Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1574.Dunning.89-12-01 ONTARIO EMPLOY~:S DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST. TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG tZ~. SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/T~L~PHONE 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST. TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M5G IZ8. BUREAU 2100 (476) 598.06~8 -- 1574/88 IN TEE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under T~E CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before TEE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Dunning) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario {Ministry of Transportation) Employer Before: M.R. Gorsky Vice-Chairperson I. Freedman Member A. Stapleton Member Fo[ t~e G£ievo[: ~. Blair Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers & Solicitors For the Employer: D. Costen Counsel Legal Branch Management Board of Cabinet Hearings: July 11, 1989 August 30, 1989 AWARD ~'?he grievor, Bryan S. Dunning, was, at a~ materiaY times, employed as an-k~ectronic Technician, in the Southwest Region of the Ministry of Transportation, District %2, Located in Londoa. Ontario. He filed a grievance on February 8, 1989, claiming that he had been improperly classified, and requested as settlement, that he "... be reclassified to the proper classification example: electrical foreman) with full retroactiv~ty of salary benefits, credits." Counsel for the union indicated that if this Board finds that the grievor has been improperly classified, it should order that the employer· create a new classification for the gr~evor which reflects his actual duties and responsibilities, if we do not find an existing classification into which the grievor fits. Counsel for the union relied on the case of Ontario Public Sevice Employees Union and Carol Berry et al. and Her Majesty in Right of Ontario (~inistr¥ of and Social Services) (Div. Ct.), heard February 17. 1986. Counsel for the union also stated that, if the grievance is allowed, retroactivity was only being claimed for the twenty day period prior to the.filing of the grievance. The parties agreed that if the grievance is allowed, we should retain jurisdiction to deal with any difficulties that they might experience in the implementation of the award. The class standard with respect to the Electronic Technician position is set out in exhibit $2, which is as follows: ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN CLASS DEFINITION: This is skilleclterhni,'al work al Ihe jo,lrneyman lily,.] i-vt, lvlnl~ i,,sla]lation, adjust. equipment, This would include toll payment controls at bridges, traffic and lighting controls, highwaylightin8 and illumination systems . These employees receive general supervision from Maintenance Electrician Foremen or other supervisors, re~errin~ only major problems for direction. Theymay s~pervise and instruct helpers and may act as sub-foremen o~ electrical crews. These employees mag be required to perform related maintenance tasks but &t least si~y percent of their work requires electronic-electrical skill. CH~ACTERISTIC DUTIES: Check, repair and adjust such electronic ind electrical apparatus as brid8e toll equipment, electronic ampl~iers, sun switches, circuit breakers, tr~fic controls. Make necessary repairs to hi8hway lightin~ and illumination systems. May instruct and supervise unskilled workers or other tradesmen in this work~ Carry out routine cleanint and maintenance on electronic and electrical equipment at regular intervals, QUA~FICATIONS: 1. Completion of the recognized apprenticeship inthe electrical trade; some trainin8inelectronictheoryandpracticeata recognized trade or vocational school; or an equivalent combination of education and experience. Z. At least one year o~ experience as an Electrician engaged in the repair and maintenance of electronic and electrical equipment. 3. A workin~ knowled8e of the tools, equipment, methods and practices o{ the electrical trade; a working knowledge o~ the by-laws and regulations relatin~ to electrical installations; ~bilityto work from man~cturer s and designer s wirin8 diagrims; instructional ability; 8ood physical condition. Revised. February, 1962. Th.e Electronic Technician classification stands alone and does not contain a class series4 The position taken by counsel for the grievcr was that, while many of the characteristic duties of the ~riev,Dr fell within the core of the class standard, particular, significant duties, which he carried out, did not. 7'hat is, they were ncr circumscribed by the standard. These were said to include (!) Supervision