Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0750.Stroempl.91-11-12% ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LACOURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO '" GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS I50 OUNOA$ STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARtO. MSG 1Z8 TELEf~HONE/TELEPHO~,IE.' (.~ 16} 326-?388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU ~1~, TORONTO (ONTARIO}. MSG 1Z8 FACSiMJLE/T~COPlE ,* (4t6) 326-1396 750/88 IN THE I~TTER OF Under THE CRO~ EHPLOYEES COLLECTIVE B~R~IN~N~ ~CT THE G~IEV~CE SETTLEHENT BO~D BETWEEN OPSEU (Stroempl) Grievor - a~d - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) Employer BEFORE_: N. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson .. M. Lyons Member D. Montrose Member FOR THE D. Eady GRIEVqR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE D. Costen EMPLOYER .Counsel Legal Services 'Branch Management Board of Cabinet HEARING November 8, 1989 June 14, 25, 1990 · DECISION The grievor, George Stroempl, holds the position Of Silviculture specialist in the Forest Ecology and Silviculture Section of the Ontario Forest Research Institute (formerly Ontario Tree Improvement and Forest Biomass Institute) at Maple, Ontario. His position is classified as Research Scientist 3 ("RS3"). He grieves that his position is improperly classified and seeks reclassification as Research Scientist 4 ("RS4"). Attached to this decision as Appendix "A", is the General- Statement to the Research-Scientist class series (Preamble) together with the class definitions for the RSl to RS5 classifications. The employer maintains that the grie¥or's position is properly classified. Reliance is placed' On the statement at paragraph C' (1) of the preamble and the statements in the RS 3 and RS4 class definitions with regard to esteem and recognition. The employer relies on a procedure it has established for quantifying this "esteem" and "recognition" for purposes of advancing from RS3 to RS4. It is the empl6yer's' position that the grievor went through this well established procedure and was found not to be suitable for advancement. After completing. studies in forestry in Czechoslovakia, West Germany, Belgium and at the University of Toronto, Mr. 3 Stroempl joined~'the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in 1958 as a forester. He advanced from that classification to Research Scientist. 2 and then Research Scientist 3 while working at several Ontario locations, before joining the Ontario Forest Research Institute· in 1974 as a scientist in the Mensuremetion (Measuring of trees) Unit. Since 1975 he has been' employed at the Institute's Silviculture and Tree Biology Unit, in a position currently titled "Silviculture Specialist". The Silviculture and Tree Biology Unit is responsible for researching and directing scientific and technical knowledge for use in forest management. The unit employs clerical, technical and professional.employee~. Every' Drofessiona! scientist in the unit has an area of speciality. Mr. Stroempl's area of specialty for a number of years has been "regeneration of Red oak in Ontario". Each scientist is in constant touch with the operational side of forest management, namely the management foresters. The preamble to the class series recognises that .for advancement from RS3 to RS4, "the most important single criterion in assessing ability and productivity is the esteem in which the work of' the researcher il held by senior scientists in his field". The preamble goes on to state that' each class definition stipulates "a detailed ~nterpretation" of this requirement. The RS3 class definition provides that "For advancement to this grade a .scientist shall have made a significant contribution and'shall have achieved recognition~as a research ~worker in a particular field". The RS4 definition provides that "For advancement to this grade, a scientist shall have achieved recognition by scientists in his. own and allied fields as an authority in his f~eld of specialization." The employer .readily c6ncedes that Mr. Stroempl is a competent researcher who has attained a certain level of recognition in his field of specialty. The dispute between the parties is, and tharefore what the Board is called upon decide is, whether'that level of recognition achieved by Mr. Stroempl has exceeded the standards expected in the RS3 definition and reached the level of recognition stipulated in , the'RS4 definition. For the reclassification of research scientists the employer has established a unique procedure. An employee who seeks reclassification as a RS3, RS4, or RS5, is required to submit a proposa~ to the Research Scientist Advisory 5 Committee. This'Committee consists of three members, one from each of the three ministries which primarily employ Research Scientists - Natural Resources, Environment