Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1162.Holley.89-12-18 ON.RIO EM~OY~$ PE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPL OYEE~ DE L 'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C MMISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WES~ TOWN'O, ON~RIO, MSG 1Z8. SUi~ ~1~ - ~LEPHONE/T~L~PHONE ~ 84 RUE DUNDAS OUES ~ TORONTO,. (ON~RI~ MSG 1Z$ · BUREAU 2 ~ ~ ~416) 5~.0~8 ; ~ T~E MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION - 'Under -~ '~HE CROWN E~PLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before TH~ GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (A. Holley)' Grievor ' --' - and- · The Crown'in'Right'of Ontario '(Ministry of Natural Resources) _ Employer Before: '' ' D~"Fraser Vice-Chairperson F.. Taylor .Member A. StaDleton Me~ber For the Grievor= C. Dassios Counsel Gowling, 'Strathy & Henderson Barristers'& 'Solicitors For the Employer: D. Francis '- -Counsel ' Winkler,'.Filion and Wak'ely Barristers & Solicitors Bearings: June 15, 1989 June 16,'1989 2 The Grievor, Arden Holley, is a Senior Lands Technician in.the Nipigon District, which is one of five districts in the North Central Region of the Ministry of Natural Resources. He is classified as a Resource Technician, Senior 1, he wishes to. be reclassified as a Resource Technician,. Senior 2, with retroactivity from January, 1985. L His grievance is founded on two submissions. The first is essentially ~hat is referred to as the "usage" approach in.the ~oard's Jurisprudence, and is ,based on the similarity of his job duties to those performed by persons classified as RTS2 in the Dryden, Fo~t Frances; Ignace, Sioux Lookout, and Red The second submission is that his duties fall within the class standard of RTS2 position, and therefore he should be classified upvard to that position. That submission turns on the question of the Grievor's involvement ' in "Long-range Operational Planning", a duty specifically encompassed by the class standard for RTS2, and not so encompassed by the class standard for RTS1. Both parties filed statements of fact atthe outset of the hearing, and they read as fo~iows: 1. The Grlevor is a Sen~or Technician working out of Nipigon in the North Central Region of the ' Ministry of Natural Resources. He is classified as Resource Technician Senior l (RTS1) and seeks reclassification to Resource Technician 2 (RTS2). 2. The Union states that this Grievor's job duties are essentially identical or substantially similar to the Job duties performed by persons · classified as RTS2 in Dryden, Fort Frances, Ignace, Sioux Lookout'and Red Lake. The Union' therefore states that this gr[evor ought~ ~o be -classified as RTS2. 3. The Union states that the 'Minist~y's positio~ is contained in a memo t'0'the Grievo~dated October 11,.'~1988. A.Mtn]stry audit of the' Grievor's position and the other positions referred to. above determinedthat "the positions are largely comparable in both' responsibilities and kn0vledge and skill' requirements. It was determined that there are some minor~differences.but ~hese were ~dt. considered'to'be significant". · 4. Alternatively, the Unio~-s~ates that the' Grievor is responsible.on a ~ist~i~t-w~d~'~ba~'is for technical, control andlong range .~ operational planning 'of a sub-service a~d'is thus properly classified as RTS2. 5. The Grievor~s duties are substantiall~ correctly set out in_a position ~P~_~ificatioQ - and class allocation:form effective .Apri~i,-.~ 1988. ~ , 6. Attached tdlth]S~statement are. the following: (a) the Grievor's. position pecif tion~ and class, allocation fo~m; ,. ~ .' (b) the Resource Technician Senior~Cl s' serieS; , , .~ · (c) memo dated October 1, 1988 to th~~ Grtevor from the Regional Dlrect6~ for North central Region..-~ '. ,. '7, The Griev6r seeks retroa_ctivitY/ wi~h~ . compensatioh for. financial loss a~d ..int6reSt, to March 9, 1984..f - :, ..... ~..~., + June 9, 1989 1. The grievor is a Senior Lands"Technici~n 'in .' Nipigon District, one of the.five districts'i~ the Ministry-of Natural Resources' North Central Region 2.He is classi'fied as a Resource Technician senior 1 (RTS 1). 3. He is one of approximately 18$bargaining unit employees classified in the RTS 1 classification in the Ministry of Natural Resources. 4. A number of years ago, a numbem of positions in the Mlnistry'.s Northwest Region '~ere reclassified from RTS i to Resources-Technician Senior (RTS 2).~ As is suggested in para*graph 2 of the union's Statement, those positions were -' in the Dryden, Fort F~nces, Ignace, Sioux Lookout and Red Lake Districts.' 5.~ In response to inquiries by the.grie¥or, a' review of his Job responsibilities and those of. the Senior Land Technician in Fort Frances District was carried out by Mr, M. Bourne, Coordinator, Compensation and Audit, Personnel Policy Section, Human' Resources Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources in June of 1988.. 6. As a result of this analysis, it was determined by the Ministry that those positions were largely comparable in both responsibilities and, knowledge and skill. It was determined that RTS 1 ~as the correct classification for both pos/ti OhS, 7. Accordingly; the grievor was advised that. his position would not be reclassified. The incumbents In the relevant pdsitions in - '. Northwest Region were advised that their positions vere overclassified and that their positions would be reduced to the RTS 1 level' when they vacated them.. 8. The approximately 185 RTS 1 positions .in Ministry are largely comparable in terms of levels of both responsibility and,~ knowledge '. and skill, to the grievor's position and to/the-- · relevant position in Northwest Region. , 9.~ Of 'those positions, at least 27 are very directly comparable because they are positions involved in the Lands Management Programme. A further approximately 50 positions are also i directly comparable beCause the~.are Senior ! Technician positions, albeit with. respect to other Ministry Programmes. ' '/ 10. ~t is the ~inistry's position"that the grievor. .:. is properly classified as an RTS 1. June 14, 1989 ': The employer's position with zespect to?the usage issue is found in part in a memorandum to the Grlevor dated October llth, 1988. That memorandum reads: .' Octobe~ 11, 1988 MEMORANDuM TO: ' .. Arden Holley Senior Lands Technician Nipigon Dlstrlct SUBJF_CT: Class~fi'cation Cor~plaln~ - S~tor " - rands Technician : , · Further to your classification complaint, a review of the duties and requirements of yo.ur position was carried out by Mike Bourne, Co-ordinator Compensation & Audit, Human ~Resources Branch~ This was compared with a similar review carried out.~fd~.~he Senior Lands Technician ~' ': position in Fort FranGes. District (representing~one of several similar positions in the Northwestern R~gion). The review concluded that the positions are largely' comparable in:bQth_ responsibilities and~knowle~ge and skill requirements..