ~ X~uc officially repasses the uXnisc~ La I . i ~ : ' APPENDIX 4, ~a~e CMl C~ STANOA~o~ ' ' N T~C~ICAL 5tRVTCI$ ~S0U~S SUPPORT etandard, end pollucLou ~on~roZ technical'york, and tnscrucctns tn techn~cat, cratntn8 profram. Also; tn a boerds and in the pc. Flounce mfni~nc process b~ perfo~tnl.s~cb duc~es as and thJ. seldctLou o~ appropriate sties; ~ ~hey MY be recognized envtro~nc~t o(~Zcers who have cbc ability and vide variety 'of s~srtence function independently and to asa~ significant responstbtXtc7. ~*7 vtX~ exercise Judiemnc and intctictv. Co tdeflct~7 and ttsoXvt co~tex and contentious problems; O~ tn ch~ advanced tnvesctaacton and .nforc,menc ~unccton they ~y pecfo~ at an .nc~ i,v.t in.which cb,y [a?n tritntfl experience tn both ~ie~da. ~e c~ensabte ~accors ac ch~s revel are re~Xec~ed am tottovs: t. ~ovted~e: ~ork requires the' technical ,:p, rc~s,, ~X,x~btXtcy and depth o~ background co dent tnd,p,ndentX7 vtch'a ~td, varl.cy of env~ro~nca~ probtems, what. the tndtvtduat'srknovtad~e be Ohm only ~dtace guide Co action. O~usCrated readership, co--n/cotton au6 a aood kn~tedse of a vt~ retract of envtro~ncaX and FeXaced tqtslatLon and reaulaCtouS ira essenct4Z. Zn som,postt~ons 'vhtcb with tnsc~ncatLon a proven cechnLcat pro~tctenc7 ts required. 2. ~udteMnc: Vork ts perromd under utniml supm~tston. Judgemnc ts e~oyed co c~rdt~e ~e uecesaarT h~a, ute~tat end/or ta~o~ou and ~o organize studies, sum2o, tnvesttgattons o~ co~latncs or inspecctofls tndependeflt~y, referring to.supe~toors ~nly ~n event ve~ u~us~t ctcc~s~an~es, au~ co a~ise o~ Jud~e~t applying general prLuctpXds tn ~o p~obtmvh~ch do not respond to precedeu~ or estabtAshed pTacc~ce and ~en representing cbs ntntst~ ac public MeCLngs, hearings or tn deaZtn~s vttb ~dtl, Xn iom MsLtiono Judg~nt ti also requLred rhea: rec~nda.Cton8 for ~eial acCiou/tnce~reCtul teltsticton/revttvtns reports and recomendactonl of ocher c.cbn~cfl I APPENDIX 4, page 2 ~ ~ C.M, ~t. ASqq STANDA~ TEC~qzcAL SRVICES TS- 07 IESOUItCZ$ SUPPORT h~tr~meuzal Offica~ &C out'do 3. Accouncab!lit~ These 'positions ire fully R¢ovntable for independent conpletion of complex vork, for the cochntcil suidence end coordination of other assigned staff, faf tho cechntcal accurst7 and. quality of data collected or produced end for comprehensive technical reports rich 4~strtbut~ou Qutal~e the uinist~y after only lea'erst review b7 tho and prestige.. 4. Contacts: " and industrial o~f~ciels ac the operational, Cec.bnical,pro/esstonal and consultants, developers, co,tractors, health officials, technical, selene/alt and engineering off~ciale of cbs I~oiscx-y, other. advice, pubt~shin8 ince'tprecactve dace, 14kin$ recomudacions, p~ann~ng co-operacivl studies, or ouforc~n$ resulations. They uny be tolled co Beard or a ¢oeqt of lay. They nay b, required co hake presentations ac coend. Cteee. la all contacts, the employee officiall7 represents cbt i ce c~ s~r~ste P~ ar~ ~ ~c ~ ~e~c~ 8~ial~sts for b~s or ~tLM ~ a s~ialt7 ar~ -t~ ~c~ er ta~acr~41 soA~d ~uis~ 1~ ~ pzosec~t~ous. ~e t~enaablo ~aezozs 0; ~t, ~,l 1 · . ~A.~e, ~~c: nd co ~l~p ud ez~e br~/rtliml ec~es, s~, ' My ~ ~ perm ~mAec~ ~tre~nuc~ deat~ vt~ ~r~ce lqal .ec~e,. J~l~c ~* aisc requ~,ed ~n Se#Ceu~e# I, 1987 Jvly $, 198e bvirommuttl Officer $Couc'd. 3. Aceountabtl~Cy: end exsc~c~ou of prosecution peckalee. Xnapproprtece recoamendftiofls/ ~nidoquats technical findinss or LncompZsce documentation o~ svSde.ce &. Cofltaccs~ The york Lnvotves a vide verier7 of tone,noLo8 concocts v~th ~ovornmencal and ind~scrtal officials/ac cbs operetionl~, technical, profeSeiona~ and aanaieeenc ZsveZs/courc and ocher enforceeenc seahorse/elected officials, the $onara~ public,' tho Mdia, consultants, developers, coucraccors/haelch officials and cschuicaZ, scientific and sn$1naerin$ officials ~f cbs u~ntstry, ether provincta~ uintaCrtes, the Government of Cauada and. ~ncoruac~onaL aSen¢~ss. The contacts are rot the purposes of exchan$Ln8 tnformtion, provtd~nS from outside aseucXoe, prepartn$ and asststin$ ld~Ters with prosec~tIona, co-operative studies such aa research projects ~unded try cbs u~oLscr~ or eaferctn$ res~ac~oas. They ua7 be ca,Xed to stye evtdeuce ou technicaX matters or co appear as an expert vtcness before adainiacracive tribunals required to ua~o preseucacLous.sC public uecioss. Xo IAI concocts, cae empZoToe officially represents th a~u~strT.