of the crew of employees working out of the district office, when the electrical supervisor, P.D. Beech, (who was also the grievor~s immediate supervisor} was awa~ from the office. Such occasions included absences due illness, vacation, and trips away from the re~!ona! office while attending to his work related responsibilities. supervision was with respect to a crew made ,~p o~ ~wo foremen, an apprentice electrician, a lineman, an~i two three cooperative students. ,~here might also be a part time contract electrician. The size ~f the crew might vary, there was agreement that the above composition was usual. it was also agreed that the nature of the partic~!,~r supervision was made up of deciding what work was to be performed by the crew and where it was to be performed. _n-nese decisions were the responsibility of Mr. Beech, but in his absence they were carried out by the Grievor. ?h..e ~tart time for the crew is 7:30 a.m. and they would leave the 4 branch office for the day's work site between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. after receiving their instructions. ! ,~m satisfied that the grievor performed this supervisory function up to fifty days a year, and , when he performed it, it took from one-half to one hour of his time. (2) Responsibility for carrying out perif~dic tr.%in!hq exercises for the crew and others. The evidence that the grievor conducted periodic but {nfrec instructional sessions for the crew, and others, with respect to the traffic signal system. These could, on 0ccasJ0n, result in the grievor creating fair!y elaborate teaching materials. Exhibit %4 was filed as an e:<amp[e. These training sessions could last up to a day, and include,/ test questions which the grievor prepared and which he administered. The training sessions were usually held in the winter months and covered both hardware an~ sol~,_wa.~e aspects- of traffic signal operations. The grievor also prepared model answers for the questi-ons he included in the materials. (3) .The requisitioning of supplies for maintenance and repair, which would include the maintenar~ce of an inventory of spare equipment for use, as needed. I am satisfied that this was one o~ the grievor~s ongoing responsibilities and that any major purchases (over $1000.00) required the gr~evor to first consult with and obtain the approval of Mr. Beech. 5 (4) Updating operations and maintenance manuals for the benefit of the entire crew, as they might be called upon operate or maintain equipment, such as signal mcn~t,z, rs. cabinets and controllers. As part of this responsibility. the grievor had to develop and maintain a filing system. (5) Maintaining liaison with a number of internal and external groups, both by telephone and letter. This included notifying interested persons of the location of undergrou~,z cables : such as utilities and other public authorities. ~ue grievor was also required to keep accurate records o~ this activity. He also furnished other kinds of information interested persons concerning the location of .signa:= operational status and a variety of other matters.Examp!=~ ,?f some of these communications were filed (exhibits .~6 ~8~. I am satisfied that the grievor had this responsibi!i~y and that it was a fairly frequent occurrence, ~ am satisfied that he had additional respon~ibiiities of a similar nature which included making a~an~[=~nts ~ police during traffic control emergencies resulting fromm the unexpected need to conduct repairs and also during rc, ullne maintenance. He also corresponded with te,:'hn!c.5! persons concerning modifications and revisions to equipment, and the aquisition of support documentation. He also corresponded with internal and external persons concerning equipment changes, in order to be up-to-date in this area. The only difference between the parties about the dutie~ descrbbed tn this paragraph, was the evidence of Mr. Beech th~% in sc:me of the areas involving ]'i'a'i.~n the first communication was with him, ~nd that he would later discuss the matter w~th %he Grievo¥, who might be asked to respond in a manner agreed upon. I am satisfied that this is the way matters were dealt with. on occasion, but that the grJew~r frequently dealt with such matters without consultation, (6) The grievor interviewed prospective employees. From the evidence, I concluded that the grievor would, infrequentl~, sit in on interviews of prospective employees. Usually, the persons being interviewed were cooperative students an~i contract electricians. The grievor acknowledged theft Beech would have the final say as to who wo,~ld be hireJ. !'he grievor was a participant in the selection process, and did ask some questions and furnished input for Mr. Beech. (?