~t was determined that there are some minor differeRce~ but.these_ were not.cons'Idered to be significant. '" The next step was a comparison of the posifiO~S with the appropriate classification ,standards~.(Reso_urcg Technician "._ Senior I &.2 Bargaining Unt.t )./ which determined that your " position is appropriately classified at the ResourCe Technician Senior i ~argainlng Unit-lev~I and that the Senior Lands Technician positions in the~prthwestern · Region are incorrectl~ allodated at th~Resource : '.~ Technician Senior 2 Bargaining Unit classification level. Since this classification review.occurred .through no fault of the current incumbents in {he'Northwestern~- " Region, the classification levels for the existin9 positions will be reduced when the incumbents vacate. The overall effect of.this review:.is to eventually ensure that the Senior Lands T~chniclah'Positions in both' regions will he,equally compensate~ at the Resource Technician 'Senior. 1 Bargaining Un'I~' level, '- ~ appreciate ~he fact t~at y~6 ~rought' this concern to our attention in order that.we ~ould redress the inconsistency in levels between regions. Should ~here be any further questions, please feel free to discuss them with your District Manager, Art Currie. Regional Director North Central Region ' i' It was this memorandum that prompted the grievance herein, which was launched shortly after on October 18th, 1988. The class standard for Resource Technician - senior Serles was provided to the board. Relevant definition found in its Preamble include the following: Sub-Servic~¢: Functional field' equivalent of a Ministry-Division, e.g. Forest Managements' MiheraI Resources Manag.ement,-Wildlife Management, Parks Management,. Fire Control, Lands Administration.. Work Planning: Planning over a relatively short period where the major- factors are provided, e.g. 'objeCtives, specif-i.c .targets, expenditure allotment, time limitations, areas, etc.. ~,ong-~ng~ O~grational Plan~ing: Planning involving participat.ion of' field offices and the Head Office in the setting of Regional and/or District objectives; developing 'and establishing alternatives for meeting these objectives; analyzing these alternativeS;' recommending the co'ur'se to follow; etc. The class standard for RTS1 reads: -' CLASS sTANDARD ' - ' '"' '- ....... Thls class co,ers Positions of employees responsible 6n a' district-~ide basis for technical control of a sub- servi~e; OR who act as senior assistants to district technical or professional specl&lists in determining" methods and techniques, lmplementin9 policy and controlling standard~ in one or more' services on a distr ict-~lde basis. Also .included are positions of ~mployees.who assist professional staff e.g. Foresters, Biologists, etc., ,in the management of Forest Units, Lake Units, Private Lands, etc. They participate in the development of management plans, prepare initial agreements with ~rivate.'. land o~ners,, prepare work plans and annual budget estimates, organize and schedule units work and exercise budget controls. < · Positions of supervisors who on a year-round basis have administrative responsibility for a formal unit of organization (functional or territorial) arid who, in this context, prepare work plansand annual budget estimates, organize and s~hedule the unit's work and.exercise budget controls, are also allocated to this level. Positions of employees in charge, o'f type .,B" parks or type "B" hatcheries or second-in-charge of type "B" tree -nurseries, are included at this level. In the Research Branch, this class covers positions' of non-professional,'fully.tr~ined and experienced research assistants in various disciplines' of scientific' research · ~.. who under direction of a Research Scientist, carry out :.. assignedltechnological phasespf research and have full responsibility for the-validity .of obtained of processed. data and the preparation of.reports involving preliminary ~ analysis Of such data.- . 1. Supervisory ability;.some-adminlstrative ability; ability~o.co-ordinate' several projects, and to, prepare work plans; personal suitability. -- ~ · 2. Extensive knowledge and thorough understanding. of objectives, methods and techniques' ,. applicable to the assigned work area; good working knowledge of relevant legislafion. October 1. 1970. ..~ And the class standard-for.RTS2 reads:. CLASS STANDARD: ~- .... . 2" This class covers positions of employees responsible on a dlstrlct-~ide basis for technical control and long range o[)¢.rational planning oE a sub-service, O~ who act as'the senior assistant to district technical or professional specialists in determining methods and techniques, implementing and interpreting policy, controlling standards, preparing long range operational plans and developing new policies for all sub-services in one or more services on a district-wide basis. Positions of employees responsible on a district-wide basis for field control of Timber revenue sources are ,, also included at this level. Positions of employees who are full time supervisors are allocated to this level when they are responsible for supervision of staff, work planning ,and implementation, budgeting and budge~ control and overall administration of the malorlty of sub-services in all servtces present' within a Chief Ranger Division or an ~qulvalent unit or- organization, ~r~where the number of regular and/or ~ probationary staff permanently assigned to such unit is 24 or less. Allocation to his level-will be made only. !' when both crttteria are fulfilled. ~ / supervisors of type "A" parks and type "A" hatcher~ies are aiioc~ted to this level. Also. included are positions of employees who are second-in-charge of type "A" tree nurseries. In the Research B~anch, this class covers positions ofu non-professional fully trained and experienced senior research assistants who, in addition to carrying out various technological phases of adVanced research, are required to advise Research Scientists in matters of costs, manpower, equipment, etc., necessary for the operation of a research station, research vessel or a~ research tree nursery and, who assume on a year-round basis, administrative, operational,.training and/or . supervisory duties necessary for the operation of such~a research unit and take charge of such a unit as required. SKILLS AND K~OWLk'DG~.R~IR~: 1~ Administrative and supervisory ability; ability <. to deal effectively ~ith other agencies and the: public; ability to carry out long-range operational planning and detailed work planning. 2. A good general knowledge of departmental legislation, administration and the specialized objectives and procedures of its various services; preferably completion of special training courses in such areas as Timber, Fish and wildlife, Forest Protection, Lands or Parks, Management and Administration. o~tobe.