and Food and Agriculture. If the proposal is from a MNR scientist the material is first forwarded to the MNR member of the committee. In this case that was Mr, Jim.Maclean, at the time the Director of Wildlife Branch of the Ministry. He had progressed through the RS classifications before becoming a · member of management. His area of~sDecialization is zoology. Mr. Maclean testified that when he received a proDosal from a MNR employee for reclassification, his practice was to first review the~pr0posal himself. Only if a clear case for reclassification was made out or if at'least it was a "close case", would he submit the proposal for review by the'other two committee members. In the grievor's case, Mr. Maclean received a proposal package in March 1988. He ~eviewed the package and came to the conclusion that clearly there was no merit in Mr. Stroempl's claim for reclassification. Therefore Mr. Stroempl's request for reclassification was denied. (We would note in passing only, that following the filing of the grievance by the grievor, his proposal was formally reviewed by the other two committee members, who agreed with Mr. Maclean's conclusion). 6 The evidence is that it has been a long standing practice of the committee' to judge a proposal for reclassification according to established "Guidelines on Series.Usage". Mr. Maclean testified that he applied these guidelines in Mr. stroempl's case as he had done in every other proposal for reclassification. The guidelines as they apply to the RS3 and RS4 classifications read as follows:~ RESEARCH SCIENTIST ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDELINES ON SERIES USAGE NOTE: These guidelines amplify upon and clarify the existing guidelines dated August 15, 1981. It is understood that they elaborate upon but do neither contradict nor.replace the existing class standards.~, The criteria, used by the Research Scientist Committee. to evaluate submissions for p~ogression within the series may be considered under the major headings of Qualifications, Productivity and Recognition, which are in turn composed of the following elements: Qualifications: Degree and years of experience Productivity: Quality, quantity and significance of output Including: . published papers · published chapters in books . investigation reports . confidential reports · authority on contracted research · poster presentations . presentation of papers at meetingsl . editing (or refereeing) papers for publishing . literature citations . patents 7 And where applicable: supervision of other research scientists . organize work of other research scientists . develop programs and provide advice . generate ideas Recognition: - national or international authority - arrange sessions on specialty - chair sessions on specialty - adjunct professorship - represent government on special committees as member or chairman - member of federal-provincial committees - received meritorious awards · - provides expert consultation and advice to other agencies - provides comments on reports by consultants and other agencies Application of this criteria to various levels is s,~mmarized as follows (since the committee considers applications for classification at the 3 level and above only, the Research Scientist 1 and 2 levels are not included): Research Scientist 3 "For advancement to this grade, a scientist shall have made a significant contribution and shall have achieved recognition as a research worker in a particular field." (Standard for Research Scientist 3 level) Qualifications: As per listed in standard Productivity: Continued productivity e.g. - several projects underwaY - several good quality publications 8 - many internal reports produced - presents papers at meetings Recognition: Having achieved recognition as a research worker in a particular field e.g. - literature citations - reference from individual's last research supervisor describing individuals' research projects and his/her contribution to them Research Scientist 4 "For advancement to this grade, a scientist shall have achieved recognition by scientists in his own and allied fields as an authority in his field of specializations" (Standard for research Scientist 4 level) Qualifications: As per listed in standard Productivity:I High level of Productivity e.g. - coordinating several projects - many good quality publications, a significant number of which have been subjected to peer review - the names of the editorial board who carried out the review to be provided - significant number of investigation reports - frequently presents papers at meetings - referees peer papers for publication - authority on contracted research ~ Recognition: Having achieved recognition by scientists in own or allied fields ' as an authority in field of specialization: - frequent literature citations - provides comments on reports by consultants, and other agencies (national and international) - having served in expertl capacity on Ontario and/or Canadian Scientific committee (The individual will supply the terms of reference of the committee(s), names of all members, how he/she came to be appointed and the capacity in which the individual sits on the committee(s).) - letter from the individual's supervisor attesting to the fact that projects undertaken were devised with relatively little assistance and executed by the individual satisfactorily Mr. Maclean testified that having reviewed all of the material in Mr. Stroempl's proposal, he came to the conclusion that based of the criteria of productivity and recognition, Mr.