} The grievor maintained a Funning record of the repairs required by equipment and maintained information to ensure that the cost of repairing an 'item of equipmer~t wo~i[d nc exceed its replacement cost. Support for the grievor's evidence that he had the above noted duties and responsibilities is to be found in exhibits and ~!2, which were filed on behalf of th~ grievor. Objection was taken to these exhibits being introduced: (1} Exhibit ~1! {appendix "k") which was a reply by Mr. Beech to Hr. Holdsworth, the Head of Engineering Services and 7 Beech's supervisor, dated August 28, 1988, to a request that Hr. Beech clarify certain matters pertaining to a dr~ft posiclo~ specification w{th respect to the grievor. The request arose o,.it of a memorandum {exhibit ~iO, attached a~ appendix ~B'~) dated July ?, !988, from Harold Tutt, of the Personnel Department, tc Mr. Ho!dsworth, in his capacity as Head of Engineering Services, for clarification of certain items i~ the draft p~sition specification. Mr. Holdsworth, not unnatur~!ty, referred the memo to Mr. Beech, who was the member of supervision mc, st familiar with the actual duties and responsibilities being per~3:'med by the grievor. It was submitted tha~t the questioned items were only pa:-t of a draft of a position specification, and that the specification was never accepted by the employer. We were asked' to ~imit our findings to the actual position specificatlo~ (exhibit 9~, attached as appendix "C") and to the evi~.~ence which was adduced as to the actual duties and responsibilities c,f the ~rievor. We were also asked to i~no~e the draft p,~sition ~pecification and the comments with respect to it by Mr. Eeech. because it had never been formally ~iven to the grievor by any representative of the employer. Although it appears that the Grievor took exhibits ~0 and ~!! from Mr. Beech's desk, at least Mr. Beech stated that he would not have Given them to the grievor, and the grievor~s evidence satisfies me that they were not given to him by any representative of the employer. The information there contained is relevant to these proceedings and i can see ~o reason for ignoring it. W~..at repercus~±ons might 8 flow from the way the exhibit was acquired is another matter. Mr, Beech had intimate knowledge of what the grievor's duties and resD~sibilities were at the material times. He did ~ot suggest that his recorded 0bserYation~were inaccurate. They supp©rt the evidence of the grievor concerning his duties and responsibilities, as above recorded. (2) Exhibit ~12 (attached as appendix "D") which is a Performance Planning and Review form, which had bee~ prepared by ~r, Beech, and which is dated March 31, 1989. Mr. Beech testified that, although he prepared thi~ form, which was to be reviewed with the grievor at his next ~e~f0rma~¢e appraisal, b~e never did so. Mr. Beech did not say that exhibit ~12 was inaccurate, and I am satisfied that it represents ~r. ~eech's understanding of the duties and responsibilities of the Th, e fact that it was never reviewed with the grievor would affect its evidentiary value, where it deals w~th the ~riev©r's duties and responsibilities at the relevant times. As in the ca~e of exhibit ~11, exhibit 912 appears to have ~ome into the ~rievor~s possession without the permission or consent of Beech or any other representative of the employer, ~D. atever other effect the means of obtaining ~×b~.6TtT'~ ~!1 and ~12 may have° it does not affect their relevancy to these proceedings. They support the gr~evor's testimony as to what h~s duties and responsibilities were, as above described, subject to the contrary findings noted. Although a good deal of evidence was led on behalf of the 9 ~rievor, concerning the complexity of the technical duties and responsibilities which he carried out, I conclude that these are within the ClaSs standard. As noted, at the beginnin~ of this award, counsel for the union, in his opening statement (and, indeed, in his closing argument] indicated that the fundamental basis for claiming that the grievor had been improperly classified was the nature of the supervisory/administrative 'duties and responsibilities carried out by the grievor, some of which have been outlined above. One of the areas of cont-ntion between the parties concerned the grievor's duties and responsibilites as they related to the installation of loop detectors. I am satisfied that the grievor's involvement is accurately recorded in exhibit ~12: Install approximately 15 to 20 loop detectors' at a cost of $700,00 each for 6 x 45 quadropole and $300,00 fer 6 x 6 distance'type