~ ~, 1970. TO place these materials and the following review of evident6 in perspective, we would sum up the issues in the following way. The Griever says that he does the same work as people in five other Districts; ~nd'."they are classified as RTS2.. The employer's respor~e is that although the duties are comparable, those others are incorrectly.classified at that level;'and after'a review, their positions have been correctly classified-at ~he RT$~, Which viii take effect when th~ incumbents vacate. Furthermore, Other e~ployees with slmllar duties in their .position specifications ~o those'of th~'GYt~vor,' are all classified at the RT$1 level, Th~ GrievJr has r~sponded'th~t the mistake in classifying those other positions, at the RTS2 level, cannot'b~ relied On; and that level is appropriate in a usage ~ar~um~nt. The class standard argument, founded on the Griever's involvement i'n long-range, oper?tional planning, is met by the ~employer with various responses, including submissions that such duties are otherwise contained in RTSl duties', and .that they~are a relatively simple form of plan~ing not engaged 'in*by the Grlevor to any substantial extent. ' The 6'rievor gave the following evidence. Exhibit 4 (attached to this a~ard), is his Position Specification, and it is accurate, tnclUdln~ the' percentage all0cate~' ~o duties, He started wl'th~'~he Mt~istry..l~"lg.73, and ~'. after holding various positior~; he came to {::~e-' Cochrane offl6~~ tn~ 1977 as a Senior..Lands Technician with the class title 6~ RT$~. In ~980, he* m~ved laterally to the Niplgon Di'strict~' which is One- o'f five in the N6~t'h C~ntral ~:e~lon. There he i~ ~e~on~ible for the administration of ~ublic ~ands and mining lands progran~. That involves the preparation of short term and long term operational plans In the lands pr0g~am, the preparation' of a yearly York plan, the coordinations o{ the review of request~ f'or crown Lands, and'the interpretation and .implementation of land management policies and pzocedures. He supervises two staff on a full-time basis, a lands technician and a seasonal lands technician;,and summer staff. Mr. Holley then gave evidence about the management structure in his region, and varibus Outies he performed. We ,~ill now refer to matters that bear some relation to the duty of long-range operational planning. In 1987 he prepared a district tourism plan. Its purpose was to guide 'the disposition of tourism opportunities based on fishery resources, for a five year period. It looked at the number of fish prlxluced in individual lakes, to see if there were a surplus that could be ut'ilised by the tourism industry, HIs subordinates did work on the plan, although he ,,ms the author 'of it, and his s~pervisor ',ms not directly involved. He is also the author of a lake management plan, It looks at' 'cot~ag~ing potential of ,.a lake, including the eXtent to which the lake can Support s{~ch development. Such a plan has no expiry dates, but would be reviewed by him every five years. That program is presently Inactive for lack of fund'lng., He was involved' in making amendments to the District Land u~e Gul~]ellnes document, It guides the managem, e~nt of natural resources for the Nlplgon District, by outlining targets and strategies for achievement of those targets, and essentially a. 20 yea~ plan, to the year 2003. His involvement dealt vlth the tom:ism .section in hrea gl, invol, ving r.~ke Superior. /~ a result of pul>lie input, he made..a recommendation to allow ~or Increase in tourism use inthat area, and his recommendation was accepted. That process involved .cor~lting key actors such as tourist outfitters, cottager~, public Interest groupsl analysing their ~nput; preparing a summary analysis; responding to-each input; and thereafter preparing an amendment to the gbidelines. He also was involved in amending a target in the Guidelines for the generation of cottage lots. The original target, developed in the.early 1980's when the Guidelines first came -. out, could not be used. He. investigated the situation, and recommended a new target which was adopted by. the Region~ '*' He also sits as a member' of'a planning team:which reviews t'lm~er management plans for 5, 10 and 20'year pertods~` The' team includes members from each Service, and the review, done.annually, generates r~fommendations .for amendment of the plans, which a~e referred to higher levels of managemen% 'for approval. In his district, ~e i~ the only one who does Planning for th& ~2ands , admin.istration program. U'is supervisor would review his plans infrequently. overali't~ikes up 'approximately 20%.0f" h'is~ time.; He-. had earlier said to' MI:'.* i~o~rne, b senior governmbn%"'°fficiat whose* evidence' we' wIII review later, that ,h~ '*spen*t 10 - 15%'"of his *%ime on long-range operational. Planning, but he noted on cross-examinatfon, ttiat ~eC~ntly he was.*~I~ending more time in this area. The long'range planning that' he does; is 'also assisted by various guides, or "cookbooks", as they ~r~ called. They'p~ovide f~rmat'.and policy guidelines in some cases, but not all, hnd they are used by others*at various planning levels. In addition, he does work planning, which is another but shorter-term type of planning defined earlier iff the' excerpt from the class standard. " We are satisfied that the evidence 'overall on thls'a~P~t i~6iC~tes gulte clearly that Mr. Hoiley is, involved in ~long-range operational* Planning within the definition found in the class standards. We also conclude that he did this duty for 10 - 15% of his time earlier, and he now does It for about 20% of his ' ~vidence for the employer was given by Mr. Michael Bourne. He is the Coordinator of Compensation and Audit, Human Resources Branch, at the head office of the Ministry. He has had an extensive background in personal matters, including classification. We are quite satisfied ~ith his overall competence, .although we have some concerns ~ith some of his conclusions and interpretations, as will be seen below. He conducted the classification review found in the memorandum of October llth, 1988, .,found earlier in this a~ard. We heard details of that review of Senior Lands .Technicians in the Fort Frances district of the Northwestern Region, which included a review of duties, responsibilities, skills and knowledge, and a comparison to the class standard. We' are satisfied with his conclusion that those technicians should be classified at the RTS1 level, and that their classification, at the RTS2 level was in error. He reviewed the Grievor's po~sition specification for his work 'in the Nipigon district, intervtewed.