· Stroempl did not meet the standards required for advancement to RS4. Mr. Maclean testified that he telephoned "people in agriculture" and. inquired if The American Bee Journal was anonymously peer-reviewed. He was informed that it was not. He inquired from "forest scientists" and was advised tkat Tree Planters Notes was not anonymously peer- reviewed either. Thus he concluded that only the 3 articles by Mr. Stroempl published in the Forest Chronicle were peer reviewed. He testified that the committee always considered articles published in internal MNR publications, and outside journals not anonymously peer-reviewed, to be Of lesser value than articles published in anonymously peer reviewed journals. The reasoning according to him is that the professional scientific community in these fields form a close group. The scientists are often known to each other as friends. When a scientist reviews an article known to be written by a friend, the evaluation is likely to be less objective. On the:'other hand the editors of anonymously peer reviewed journals forward articles for review without disclosing the author's identity. Then the reviews and comments are very objective. Due to this distinction drawn between articles published in anonymously peer-reviewed journals and other articles, the committee has adopted a rule that to amount to satisfactory production and recognition for purposes of advancement, a scientist must show at the minimum, a record of one anonymously peer-reviewed article per year. Mr. Stroempl had been a scientist with MNR for over 30 years and in Mr. Maclean's estimation had only published three articles in anonymously peer-reviewed journals. Other areas~ Mr. Maclean considered were service ton committees, citations in other scientific works and the provision of professional advice. He found that Mr. Stroempl- had done some of this but according to him, "nowhere near the ii level that can be reasonably ~xpected from a person who had been a scientist for so long".. Another factor Mr. Maclean was looking for was a strong recommendation by Mr. Stroempl's supervisors. Mr. Maclean spoke to Mr. D.P. Drysdale ~General manager of the Institute) and Mr. C. Glerum (Leader in the unit). Neither supported Mr. Stroempl's application. Counsel for the union stressed that the criteria to be met in a classification case are those in the applicable class definitions. While that is true, in evaluating the worth of highly professional, scientific or academic positions as those of research Scientists, a peer evaluation system .is an appropriate tool to utilize. Furthermore, guidelines which merely elaborate or define· the criteria in the class definitions are also acceptable, provided they are not in conflict with the expressed provisions or the general intent and spirit of the. class definitions. This board in Re Wu, 1287/88 (Samuels) has reviewed these same guidelines and made a general observation that "Though these Guidelines are not formally part of the class standards, in our view they do provide an accurate amplification and clarification of the terms used in the standards." Nevertheless, union counsel rightly poihted out that neither the class definitions nor the guidelines contain any minimum requirement of one anonymously peer-reviewed article per year as a condition of advancement in the class series. We have some concerns, not so much about the distinctioh drawn between types of jaurnals, but about the manner in which, this rule was applied 'in Mr. Stroempl's case. The evidence suggests that Mr. Maclean considered that rule to be an absolute one. In other words, if the required number of those articles had not been established, an employee had no chance of advancement. "While Mr. Maclean testified that he "considered" the other articles, it was evident that those articles, regardless of their quality or quantity, would not have sufficed in the absence of the number of required anonymously peer-reviewed articles. In our view,, an application' of the rule in that manner is not consistent with the class definitions, which only require recognition, whatever way it is demonstrated. Under cross-examination; Mr. Maclean conceded that