loops. To be installed when the weather breaks in the spring or early summer and ordinate with the Concrete Crew. Installed in ~ccordance with M.T.0. Policies and Procedures and Trade Practices. Counsel for the employer argued that these duties and responsibilities fit "snugly" within the class standard. Any supervision required was said to fall within the tan~uage of the standard: "May instruct and supervise unskilled workers or other tradesmen in this work" %~.,e grievor testified that loop installation, on occassion, involved other trades made up of as many as six persons : an electrician, a lineman or apprentice electrician and a co~crete crew of from two to four persons. The ~rievor ~upervises the electrical crew and coordinates the work of the concrete crew. He also consults with Mr. Beech as to the availability cf the electrical crew. The grievor stated that he was responsible to see that the entire loop operation was. properly carried including the concrete cutting portion, Although the loop installation is not a simple operation, it is covered by the language of the class definition: "This is skilled technical work at the journeyman level involving installation, adjustment ... of electronic devices and complex electrical equipment ?hey may supervise and instruct helpers and may act as sub- foreman of electrical crews." Under characteristic duties, the electronic technician : "May instruct and supervise workers or other tradesmen in this work." The portion of the loop operation that appears to be outside of the class standar,2 concerns the grievor's involvement with the non-electrical component of the crew : the concrete crew, whose work he coordinates and supervises to the extent that he must judge the s~fficiency of non-electronic work. T~is falls outside the class standard as does the supervision of the electrical crew, ab©ye described, when M_~. Beech is absent, and the performance cf certain other administrative functions normally carried out by ~r. Beech when he is present: responding to telephone calls and routine correspondence. ! do not regard supervision by the ~rie~or of electrical work crews, during signal installation, not being part of Mr. 11 Beech's job, as being outside of the class standard. The line between electrical and electronic work is significant in this case. Where th~ grievor is required to supervise an electrical crew, where the e!ectroni.c component in the work is absent or trivial, as where he fills in for Mr. Beech, the duties and responsibilities are not within the ~lass standard. ~here the supervision is with respect to work that is in its major aspect electronic, even though there are electrical elements within it, it would be covered by the class standard. Where the crew being supervised is not entirely an electrical crew, but includes tradesmen, who are in some sense being supervised by the ~rievor. and fall into some other trade category, the duties and responsibilities would not fall within the class standard. the crews are identified as "electrical", in the class definition, and where the work is identified as electronic work under the characteristic duties, the duties would be within the standard. The crew involved in the loop function is not just an electrical crew, but is a combined electrical and concrete crew, ~ven if the work fails under the electronic technician standard. Under that standard, where the grievor may be required to engage in a certain amount of .supervision, a reading of the entire document satisfies me that such supervision would only include electrical crews. Another area of dispute involved the grievor's duties and responsibilities with respect to the checking of time sheets of employees under Mr. Beech's supervision. According to the 12 ~rievor, he would check the time sheets for errors~ and see that the corrected sheets were returned to the accounts section which was responsible for processing them. This was a normal function of Mr. Beech and was said to be another example of where the grievor was required to assume responsibility in Mr, Beech's absence. I am satisfied that the grievor did review such documents and that he did communicate with the accounts department. Such involvement stopped short of the total involvement of Mr. Beech, who could authorize payment. Nevertheless, the evidence did disclose another duty of the ~rievor which falls outside of the class standard, thouph not in the way originally pictured by him~ ! am also satisfied that while he would not be requir~! to do so very often, the grievor would represent the Ministry as an expert witness in his field in court cases. This is a matter not covered in the