~the Grievor, and compared his pos. ition with the Fort Frances Jpb. He concluded, that the Grie.vor ~s correctly classified. We do not accept that final conclusion, as will be seen below. · During his exa~}ination-in-chief~ of Mr. Bourne, a list of all RTS1 positions in the Ministry was tenderod, showing some 182 positions. T~~board was also provided with a set of some 25 position specifications, all of ~hich appear on the ll.st noted, and all of whom are positions In the Lands program, for a variety of d~istrtcts~ Mr. Bourne had reviewed those latter position 13 specifications and compared them vlth both the Fort Frances and the Nlplgon (the Grievor's position) position specifications, and concluded that those RTSl- positions were all largely comparable. Those are all Senior Lands Technician positions (RTSl), and were extracted from roughly 50 positions considered to be · ': Sen~or Technicians outside of head office positions. Mr. Bourne admitted on ~ross-examinatfon that the first five of those twenty-five position specifications made reference to long-range planning. He also admitted that the difference'between'the materia~ parts-of the. Class. standards for the RTS1 and RTS2 positions was the inclusion of "~6ng-range operational planning" in the RTS2 positiQn, and he agreed tha{' 6ne was "s~uck" with the language in the class, standards. _ However, he testified .that that reference was. not~a significant difference, in his view, as long-ran~e-planning can.~e done'aG.either level. The first paragraph for the class standard for RTS1 contains the d~t~ "determining methods and .t~chniques", found ·after the cap~talize~ Wo~.d "OR",. in ,. that paragraph, andhe considered- that~ d~tyto-be' a ~l'a~ning function.' · ' In analysing these matters', we Will'revie~ th6'~ge argument first. It is founded on the similarity of the Grievor's duties to those in the Fort Frances district, classified as RTE2' The employer has. l~jven evidence that that is a misclassification, and that a~eview l~dicates that the Fort Frances positions should properly be classified at the RTSi.'lgvei, and ~ill be, once all the incumbents vacate th~i~ ~sitions. we con¢lud~"6n the basis of the evidence before us (largely founded on a review of position specifications and t~elr relatio~ to the class standard) that those p~s~t~ons ~ere so misclassified, that the review was a bona fide and com~t'ent one, and that the 14 conclusion .that those positlons should be at' the RTS! level is correct. Can the Grievor then rely on an incorrect classification in order to succeed on the usage argument? There is some law and board Jurisprudence to suggest that he may be' able to under particular circumstances. The case of Re Attorney - Ontario a~nd Qnt~rio Public Seryice E~DLoyee~ Unions et al., 440 O.R. (2d) 21 is a Judgement of the Divisional Court of Ontario (0sler, Steele, and slrois, J.J.) which deals with a mistake in classification, and it is important enough that we will set out the text in full below, commencing with the reasons of Mr. justice Osier. ~nat case reads as follows: OSL.~R J.: This vas an application f~r Judicia~ review to Settlement Board dated February 8, 1982, dealing with the classification grievance of one Paul Battams. In a unanimous decision, the board allowed the grievance of Battams ~ho had complained that he ~as improperly classified as a Draftsman I and sought to be reclassified as a Draftsman II in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The board ordered.~hat .Battams be reclassified as a Draftsman II effective April 1, 1977, with entitlement to compensation at.that level from that date, and required that he be paid the difference between the two rates from April· 1, 19~7, to' the date'that.the · · award was to be implemented. The issue may perhaps best be set out by quoting from an i'ntroductoryparagraph of the award of the board as. .follows: The gr~evor maintalns t]~t he performs the identical duties to those performed by on Donald Stewart who is now cla'ssified as a Draftsman II and that accordingly he deserves the same classification. The employer does not deny that the grievor performs the identical duties performed by Stewart but nevertheless resists the grievance o'n the basis that, in essence, Stewart is not properly classified as :' a Draftsman II. ." Stewart was classified as a Draftm~n II as the result of a unanimous award of this board At the hearing~ the employer.did not deny that the grievor,~ Battams, performs the identical' duties 'performed by Stewart but resisted the grievance on the basis that',< in essence, Stewart was not properly classified as .a Draftsman II. At~p.. 4'of its a~afd,, the.board e~xpress~d · the view that: '~ Given the admlssion of the employer that t}~ ': duties performed by Battams and Stewart are identidal, and gi_ue..n the classification of Stewart, it~ is apparent that the employer now'.- seeks to remedy what It perceives as a previo6s defective presentation by its witnesses and earlier representative..~ o... The employer here seeks-tO-resist the grievance on the babis that the earlier award is inaccurate, that Stewart does not deserve to be classified as'a ' Draftsman II. That issue has been litigated once between these parties and. the employer must be foreclosed-from re-o~_ ning. it to ensure' that the parties .can b.r_ing some cer~?_.in, ty to. ' ~he ordering, of. their affairs,.~ The board went o'n its 'writ~-e~ a~a~d f0_ express ~he ..view. that the Principle. Underlying its. award might be likefied to the-doctrine.' o'f. issue.estoppel r. ecogni ~z~ by 'our[ .' In Ontario 'P,_:b~ic, Se'rvice' ~ploye~.s 'trnlon ¥'. The 'o,~'n in ~igh~ .of Ontario et.al. (t982), 40 O.R. (2d) i42 ..at 145, ]~z. Justice Callaghan, for tbe Divisional Cou'rt, dealing with this board and this...legislation, pointed out that: On a class~iic~i'on' grie~nce~ the Board~ is generally mandated to consider two matter~, · namely, whether ,or not.the grievor's Job measured aga[ns~~ the reI~gant Class Standard · .comes within a higher classification which he ' seeks,-and, even~ if.he fails to fit, .wi. thin the higher_class standa, rds, whether there~are employees performing.the s'ame~duties Ina higher/mo~e senlo~ cl~sS, ifipation. 'The juri~- prudence ~ of the Board ci,te.d to us.bn~t]~ts, application indicates clearly that'these matters have been consider'edj by the Board on classification grievances.' The.principles upon 'whfCh' the 6°~r'd ;o~rated an~..'t~e resulf in the present,case, therefore, would seem to have been the following..The board received an acknowled~e.-.~ ' ' ment from the employer that the'duties performed by ~attams and Stewart are ~dent~¢al. The questidn of t~l~ proper classification .for Stewart had been "litigated" and determined by this board; differently constituted, 'in a grievance brought by this union against the employer on behalf of Stewart. The principle of finality In arbitration awards, akin to the doctrine of issue estoppel, prevented the board, from reconsidering the case of Stewart. It was therefore not. relevant.to consider. evidence the employer wished to tender in the Battams case to show that the decision to classify Stewart as Draftsman II was< made on inadequate and misleading evidence and vas ~rong. It should perhaps also be Indicated 'that, by s. 19(1) of the ctr..o~r, EDploye~ C~le~.tlve B~rga~lng Act, 1980, c. 108, a grievance settlement' board to which a grievance is submitted 19(1) ..; shall decide the matter and its , decision is final and binding upon the parties and the employees covered by the agreement. The grievance settlement board is the very type Of specialized tribunal c0nte~plated by Dickson J. in his frequently cited Judgment for .the court in Q~n~ian UP~pn o~ Pktblic E~ployees Local 963 v.. New..