anonymously peer- reviewed articles are T not the only means of attaining and demonstrating recognition. While those articles may be a reliable and convenient means of evaluating a scientist's recognition, the~re has to be flexibility in appropriate case~ allows an employee to establish recoqnition by other which means. Considering the manner in which Mr. Maclean applied the rule it appears that there will be no pos§ibility, for an employee to advance' in the class series if he or she had not met the "one article a year" rule. In addition, if the employer intended to insist upon such a precondition for advancement in the class series, it was incumbent upon it to clearly communicate to its employees what exactly is expected. Mr. Maclean's evidence is that the one anonymously peer reviewed article per year minimum was established by his predecessor in 1981 in a memorandum written to all supervisors. However, the uncontradicted evidence is that the rule first came to Mr. Stroempl's attention only in 1985 or 1986, after Mr. Maclean joined the institute. We are also troubled by the manner in which Mr. Maclean identified which journals wer.~ anonymously peer-reviewed for purposes of the rule. In our view if the employer intends to insist on a particular type of journal, it must'provide in advance a list of those journals acceptable to it. In this case, not only did the employer not provide such information to the employees, but the manner in which it determined which journals were anonymously peer-reviewed was, to say the least, haphazard. Mr. Maclean simply called some unidentified persons in the Ministry of AgricuIture, in the library or some unidentified forest scientists, and inquired if a certain journal was anonymously peer reviewed and took that person's answer at face 'value. We have no assurance.that the person in question had the knowledge to provide the information in question. When the information sought was to have a significant impact on an employee's career, a more reliable method of determining anonymously peer-reviewed journals is warranted than a~telephone call to an unidentified informant. While we have made the foregoing observations, the inadequacies of ,the process are not necessarily dispositive of this grievance. The Board must still determine whether the level of productivity and recognition attained by the grievor is such that it .surpasses the standard recognized in the RS3 class definition~as amplified and clarified by the guidelines. In Re Wu (supra)., the Board referred to "indicia which generally demonstrate esteem among one's peers" as follows: A considerable publication record; invitations to make presentations at universities, government bodies and other peer gatherings; invitations to edit journals, or other concrete demonstrations of respect for one's work. The Board went on to determine that the grievor in that case would not fit the RS4 classification. The Board reasoned as follows: Would he fit at the 4 level? In our view he would not. The Research Scientist 4 is a person with wid~ contacts with peers -"persons in their specialized field at universities, other research stations and 15 in industry in Canada and abroad". Dr. Wu' does not have such contacts. The Research Scientist 4 has "achieved recognition by scientists in his own and allied fields as an authority in his field of specialization" (emphasis added). We heard no evidence to show that Dr. Wu has achieved this kind of recognition. There was no evidence whatsoever that he has been recognized by scientists in allied fields. And, more importantly, there was ~no evidence that he is recognized yet as "an authority in his field of specialization." Dr. Wu suggested that this recognition has come in the form of the roughly forty requests he has had for copies of his papers. But these requests say absolutely nothing about the regard with which the requesters hold his work. They may simply be curious. They may read his papers and think that they are trash. Or they may think that his work is outstanding.- We simply don't know. A far more important demonstration of recognition would be if Dr. Wu's work was quoted or referred to with approval by other scientists. But we had not one such reference. Dr. Wu has not received invitations to speak at universities about his work (and there are about riva or six universities within a very short distance of the laboratory). He has not been consulted in any significant way by peers. In our view, Dr. Wu would not be appropriately classified as a Research Scientist 4. As employer counsel pointed~ out usually in a classification ~ase the Board's first task is to determine whether the grievor'~ existing classification was proper. Only if the answer is i~ the negative would the Board be called upon to consider whether a higher classification fits. Howe~er in cases such as this where