class standard. ! am also satisfied that another of the grievor's duties, when Mr. Beech was absent, was to represent him at meetings relating to contracts, where the m~tter could not await Mr. Beech's return. In si'mil~r,~'r circumstances, the grievor woui,! represent Mr. Beech at meetings with management. The ~rievor was frank in acknowledging that he would not make any significant decision without the prior approval of Mr. Beech, and I am satisfied that the grievor would only assume a small portion of 'Mr. Beech's duties and responsibilities in the circumstances described. What is equally clear is that the responsibilities of 13 Mr. Beech performed by the grievor do not fit into the class standard for the electronic technician classification. We emphasize that our findings do not disclose that the grievor performed very many of Mr. Beech's functions. For example, the ~rievor had no responsibility for preparing the budget, which was entirely the responsibility of Mr. Beech. Similarly, the grievor did not either sit in on or represent Mr. Beech on Ministerial or regional task forces which are created from time to time. The grievor also referred to posting documents, which contain, amonc other information, job numbers and time spent on the job, which must be completed by employees. Alth©u~h the grievor testified that he reviewed these documents and si~ned them in the same way as Mr. Beech did, he later admitted that he did not sign them. Mr. Beech acknowledged that the grievor ha~i some involvement with the time sheets when he was absent, but stated that the grievor was not required to sign these d.~cumen~s. The posting sheets would later be sorted and checked at the regional accounts office. Although Mr. Beech appeared to be surprised to hear that the grievor had some involvement with posting documents, he did not suggest that the grievor was telling the truth. I find, and it was not suggested otherwise, that the grievor was a highly skilled and conscientious employee, who was quite willing to assume responsibilities which were given to him. I have already indicated that the electronic classification is one that calls for a considerable degree of technical skill and 14 independence, and, to that extent, many of the grievor's technical responsibilities fit comfortably within the class standard. As I' have also indicated, some of them do not. T~.ese tend to be those administrative responsibitites that have been identified, and the grievor's duties with respect to the time sheets and the posting documents fall into the latter category. Over the years that ~.he has been performing his job, there has evolved a close working relationship between himself and Mr. Beech, which was based on mutual trust and respect. ,~-?,e ~rievor was a person who could be ~elied upon to assume new responsibilities. In almost ail instances, Mr. Beech recopnized what the grievor was doing, and he did not disapree with the contents of the draft position specification attached to e~<hibit $I0 or with the statements contained in exhibit $12, and this is ~upported by his comments contained in exhibit $1!, For his part, although the Grievor tended to sometimes "paint the lily", there was sufficient evidence to support his position in the instances discussed above. We did not hear from Mr. Holdsw%rth or from Mr.Tutt, and we do not know why they disagree with the list of duties and responsibilities associated with the grievor's positi~n as testified to be Mr. Beech, and as found in the draft position specification attached to exhibit 510 and in exhibit ~i2. On the evidence before us, there is no reason to discount the evidence of the grievor, except as has been done so above. In most significant instances, there is no difference between their understanding of the grievor's duties and responsibi!it{=s. Mr. Beech testified that exhibit 912 could not have been used until it was approved of by Mr. Holdsworth, and that the reason why this was so was because of the extreme volatility of the position (among others) and anticipated changes affecting those positions. This may be the case, but there was no evidence to show that the statements contained in the exhibit were not accurate. And even though exhibit 912 bears a date approximately one month after the grievance was signed, there is no reason to believe that it was not accurate as at the date of the grievance. Although Mr. Beech testified that he viewed exhibit %3 .as representing an accurate statement of the grievor's duties ~nd responsibilities, he did not disgree with the contents of the draft position specification attached to exhibit 410, or with the contents of exhibit 912. I believe that reading all of these documents together and a consideration of them al~ng with the viva voce evidence supports the above conclusions as to what the actual duties and responsibilities of the grievor were at the material times. We would emphasize that we agree with the statement contained in Gerrard 521/81 (Jolliffe), at In reaching this conclusion, we are no__~t taking into account the grievor's lon~ experience or high ,~ualifications for the position [hel now holds. It is well understood that what must be classified is the position itself, the duties and responsibilities required, and not the merits of the incumbent.