~ru~w~k CorD., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227, 97 D.L.R. (3d)-417, 25 (2d) 237. The courts must be loath to interfere with the decision of such, a board acting within the jurisdiction assigned to lt. The grievance here~ clearly arose from the application and alleged contravention of the agree-. ment and hence the matter was fully' within, the statutory Jurisdiction of the board. Indeed, the grievance is spe~ifically contemplated by s. 18(.2) of the..Act which provides that a grievance may.b~..processed by: _. 18 (2) ...' an employee claimlng'~i' " (a) that his positlon has been improperly ~' classi f led; · Section 2(2) of the Judicial Reqiew Procedure Act, · ~ 1980, c.224, extends the pover of 'the coUrt to set aside a decision for error Of law 0.n the !fac~e' of the record-, in relation to a decision made in'the exercise of any statutory power of decision to the ~extent it. i~ not~ limited .or precluded by the Act Conferring such power of decision.' There is no privative clause~,in the~ legis~-~, lation under which the grievance settlement board is constituted and, in these days; the record is, thought .to include the reasons given by such a board. ~'~ -, ~ ..:. The board's refusal to permit the employer to demonstrate .~ that SteWart was incorrectly classified is based,.upon the principle that an issue once litigated .to final decision between the sam~ parties may not be reopened,'~a principle llkened to the doctrine of issue estoppel. ~. ~ Strictly 'sPeaking, the parties are not Identical. -True, the ontario Public Service ~mployees Union, which ,:, 17 processed the grievance and~ res'lsted the application for Judicial review, has a vital part to play and an int. erest in all the grievances Carr~ied forvard 'to the board unde~ the statute. In pr.ocesslng each individual grievance, however, apart from any that might be described as policy grievances, there are one o~r'~more grievors and ~a-depart- ment of government who .are before the board and Who are set out in the style of cause adopted by the board as th~ parties, grievor'and employer respectively. ~ Although the application of the doctrine~in criminal matters ' may not' be free from do~ubt, issue estoppel in civil disputes has application only to t~Je ~parties to the dispute in which the issue was resolved, or,their privies. Its strict application, therefore,-would not prevent the reopening of the questlon of the Stewart classification for the ~ purpgs~ Qf the~ grievance arbitr{Ition presently'riDder ~eview. (Emphasis mine)-.~ That could not. be permitted affect the position of Stewart vis-a-vis the employer but could bring about the result, however strange, that for purposes 'of Battams'' classification, .$tevart. cQuld be shown to be. improperly classified. - ..... In deciding as it-has, has .the board made an~efror' Of law on the .face. of the ~record,~ and, if so, ~is the~erzor of such a nature .that Our discretion to quash the ~ard should be exercised in favour 'of the employer?" In my view/ho error has b~n. shorn. Tr'.ue, t~e S~rict appl~ication of the doctrine '.of issue estoppel as' applied in our civil courts .would-not prevent the boar~l..from . finding in the employer's., favour, which is to.say'that the issue ~of Battams' classification ~ould .not~.h~e. been finally determined by that of Stewart. On the .other hand, the agreement on ~which the board 'is required t~6~-. adjudicate is, of course, a collective agreement to ~{hich there are really three parties.~ The board has' developed as "the law of the contract:: the view that 'emPloyees in the same ministry doing identical work should b~ ..t. reated identically in the matter of classificati6n. T6 hold otherwise would mean, for e~ample, that despite th~ 'fact that it is acknowledged that B~.ttams and Stewart do identical work, not only the work content of Battam~' ~0b but. that of every other draftsman below the class of Draftsman II in the ministry could be ewamined by the board. To state such a proposition is to demonstrate its lmpract i ca bi 1 i rY. It is argued that the board's failure to permit~the employer to lead evidence ~ndicat~ng that mistakes were made in the classification of Stewart,,. is to lock the employer ~forever into a position that seriously affects its managerial responsibility and its budget as a con- sequence of a mistake, That argt]ment overlooks~ the periodic nature of collective bargaining and of .~ collective agreements. However, 'unlikely it'wbuid be that the union would readily give up a classification 18 award that was to the advantage of i'ts members, a reclassification or a re-evaluation of the positions so affected could always be requested and placed on the bargaining agenda of negotiations for the next reneval. It is the board that has the responsibility for settling the grievances~ between the partl~s under this agreement. The board has adopted a consistent pollcy in this respect. It cannot be said to flow from an unreasonable interpretation Of any part of the agreement and it is, t.o a degree, a policy matter that should'be left to the board. As I~have stated, in my opinion theTboard has committed no error of laW. If it should be thought otherwise, I am still of the view that it is not an error of such' magnitude as to ~arrant our interference. The application will therefore be dismissed with costs. s _T~.._.E J.: l~fth great reluctance I agree with the decision of Osler J. The case of Stewart %~as decided by the first Ontario Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board on the basis of fact that "he held a unique sort of drafting position". Obviously, that decision was in error based-on the admission placed before the board to the effect that Battams does the identical work. In the present case the board adopted a policy which ~as open to it to say that once ~t. was admitted that the work done by ~attams was the same as Stewart it would not hear evidence to show that Stewart's Cla~sstflcat~on was in error. In so doing, it may in fact be adopting as a policy' that one error can mean that' numerous, if not hundr~eds, of other~ employees, doing identical work, w~1 be reclassified automatically to an: incorrect classifi.ca- tion. I have no hesitancy in-saying that ! disagree strongly with .that policy. However, for the reasons given by .Osier ~., I agree that it was not an error in law and therefore not one in which the coUrt can interfere. SIRO~$ J. concurs with OSLER J~ . ~ i~Application dismissed. As the two Judgments in the case indicate, the principal issue ~as whether a ~anel of th~ G~ievance Settlement Board .was entitled to =efuse to consider evidence that a reclassification by an-earlier panel of .the Board, was based on an improper classification. The question of the ~ncorrectness of the improper classification which had been uzed for comparison purposes~ by the 