the'distinction between classes depend upon the level at which incumbents perform the same duties, th~ p~ocess has to be somewhat different. As the Board in Re Wu stated we must move up the class series'until one finds an apprOpriate level. In Re Wu the Board at p.!4 concluded that the griever met the requirements of the RS3 class definition.' Yet, the Board proceeded to consider whether the griever, also met the requirements of the higher classification. In that case the Board concluded that the griever's position did not fit the RS4 classification. Therefore it was"held that he was properly classified at the existing RS3 level. In the case~at hand, it is agreed that the grievormeets at least the RS3 level. The issue is whether the level of productivity and recognition attained' by him meets the requirements of the higher classification. · what indicia of r~cognition is disclosed by the evidence? Mr. Stroempl has 18 publications, the majority of which were published in MNR publications. Of the others, the employer asserts that only 3 are published in anonymously peer-reviewed journals. Accordinq to the qrievor that number should Da 7. We have no reliabie information from either party to resolve that conflict. While Mr. Stroempl has not demonstrated a large number of publications Compared to the length of his career as a MNR 17 scientist, unlike in the Wu case, we have an abundance of evidence that he has attained a high level of recognition in his own area of speciality - Red Oak, as well as other allied fields. Unlike the grievor W_Bu, Mr. Stroempl has been called upon on numerous occasions to ~ake presentations at universities and at other professional gatherings, both in Canada and in the US. University professors have enlisted his assistance. He has been asked to review their writings. The Research Council of Canada ~has requested him to evaluate research projects submitted for grant applications. The US Dept. of Agriculture wrote to the Director of the unit stating that an'article authored by Mr. Stroempl was distributed to its. foresters and that it was extremely useful in their work. A request was made for some slides prepared by Mr. Stroempl. His writings have been cited in articles written by ~ther scientists in related fieids. The evidence is that the US Forest Service requested the Ministry for 10,000 copies of an article authored by Mr. Stroempl for distribution to its foresters in the Northern US. His articles have been listed in published bibliographies. His articles have been reprinted in German periodicals. There is also ample evidence before us that Mr. Stroempl's work has been highly regarded by the scientific community. Numerous testimonials to the excellence and value of his work were filed in evidence. Also, the evidence does indicate .that his recognition is not restricted to the area of Red Oak. Recognition has come from other scientists working on other hard woods and regeneration methods of wider application. A post-grievance Report of Scientific Review on Mr. Stroempl prepared by 3 renowned scientists, wherein they state that in addition to his work on Red Oak Mr. Stroempl "has had international recognition in the area of basswood seed problems, aS well as in northern hardwood coppice management", merely confirm~ that which is established by the evidence. Mr. Maclean testified that he read all of Mr. Stroempl's articles and did not find them to be of a high quality. While Mr. Maclean is a highly·qualified scientist., his evaluation of the grievor's Work is directly contrary to the evidence that scientists working in related fields in forestry had a very high regard for the quality of Mr. Stroempl's writings. Considering that Mr. Maclean's expertise is zoology (animals as opposed to tre~s') we prefer the opinion of those scientists who work in the same area as the grievor. Similarly, we are of the opinion, that while the supervisor's opinion about reclassification may be a relevant consideration, it cannot be given any weight of its own. Practically in every classification case that comes before the Board, the employee's supervisor does not support the 19 grievance. Tha~ does not necessarily preclude'success of the grievance on its merits. In our view, if the guidelines anticipate the support of the supervisor as a precondition for reclassification or if the guideline is interpreted to require that, it is inconsistent with the class definitions, none of which make that'a requirement. Based on the foregoing evidence, we are satisfied that Mr. Stroempl surpasses the requirements of the RS3 class definition and properly fits the RS4 definition. The employer's concern was recognition. We find that while Mr. Stroempl has not shown a great volUme of publications, he has achieved what is required by the RS4 class definition,.namely, "recognitionby scientists in his own and allied fields as an authority in his field of spebialization.'" For all of those, reasons we find that the grievor's position is wrongly classified as RS3. He shall be reclassified as RS4 and compensated for his losses, if any, retroactive to 20 days prior to the date of filing of the grievance. The Board remains seized to deal with any difficulty the parties may have in implementing this award. Dated this 12ch day of November, 1991 at Hamilton, Ontario N. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson Lyons / ' -- "~ Member / D. Montrose Member -. CATEGORY: Scientific and Professional · ~ -- GROUP: $P-03 General S~S: Resea~, Len~s~, NaC~a~ Reso~as ~S CODE: L5400 :o ~=~08 A. Wo~ F~ctions Covered: This series applie~ =o research ~ on problems ~er=inen= fores~ [isher~es and ~l~ife ~agemenc ~volving ~e use pr~nciplest ~ods ~d =ec~iques co,only accepted a~ cons=i~=ing scientific me~hod. The'Research Scion=is= is e~ec=ed f~i=ful ~heore=~cal insights ~d i~rov~encs ~ me~hods ~d =ec~iques res~=in~ 'in an e~ansion in ~e body of knowledge cons=i=ucin~ ~s speci~ field. .+ 5. ~clus~o~s fro~ this Series: ~luded from t~s series ~:- 1. Sure,sots in charge of ~]or research establis~ents ~ose ~ is ~ri~rily of ~ a~is=rative character. 2. Su~e~[sors ~o prov~de resear=h leadership ~d car~ a~ni- s~ra=i%e responsibilities ~n co~ec;~on ~th research ~rk but w~o do ~ct i~i=ia=e .~d car~ out their o~ resear=h projects as 'a subst~=ial and con=in~n~ 3. Positions ~ic~ entail the pe~o~ce of work of a professional ~ut non-r~searc~ cfla~ac=er. This ~ involve the ~plication of a ~od~ of kno~ principles ~d techniques to a varie~ of e.~., silvicul~ral practices; ~a~ostic wo~ in health =ories: .~ne assay wo~; e=c. Such posi~ons are allocated to the appropriate professional series~ e.g.~ Scientist, ~ehever is applicable. .. Class Distinctions Within the Series: 1, For advancement beyond Research Scientist ~-, the most importanc-- sin.,,'le criterion in a~sessLn.~ ability and productivity is the esteem in ~fiich :he wo~ of the researcher is held by senior scLc~Ci~C~ in h.i.~, fLeid~ A ~ucailed Lnce~recacion of cne ,equ[~en,ent i~ ~tCpulaccd an the qualifyin~ standards estab- .Li~hed f'o~ ~he hiche~ .LeveLs an the series. .. Ee~arcfl ~cientisc~ arc not required to a~s~e responstbilitie~ for advancemcn~ in chis series. However, Scientists ac the hi~he~ levels ~ be e.~ecced co devote a substantial portLon of their time co providin~ ~esea~ch leadership ~ j~ior scientists ~o are assi~ed se~enc~ of a ~jo~ research project ~de~ continuous supe~vision. · , (over3 CODE: L5400-~ $408 The i~ediate practical value derived from ~esear=h findings is not'a'criterion in determining the relative ~orth of the research bein~ ~de~aken ~d is no= considered in ~he classification of Research $cien~is:s. The asses~ent of the con=ribu:ion for classification pu~oses =he demonstrated scientific competence of relation to ~he scope of S~ce Scien:ific r~search is c~a:ive wo~ ~ch a~ows for a ve~ ~de sp~ of produc:i~, qu~%ications ~d de, n- strafed capab~ities are given a pro~nent place ~ ~e classificat~.on st~da~s. The factors ~ployed in classi- fication ra:in~s are ~e ~) th~ research assi~ent [~) the na~rc ~d extent ef supe~isio, received [i[) ori~[~ity in design iv) Scientific leadership ~d reco~ized contributions v) qualifications FebruarT, 1962 Title Chance .- October 3. 1971 CATEGORY: ~cien%ifi¢ and Professional Oervicss GROUP: $P-03 SEI~.~ES: Reseat, $cien~is:, Natural Resource~ CLASS CODE: Z$400 R.F.~F. ARCH. SCIENTIST 1~ NATURAL RF~0URCES CIASS DEF~ITION: This is the entry level for recent science gradu~.tes. Scientis:s participate in the pl~u~ing of projec~.s and per, om ~uch o£ ~e work of carryi~ them out; they c~mpile data, make.analyses, help :o interpre~ r~sul~s and assist in writing reports. Supervision is immediate; problems.are assigned and ~rk plans drawn 'up by a senior scientist who r~views w~rk a~ critical sta~es for adherence ~o original instructions and to assess progress. Scientists may be required ~o supervise non-professional s~aff. QUAL IFICAT IONS; 1. A degree in Forestry o~ Honours ~egree in Biology or. other suitable f~el~s of science f~m a University of recognized standing. Revised July, 1965 Title Charge - October 3, 19T1 I1./__/_ IIIII I III i ~ CATEGORY: Scientific and Professional Secy,=es ~. ~SS CODE: 15402 RESEARCH $CI~TIST ~ ~ .NATURAL RES0~CF~ CL~$ ~EFINIT~ON: Scientists in this class plan and conduct assi. gned research s~udies~ analy:e and interpret results, and prepare reports and scientific papers. Supervision is exerciscd by a scnior scien'=ist who assigns problems and suggests courses of action, without out- lin/n& stages of work i~ detail. Proposed courses of action are discussed wi~h ~he supervisor and approved before being undertaken, Scientists may be required to supervise and train non-professional assistants. ~/ALIFICATIONS: 14 A :~ster,s degree from a universi=y of recognized standing in Fore~ or 8iolo~ or.other suitable fields of science, 2. Demons=rated ability =o ~a~ out resear=h projects~ analyze ~d ~cerpre= da:a~ ~d prepare reporc~. Febm.