(emDhasis in the original.) We also agree with the statement contained in the latter 16 case. at p.24: "The Class Standard, as already stated by the Board in a previous case. is the 'absolute standard'" The ~e~-rard case was approved in Baldwin and Lvnc 539/~4 (Palmer). In that case, at p. 3, it was stated: ... It was admitted by Mr. Baldwin [one of grievors] ... that in a general way the language .~f the grievors' "Position Specification and Class Allocation Form"...would cover what the grievors were doing The employer in this case endeavored to convince us that the duties and responsibilities of the grievor "fit snugly" within the class standard, and relied on an analysis of what the griever is said to do, as described in exhibit $3. As in the Baldwin and Lynx case, the union, here, based its case "on the relation the facts to the Class Standards" (B~ldwin and Lyn~ at ~nis argument was accepted by the Board(at p. 4) in part because the position specification is a "unilaterally created opposed to the" class standard, Here, the provisions cf exhibit $3 are given meaning by an examinatio~ of the facts of grievor's actual duties and responsibilities were, as atteste~! to by the grievor, Mt.Beech, and as fleshed out by an examination of exhibits $10, $11 and$I2, which furnish additional evdence of Mr. Beech's assessment of what the grievor did, As was stated ~n the Baldwin and LynG ca~e, at p. 5: " One cannot use c~tch-ail phrases, interred in minor parts of a document to support the case that such a document can cover any job that such a minor clause can conceivably cover .... 17 ~ cannot conclude that because the bulk of the ~rievor's duties and responsibilities fall within the class standard means that he is properly classified. W-hat is important is that he "could be called upon at any time by [the] employer to perform [the] functions" beyond those covered by the class standard. (See Boyle 675/85 (Brandt} at p. 1t, and at pp. 12-13.) For all of the above reasons we have come to the conclu~ion %hat the grievance should succeed. We cannot, find on the evidence (in fact no evidence with repect to this matter tendered) that the grievor would fit into sc, me other classification. The union asked that we apply our j,~risdictlon as recognized in the Ber. ry case. in that case. it is stated~ at p,l~ ... The employer alone can create classifications yet it has failed or refused to do so and seeks to take advantage of its failure .... The employer has ~iven the ~rievors added responsibility yet refuses to compensate them accordingly In the ~!atter case, the decision of the majority cf the board was found to be wrong when they concluded that they could not order the emp-toyer to reclassify the grievors, Counsel for the employer argued that the facts ,Df the case could be distinguished, That case was sa~d to invclve facts where a substantial component of the grievors' duties and responsibilities were not contained in the class standard s~gn~ficant accountability factor). The ~uestion to be dec~ded ~n. the _m~y..,., case was one concerned with the tamed~.~._. author~y- -,~ the ~oard not whether the gr~ev~,~s ha~ been 18 classified. We have already decided this issue in fa,zour of the griever. Nor can we agree with counsel for the employer th.mt the duti~.~ and responsibilities which we have identified as not belng. covered by the class standard can somehow be treated as incidental thereto. While we can agree with counsel for the employer that the additional responsibility factor covered by the griever's position was not great, it was real and it was demonstrably beyond that encompassed in the class standard. Cn the facts this ~ not a case where we should designate the gr~evor's classification as "atypical" Rather, this is one where the employer should be ordered to create a new classification for the griever if it is unabl~ to f~nd that an ex~st!