19 earlier panel, had not been raised at that earlier hearing. In the decision under review, the new panel 'had ~efused to hear evidence~that· the earlier~ comparable classification was incorrect, because (In the words~of Mrl Justice Osler at p. 35), "an issue once litigated to final decision'be~ween the same parties may not be reopened, a principle likened to the doctrine of issue estoppel". The Court found that although the doctrine of issue estopped'~ay not have prevented a finding by the Board that the classification under review would not have been finally determined by the incorrect classification, nonetheless, no error of law had b~en.made by the Board.. The reasons were in part-that such errors in classification could be eventually corrected by collective bargaining, that'the Board had the responsibility for set~ling grievances between th~ parties, and-that its Interpretation was'not uhreasonable'and was a- ppl.icymatter best left to the Board. Mr. Justice Steele, in a con~urrihg judgement expressed a serious concern .with the Board's ppl~c~..in ref.using to hear that the comparative~!a~slflcation was tn re~ro~,~.., b~t. . he. 'agreed'. With the majority in the'result,.oD the ~round that such policy w~s.no~ a~ error in law, and not one in which the '~ourt.couId .interfere. ...~ We view this case as a less than ringing endorsement that a panel o~ the Board is entitled-t6 fefU~e to hear evidence, at a'hea~tng, that a classifica- tion decision of ah earlier panel,may not .be prgven f~cdrrect because of a mistake that was not raised at that earlier hearihg. _ Given the nature of that endorsement and the specific circumstances of that case,'we do not see it as providing a rule that a classification error may not be reviewed by a panel of this Board where such error cam~ t6. light during a kQ/la fide Investigation prior to this hearing, and in the absence of an questign before us as a matter of policy (o~ Jurisprudence) for us to determine within our general mandate to resolve grievances between the parties. The most apposite Board Jurisprudence in this area is found in ca~valho 1484/84. That was a classification case in which it was sought, in part, to show with respect to usage argument, that (at p. 1), "one other person who did essentially the same work as the grlevor was Classified at the higher level being sought in the grievance". Most of the content of that decision is not relevant to the issue under revlew at the moment, but the Board there speaks disapprovingly of evidence from the employer that the comparable classification was a misTaKe, where such of a witness for the gr~evor. On that matter, the Board commented (at pp. 20 and 21) that~ There remains one matter to 'address. -It will be recalled that Ms. Grant testlfled that, in her view, It had been a mistake to assign to the Job of MS. McGrlsktn in Whltby the classification of Clerk 4 General. This mistake, according to the'testimony of Ms...Grant, only came to the attention of the Ministry by virtue of the presence of Ms. McGriskinas a witness for the grievor in the present proceeding. The Board was further given to understand that as a result, the Ministry had begun to take steps to 'downgrade the level of Ms. McGriskin's Job. This was a matter o'f great concern to the Board.. Down- grading someone who has come-forward to testify as.a witness on behalf of a grievor can be interpreted as retaliatory, even though this was not the intention of the Ministry. Even if the ~nference of retaliation were not drawn, substant'ial deterrence would result. The Interest o£ othex emPloyees in testifying on behalf' of a grievor in a class usage case would be chilled in the The potential for the creation of this "chilling effect" is disturbing to the Board. If it were to occur, it might hamper the processing of the merits of grievances before'the Board. For these reasons, we caution the 21 Ministry carefully to. measure its response to matters, which come to its attention by virtue of the ev. idence of supporting witnesses in cases such as the one'at hand. Neither of these cases represent the situation before.us. No prior decision of a panel' of this Board is sought to be invalidated to the extent it unwittingly failed to consider evidence (not presented at the time) that.a classification was incorrect, nor are we concerned with. evidence in that respect~ ~rising'out of the p~esence of'a witness for .the Griever. Instead, there e~Isted a grievance, then a bona ~ and timely.review of comparable positions by a qualified official, then ~.dec~sion that a position used for' comparison was .incorrect,. then transmission in some detail of the results of~-the review and-the effect on the griever's a.l~legatlons, well before the hearing:commenced; Furthermore, .there was evide_nce, given in person before this Board, by the person making the review, and we have found .his conclusions respecting 'the mlsclasslfication to be acceptable,. _ba.sed. on .the evidence he Under all these circumstances, may the Griever rely on the incorrect comparable cl~ssif~catton,-.to succeed on a usage argument? We think not. The basis for the usage argument is defined in numerous ways in the jurisp~gdence of the Board, 5ut it is essentially that it is not only inaccurate but inappropriate~and unfalr to classify and pay an emp~0yee at one level where. others doing the same Job are classified and paid at a higherlevel, ..The mistake in such a case is that of the level of the griever, and the higher level classification must be correct, for there to be.,such'a mistake. Where the mistake is in the higher level comParable classificat'ions, ~t is inappropriate for the griever to benefit from that mistake, ~Dless the employer fails to proceed to reviewand correct the mistake in a bona /Ll~and timely 22 way. Such was done here, as part of a review of the claim in the grievahce. There is no prior finding of the Board that the mistaken classification was correct, nor are the review and correction sprung upon the Grievor as a con- sequence of the actual hearing process. In these circumstances, we conclude that the Grievor cannot rely on the mistaken classification, and the usage argument must fail, Befor6 leaving this aspect, we would note.: that we have some cOncern over the fact that the Fort Frances incumbents, who are. improperly classified on the basis of Mr. Bourne's review, will remain at that higher level until they leave their positions. There is an element of unfairness t.