~_-~, 1962 Tinle Chan~e - October ~, 19TI I I RESEARCH SCIENTIST 3~ NATURAL RESOURCES CLA~S' DEb'INIT[ON: Scientists a~ ~his leve.L are responsible for a research in a special field of inqui~. They ~y surges: co the ~supervisor problems ~:hin the &eneral assi~ent, plan approaches ~o these problems~ car~ out research work, evaluate the resets, and~ prepare reco~en~i~ns, repo~:s ~d scientific papers. Supe~sioa ~enera%, scieR:L~:s bein~ ~esponsible for ~e:e~nin& an~ developin& me,ods ~d procedures. Plans ~d ~rk-in-pro~ress are revie~d pe~o~cally-with the supe~sor, ~y for pohcy consider:ions, and to ar~n&e for staff, finites ~d facilities. Scien:is:s super- ~se and train j~or scientists an~ non-professional assis~ncs, assess results of ~eir ~. ~ ~I FICAT IONS: 1. A ~stert~ de~ree from a university of recogni:ed standing in Fores~ or ~iolo~ or other s~table fiel4s of science, and three years of accep.~ble e~erience in relate~ research work; or a Doctor.s deg~e supported ~ si~ific~t' research ~ a par:icular field. .. Abi~ty to car~ out scientific research, co ~aly:e and inter- pret data, .and :o repot: results in an acceptable ~er ~e~nstrated by pub~shed scien=ific papers. For advancemen6 :o this g~de, a Scientis: shall have ~de a si~ifican: contribution and shall have achieved reco~i:ion as a resear~ ~et ~ a particular field. Feb~a~= 1962 Title Ch~ze - October 3, 19~ CAT~:GORY: Sc£encL~Lc and Profess:orieL ServLces~ ~UP: SP-03 General Sc~en~= ~S CODE: 15406 C~S DE~NITION: Wo~ a~ =his ~evel ~volv~s conduc= and supe~1sipn of co~rehensive research progr~ invol~ng a n~ber of in~vidual pro jeers or ~dependen= coa~c= o~ a highly special:ed research ' progr~. ~si~en~s are defined only ~ Ce~ of gene~l objec- =ives~ *scien~is~ ~g f~l respoasibili~ for iden=ifying p~o~- lems~ dete~ning specific research pro jeers =o be ~der~en, prepare8 plans and es~li~h~g me~ods an~ procedures. Ptan~ are discUssed with superiors for confo~ ~ch potties cechnicai direc=ioa is received~ ~nc~ben~s berg ~ided by =heir o~ in=erpre=a~ion of ob jet=ives. Projeccs ~y ~e assi~med j~ior research ~ciencis=s ~o plan =he research work and*analy=e and in~erPrec da~a. Scdenc[~s have ~de con,acrs wi~ persons and Ln lndu~t~ Ln Ca~da and abroud. They are expected to ac:end and pre~en: papers pettaLnln= co theLr ~eaearch findin,~s ac natLonal and ince~aclonal aclentific ~etings. · . 1. A ~stet,s degree from a universi~ ~f reco~ni:ed in Forest~ or Biolo~ o~ other suitable fields of science, plus seven geats~ e~etience; or a Doctor's degree from ~iver~ity of recoil:ed standing, plus four 2. ~mons:raced ability to fniciate and independently. out'and supervise scientific research: abili~ to analy:e and interpret da~a, a~scss the valLdi~ of results and .. Ln hi~ own and allied t'ie.l.ds as an authority in h~s t*icLd of specLali:atLon. Feb~a~, 1962 ti~e Ch~ze - Octobe~ 3, 19~ CATEGORY: S¢ien=£~£¢ and ProfessLcnal Sea;ices GROUP= S~-03 Ge--'~al Sclefl=if£¢ S~RIES: Resea:~ .~ientls=, Natural Resou==es C"~,~SS CQDE~ 15408 RESEARC~ SCI~TIST 5. NATU~%L RE$O[,I~CES CLASS DEFLNITION: " Wonk at this level ~nvolves conduct and supe~ision 'of a comprehensive research program involving a number of individual projects or independent conduct of a highly speciali:ed research program, Research ob]et=ives ~re ~efined. in general cems~ but work'projects are independently conceived and completed without further c[irection. Pro~ects may be assigned to ~unior research scientists who, under close supervision, u~der=ake the de~ailed ri ~ operations and perform a preliminary analysis and inter- pretation of the fimdings. Scientists have wide cor~tacts with researchers in universities and other institutions in Canada and abroad on matters per%aining to t~heir field of spe¢iali:a- tion. They are consulted on research problems by specialists working in their ow~ and related scientific fields. ~JALIFICATIONS: , A Master's ~egree from a uniYer$iry of recogni:e~ standing in Forestry, Biology or or, her suitable fields of Science and ten years of experience in their field; or a Doctorts de~ree from a universim/ of recognized standing, plus seven years~ exDerience. Advancement to this grade is limited to Scientists ~ho have achieved international recognition as authorities in their own f~eld. This is evidenced in the following.ways: i) They have a record of re~earch findLn~ ~t£ch have been published widely and have won wide-spread acceptance as outstandin~ contributions by the scientific coamtunity. ii) They are sou~,ht to provide advice and assistance on research problems by speciali~t~ in their own and allied fields. Februa~, 1962 T:t!e Chan~e - October 3, 1971