~ classification satisfies the case, The griever would still retain the right to grieve that his position has been improperly classified, (See ~ case, at p.5) where this position w,~s stated. It was approved at p. 15.] The effective date ~or calculating monies payable to the griever as a result of the reclassification will be twenty days prior to the filing of the grievance. ~ Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this] day of December , !989, M.R, Gorsk¥ - Vice-Chairperson memorandum ® Ontario To: J.M. Holdsworth Bate: August 26, 1988 Head, Engineering Services RE~ Spec Review Electronics Technician 88-08-26 In answer to the request for further information from Harold Tutt 88-07-07 (See attachment A) A-1 While Harold suggests that some of the items indicated by a 'P' should "be performed by .... or the Electrical Foreman position to be established", a previous conversation with George Stewart required that position to be disregarded. Therefore, the items listed by the spec are actual assigned responsibilities of the position, ie: - communicating with the traffic office regarding traffic signal timing etc., with T.M.E.O. Tech Shop regarding equipment repaired and revisions, with Police agencies, with O.E.M. Reps, sales agencies etc. - issuing material request for electronic equipment repairs and other material and services in the absence of the Electrical Supervisor. - develops material lists for 170, 332 traffic signal equipment installation and/or modifications. - develop and conduct courses on 170 system for delivery to staff during winter months. - Supervises Crew 97 in the absence of the Electrical ,Supervisor. Installs loops with crew of 4 to 5 including staff from other crews. - a~lsists in interviewing'Co-op students and contract electricians. The suggestion that some of these tasks are the responsibility of the E~ectrlcal Supervisor is not correct. A-2 Material requests are signed and therefore authorized by myself and B.S. Dunning. A-3 Percentages of duties are as follows: A-50%, B-35%, C-10%, D-5% P.D. Beech ELECTRICAL SUPERVISOR District No. 2, London PDB/sb  '---'~ Positron Speciflca~;..n & Crass Alrocatlon.C$C 6150 (Refer to back of form for completion Instructions) tlarJo Data reci~ved Pr~'lou$ ,ariel numblr .. Niw ,ariel numblr For C$C use only I Po,iflon Cod~ Cleat tiHe ~nd ~ode persadel: t'ransporcation Southwes~ Region ~ch ~nd ~=[Ion ' = Lo=~tlmn J~eog. ~oc, Coda ~istrict No. 2, Main[enance London I~l~Ol [ 2 - · Electrical Supervisor ~6-5320-70 ~o carry out a variety of skilled work involving the repairs, modification, maintenance and installation of electrical and electronic systems and equipment in the district. To service, :epair and modify electrical and electronic equipment used by regiopal office sections and :he agencies as required. '" .. h~der the general supervision of the Electrical Supervisor and working from plans, diagrams, ~anufactures~ instructions,.Minis~ry.and Ontario Hydro Electrical Code specifications, performs :asks such as: ' . ~. Working independently - in the shop, repairs faulty electrical and electronically opera,ed equipment such as solid state and microprocessor based traffic' signal con,rollers, amplifiers, monitors, load switches,' flashers an.~ power supplies et'c. /- carries DUC bench tests utilizing specialized equipment ia. volt' meters, OHM meters, trackers, oscilloscopes .and logic probes etc.' - dismantles defective equlpmen~ and determines the cause of malfunctions. - removes and replaces defective components, thoroughly cleans alt parts and rebuilds apparatus to operating condi[ion, bench tests equipment and ensures tha~ it is in proper working condition for use in the field. B. Under the direction of the Electrical Supervisor performs other related tasks such as: - schedules and carries tout inspection and maintenance services in field on electronic based traffic control systems, inspection stations, P.C.S.'s, etc. in accordance wi~h M.T,O, policies by: ~/~ adjusting the timing and programming,of traffic signal installations, at various locations in the District ~o suit traffic 'conditions and as recommended by the Regional Traffic Section. (cont~nue~ on ~;everal yea~s progressive experience involving electrical and electronic control equipment. Recognized ~rovincial Certificate of Qualification as an Electrician plus successful completion (~f a recognized and acceptable electronics program. Go.od oral and written co~unication skills. ( continued on reverse) ype Suge~llor'l name Type Offlcla}'l name .nd title . Clara altocation ma, z~fle Cleat coal OccuPational grOuP number E~fecflve date have classified ~h[s polidon in ~c¢ordance wl~h the Civil Se~vJce Commls~i~ Cla~siflcatJon Standardi lot the loJlowlng ~lllon: Inslructlons for compteflng form CSC.6150.. : 