~ the Grievor in view of the result on the usage argument, iri that he and they will do the same work and they will be paid more. However, we are mindful that that situation is a special arrangement, akin tO red-circling ~in some respects, which ~as arrived at solely so that.the Fort Frances3incumbents would not suffer financially from their reclassification downward. It is understandable that · the Grievor, who did not find himself' under such circumstances, should not be entitled to gain from this particular benefit. We will now review the class standards, argument, ~and will start with the class standards themselves The RTSl class standard for Mr. Holley says generally in its first paragraph that the class: "covers positions of employees responsible on a district- wide basis for technical control· of a sub-service; OR who act as senior assistants to district technical or prnfessio~al sPec. iallsts in determining methods and techniques, implementing policy and controlling standards in one or more services on a district-wide basis." .The "OR", clearly .emphasized in the text is disjunctive,' so that one dges the duties generally found before ~ after the '"OR". Th~ evidence shows that Mr. Holley's duties relate ~o-t~e position~ before the' ;'OR",' an~ Lnot ~after, as he did not function essentlall~ as a senior assistant. 'H~ did ver'y little work, if any, that could be' said to be as a senior assistant to a district technical or professional specialist ..in determining methods and techniques ..." We do not view' his long-range'planni~g work 'As fitting in any reasonable way in that latter description, and must reject Mr. Bourne"s conclusions in that respect. The RT$2 class standard (shown abovE), is similarly disjunctive, and in view of the foregoing, Mr. Holley's claim can. only be to a "responsible' on a district-wide basis for techniCal contr61 ~an~ 10ng-fange operational planning of a sub-service". 'T~ere is n0~do~b~' ~-hat: ~he 'issu~"ls whether .he fits ln~o this .context, and that issue was' argued vi~broUSly by both 'counsel. As both class standards refer to the responsib~li'~Y for te-'~hhical control, the issue is patently the relationship o{ the r~'S~nsibilit~':for lOng- range' plann!.~ng, found, in the RTS2 standard and not ~the ~TSl'standird, '-to the long-range planning done by. Mr. H~lley' .... · ...... '- - We will now turn to Mr. Holley's. positi6n specificatioh'. Underpart "Duties", there is a reference to "preparing long and short term operational plans to meet land management object'ives' and assigned targets". 'That does not conclusively answer the question as such may not necessarily be' "Long-Range Operational Planning" as defined '~n the class standard'. That ~efinitioh, for example, requires participation of field offices a'nd H~ad Office, a~d work respecting alternatives and recommendations. 'Furthermore, the position specification in part6 "Class Allocat'ion"i suggests that the inc~ent is 24 responsible for the "implementation" of planning, which ts not planning to the same extent as found in the class standard. We would conclude that one may be a Senior Lands Technician, classiffed as RT~i, and~workin9 under a similar position specification, but II~ involved to-any meaningful extent in long-range operational planning as defined In the class-standards. Such well may be the case of the actual work performed by the Incumbent in comparable RTSl positions, but we lack the evidence to come to 9ny deflnttive conclusion~ on this matter. A reference to the actual work done by Hr. Holley, and described by him' in his evidence, determines the guestion of whether he does such planning. When we review his itnvolvement in the district tourism plan'and the lake management plan, both of which he authored, his invol~em'ent in amendments to the District Land Use Guidelines, and in review of the timber management plans, . nonny of which clearly involve long-range plannl.'ng, Including the generation of alternatives and recommendations, we are fully satisfied that he is involved in long-range operational planning in the ter~ in ~hich ~l~t is ~lefined in~ the class standards document. We haye already noted that his ~n'%;olvement has. increased from about lO - 15% to approximately 20%, and we would c~nclud~ generally that it has b~ome a significant component (although not necessarliy the largest single one) of hls duties. Thus a revle~ of the class standard for RTS2, Mr. Holiey's PositiOn specification, and. the clear evidence of his duties leads'to the conclUSion :" that he doe~ lon~-l:an~ 0~e~a~tional planning; a~ de£ined in the class standard, and as found in the ~ relevant additional duty in the RTS2 class standazd, " and that it is a significant component of. his duty. Mr. Bourne agreed in his testimony that we are stuck with the language of the class standards, and we must give that language full effect when a review of the evidence ~show that it is applicable to the oYlevor's duties, we therefore find that Mr. Holley Is improperly classified, as a result in Dart of his specific duties, and that his correct classification is Resource Technician, .Senior 2. ' ..... t. In considering remedy we must Lfirst resolve the qUesti6n of ' retroactivity. The grievance was filed on October 19th, 1988, and the mattel ~ r ' was first brought to the employer's attention' in January, 1985~ When :the ' ¢rievor talked to his supervisor, 'Hr. Bean. At that'time, he had beoome aware of the reclassification in the Northwestern ·region,' and Mr. Holley 'asked for an update of his own position specification.. He did not get that until March- .- The erievor accord'i~gly Claims tha~' the normal %!20['day r~lei'· for ~-: ' retroactivity has been waived in the Jurisprudence of the Board for -- classification cases under such circumstances [see, for example, ga~ 777/86), and that retroactlvlty sho%{ld commence $~ ~nuarY,: i985, When he f~rSf raised the matter with his ~upervtsor. The employer'has p~oposed'~]~at ~:~t~oactl{;ity '~ should' only properly be paid back to the point where ~he' G~ievdr'made-'his - intent to ~rteve clear, and that was whe{~ he ~t the~pdated ~itio~ '' specification on March 10th, 1988. It was not seriously maintained that the 20 day rule be applied, and we would not apply it u~der the circumstances of this case. ~e ·do, however, have ,.'.. a different view of the appropriate application of retroactivity. The parties' submissions resulted in the main from the usage argument, which was based on a reclassification 'occurring prior to~1985. The Grlevor has succeeded on a class standards argument, and we must look at that carefully to find an appropriate retroactivity date. We were satisfied to find that the Grievor was suitably ~ithin the RTS2 class standard based on evidence of his actual duties in reiation to long-range operational plarmlng, a~ the fact that such duties had increased recently to fill about 20% of his time. We would not speculate whether same result had such duties recently taken 10% of-his time, or perhaPs less, · but the 20% portion is a material element of the result. It ks Impossible to determine from the evidence exactly when fir. HolleY's long-range planning duties reached this leyel, but we must make an .approximation to bring the matter of remedy to a final conclusion. We therefore find that Mr. Holley's duties in long-range operational planning increased to about 20% on approximately July 1st, 1988, and we conclude that that would be an appropriate date for retroactivity. We accordingly direct that the qrievor, Mr. Holley, be reci~ssified to Resource. Technician Senior 2, forthwith, and that he be made whole in that respect effective JulY 1st, 1988. We do not think this is an appropriate case ~u awarG interest, and difficulty in interpreting or implementing this decision, including the %~ard Dated at Ottawa this ]8th day at, December. AD 1989 D. Fraser, vice-Chair. F. Taylor, Union Member A. Staplet0n, Employer Member (c) PERFORMS PUBLIC ~LATIONS FUNCTIONS B¥~ .... '. 30% - 'ensuring that both verb~i and written enquiries concerning policy and legislation are answered in a proper and timely fashion - preparing news releases (e.g. boat cache restrictio~) and communication plans (e.g. closure of a waste disposal site) - attending meetings of various in~eres.~ groups (e.g. ,tourist outfitters to explain applicable policy and legislation. (d) PREPARES ANNUAL~0RK PLA,liS TO ~EET ASSIGNED TARGETs~BY~ 5% - prepar£ng and submitting to supervisor annual work plans and budget requests, to imple- men~ the Land Management and M£neral Hanage~ent Field program. '. (e) PERFORRS OTHER AUXILIARY Dffllg$ SUCI! ' acting in supervisor's' ebS~nce when requested · ' assisting in ocher branch programs when required such as fire eme'rg~ncy - acts as a member of Di'strict Planning Teams (e.g. ForesC Management' Planning~'Di'stricC Fisheries ~anagement Plan, Roa~ - as assigned. - ' ' · ,'~ - ~ -' - submission to the Ministry of Housing - -~e-arin~ all correspondence, S.E.O54's, etc on coaplex " rich, poli~y and .tunding lot various "lana is' a iion 'Cases ('.S. "'"Order:i~-C°unci - trpns.fe~.rin~ adm£ui.s~ration- and conCr, ol of. Cr6v~ I~and'sO.. : --- --ensu=ir~.g tha.~ sketches are..completed for al'l propos~6 land dispositions 'and p~ov£din. ''i.nst~uc~lon~ ~0 Ontario .Land .Surveyors on boundaries ~o be surveyed, - organizing c~ttage..lot tenders, draws or auctions (i.e. by preparing prospectuses). -. revie~ing.a.ppljca~ions for work permits and providing applicable commen~s and recom. mendations basect on la~ds branch mandate 'c'o-ord{na~ing the re~e~ of co~rci'al '~ouris~ proposals dis;f~c~ supervisors,-Regional office and ~iniscry of Tourism and Recrea~ion revie~in~ draf~ policy 'and procedure directives and providing co~en~s ~o Regional D~rec'cor - co-ordina~ing revie~ of applications for consent, subdivision applica~ions and zonint by-laws. ~ _ -;lias'ing with s~aff from other provincial Ministries {M.M.A., and federal departments (e.g. on such mac,ers as Cro~ residential ho~sing and. bl~hment of new' Indian reserves). (b) ~INIS~S ~ P~LIC ~ MI~I~G ~S ADNINIS~TION PR~ 3O% - controlling expendfture~ as budget ~ontrol officer to ensure expenditures, do not exceed budget allocations, - providing technical guidance and instrucg~ons .to 1 Permanent, 1 Seasonal, & 2 Experience subordinate staff on technical and policy" matters, proper Field procedures and legisla~ton interpretation (Public Lands ~ct and Mining - ensuring subordinate staff conduct their duties in a safe manner, according to the appli- cable acts, codes, policies and procedures. - ensuring workers are advised of known hazards ~nd the required precautions (~.e. .removal of ~nauthorized buildings). - reviewing, preparing, ~pdacin~ ~ob specifications~ for subor~i~ate staff (bo~h' permanent and seasonal). - being responsible for hiring, training and evaluation of subordinate staff. - reco~ending and initiating disciplinary a~ion when required. - reco~endimg merit increases. - scheduling man~ower and equipmen~ Co assigned pro~ects; reschedullng staff and equipment as needs and ~rtortcies change. ~ntinued (see at~ached) · uo[i~ euo ~ ~!l~nb ol e~o~ ~ tsn~ su~;~ eld~lln~ :~AON ele~d~ ~ jo uo~ue~ p~ lue~S[lq~e eql e~n~j I1~ ~JOM ;0 $JnoH peln~q~ ~l ~ ~ ~V 'uo?l~d leql ~j ~uep! ~oM ~ s~oH ~ln~ eql ql~ e~ou!~ ;snw I I I jo sep~ qll~ ~llOg '~ · su~ el~ut'l ~O~ 'GJH 'qOS ~U!~ JOJ SUO~IOmlSUl t u~0 ~i~w C d~ '~ 'lnP '~ 'u~ · deS eunp '~ '~ Jill ~g B Itm~ Jom~nS ~pds ~elUlM suoteoS suo!~so~ ~!j~sse~9 ~ t ~ L e~ (etq~ld~ ~) poPed ~oM I~uos~eS 6uj~o Joj suoNg~]sul JetJliuePl UOlllgOd ~u~poo ~oI Suoll3nJlsUl ~1. c_.c~eler I.o back of form for complHion in, trw(lions} ' ' ; ~, Pr~viout serif1 num~f New ~rill numar ' U. Only POlltion title JPotltion CO~ JP~I~ ~m~fler ~ ~1 Po~itl~ title [ Position Code Cla~ title ~ c~ $um.~es: Senior Lan~Tech~icia~ ] 09-23[1-10 R.T.S,1 ~1109 ~inhwv Divis~ Natural Resourcee North Central Region Lands & W~ters Nip~gon I 611~5 1 Services Supervisor Under d~recc~on o~ the landa supervisor: To plan, organize and tmplemenC the N[p~gon gistr[cC Public' and Ninths Lands Adm[n~sCra- Cfon Program. .. Duties and relat~ ~lkl (wha( is employ~ requir~ lo do, how and why? Indicate ~rcenta~ of time a~nt On each dural (a) P~$, oaCa~lZ~S, 'A~ ~P~S ~ P~CIC a~ Hieing ~S ~[alS~IO~ Pg~ - preparing long and short term operational plans to meet land management objectives and assigned targets {e.g..waste disposal site maintenance p[~n~ boat cache restric- tion/implementation ptrategies on selected-lakes, tourism plans and associated disposi- tion strategies in consultation' with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and other client groups.) co-ordinating a,d reviewing the input of all supporting informatid~ for proposed land dispositions {i.e. approvals from other district services, M.T.C., M.O.E., M.T.R., etc.) and makes final reco~endation to District Hanager and Regional Director ensuring that requirements under the Environmental Assessment Act ar'e followed for dispositions of Cro~ lands and resources (e.g. peat extraction,' small hydro sites, - completing detailed and complex title searches of parcels of land to verify land o~er- ship, legal boundaries ~nd Cro~ reservations for such purposes as road right-of- ways, timber cutting proposals, sand and gravel extractions, et(. - investigating infractions of the Public Lands Act, Mining Act mad other pertinent legislation and taking appropriate ac[ion (e.g. unauthorized occupation of Cro~ land, [Ilegal removal of gravel.) - assessing, invest[gating and recommending on land acquisition requirements for various D~strict Ministry programs (e.g. acquisition of private land within Wabakimi Provincial ~ark - annua[[~ sub,its la~4 appraisal ~equests to [eg[onal office , prepares appraisal reports for Cro~ properties valued at, [ess than'$lO,O00. Comtiaued ~kills ~nd knowled)e requir,d to pedorm job at full working level If hall(ale mandalory cr~entials or licances, if appli~ble) Technical s~lls & knowledge at a level usually assocla~ed with the success[wi completion of' ~e~uac~on zrom a relatea Cwo ~ear course ot study et a co.unity college. Working-knowledge all pertinent provincial statu~es (Public Lands Act, Mining Act, et() Cood administration, co~unication & superviser~ skills. Progressively res~onsible experie~ce in lend'administra- tion. Working knowledge of O.H.S.A. Valid driver's l[cence.. Signature... ~mmed~, Su~,vi~or (Acting) Dele Mini,~y OHic~ f Oat, ¢or~'~h Leith ', '' raft ~urrie, D[sLrfc~ Manager" ',