'Usa this tore as indicated belOW I'Or all ~eltlon. e~cept ~ho~e Covare~ ~y ~e Executive Comp~n~alJo~ P~an, Management ComDen~atj~n Pran or Off;ca Adm I~islralJon Gf~p. Unclassified Seasonal Poslllona (Group 3): Complale Sections I a~o 0 excepl ~; t~e Functional OoOe box Jn Secllon 1. a~; t~e evilua. iIo~ ;a~lonare t~ Secllon 8. All older positions: Completlo~ ol this fotm In furl or as sal Oul a~ove fo; Unclassified ~eaaonel Poaltlons. Is InstructiOns fOr coding Poslt~on Identifier Instructions f~r cooing Sea.oriel Work Period Code Class,fed Po~)lJons ~ea.o~l Winter Spring Summer F~r~ Part-time 2. and ~he~; Oec. Mst. ~ns Sap. Uncl~slde~ Po~lt~o~ o~ae~. FaO. ' May Group 3 a) Sea~onal work perl~ B connecut~e b) Seas~nat work perfO~ 4 ~nsacutlve · SInQle ~eaeon, i.e., Spring E~am~lel monlha o; more ~ul le~ ~han 12 monlha 4 31ha~ Crown 7 · Mulllple seasons. I.e., Summer, Fell, Inslructions lo~ c~ding Sch'. HTS, Work ~ rn~lcale seasonl, Complete Ihl~ ~x lot R.P+T. POsillonI only. 2. lnsed Code of sisal Include p0fllon~ of hours to 2 ~eclm~ pltcal, 3. ~l/ow wilh c~de~ o~ : i: consac~llve weeks by RP.T, emo~oyees ass~gne~ to m ~c~ll~on seasons. ' must cOinCide wllh Ihs Scheduled Hours Of Work I~entffled Ihal pos~lion~ Any change ~o Ihs Scheduled Hours Ot Work will ~equhe the estmbti~hm~ aha ~oc~enta~ Ota mmparmle NOTE; Mulliple seasons must be consecutive to quall~ ms one ~sillon. ~aking resistance readings of detector systems embedded in pavement to compare current co original readings, monitoring and recording rate of deterioration, making ltera~ons and adjustments as necessary to amplifiers to ensure efficient operation. aincaiming hi~[ory records of services and repairs completed on traffic signal control systems, m~n[:or[ng ~req~ency o~ repairs and adjustments, race o[ deterioration  etermine cost benefit of repairs versus replacement, [scus~[ng with and 'recommemding tm s~pervisor the need for new equipment and systems '~-- [iaising with District and Regional administrative staff, members of the p~blic end other agencies regarding matters pe=ta[ning to the - ,arra~ing for and conducting cable loca~es~ sics meetings, inspection and connection ~ of hydro services. ~,- i~s~ing material request. - comduc~s emergency maintenance or repairs due to accidental damage or failure of equipme~t. - makes arrangements with Police for traffic control when necessary. formulates equ~pme~ and material lists for signal installation an~ modifications. supervises a c~ew o[ '[~'o~e 't~ six ~t~[['duri~g (ce~tmi~ operatio~ white e~suri~g safe work methods and M.T.O, policies are adEered~to. "' ~ '" "~ ........ ~- a~ransimg and conducting courses ~o instruct other crew members in tee operation of equipment used in the field, - c~rries ouc lima[ inspection of signals systems installed by contractors and Ministry  personnel. ' . ~ ~ - conducts interviews with s~pervisor co meeC manpower meeds. - represents the Ministry in court cases as an exper~ witness. - ocher duc[es aS Thorough knowledge of M,T.O. practices, procedures, standards and specifications. Ability to read, interpret and apply blueprints, plans and schematics. Ability to work [rom an aerial device. Possession of a valid Ontario Drivers Licorice and M.T.O. operators permit. Ability ~o supervise staff. ':-; ...... Posltlon Specification &Claa. AUOClltlon. C$C 6150 F~ CSC ul~ oflly ~"~:._ ~Ieccrc~c Techn~at~n_ 06-~320-78 ~i~c:ro~ic ~echn~c~an requited, 9et~a~a :alk~ such al: ~orkin~ i~epen~entlv - in the ~hop, re~air~ ~dul:g ~lectrica] ~n~ electronicall~ replaced_ 'es and referred cc the, Ihop ~or. ,repair ,, From p,ersonal experience c~ equip~en~ , carte out:be~ch tempi Ultn[ s~ec~ll~:ed equlp~ent~ l.e. voit ~etetl. O~ condition :er uie in the Iield. i:~nal concrazLera to enlute eti!cient operation. · . systems, monitoti~ ~teq~ency o~ repairs a~d a~}ust~ents, rata of deterioration, e~c., tO dateline cost Benefit ~I installed equ~pme~ versus replacement. to ensure ef~icien~ o'tbet ~len~lei ot Hydro le~ice~ - ~,-' (Continued~ Grade 12, pteferl}ly grade I3 education or an equivalent .cceecable ccmbi,3cian ~i c .': ' . : Y xp ' a e ~c~ ' ' en~aged ~n elect:o~ic e~d . '' ~'P" )~ .... : ..... "-" ' ' I' , · - ' . (Continued) '~ ~:' ' ~ ~ - - '. ~ o~ o ~ ~ . -CONVertO, EXiSTING cMsSlrlCaf:o~ ' m~ laq~alFe;mt~:'pe~rm related main:chance casks but aC leaa: SO~ of york requires elec:r~ni: - f~ /Hay eu;ervz~e[~n~ instruct helpers,. . .-.. . --~ 'ccn~CC{~ eme~cy =~nCennnce o~ repa~r~ d~e ~ ac;~e~t~', da~a~e et '~'e~f~ ocher ~e[~ced ~uc~e. ~uch as'. . - c -,: - ~neCa)~ac~On and ¢anneccf~n O~ e~ecCr~c services, e.g, overhc~ li~hc~ng~and' e~Sn ' insta!latLons while ensuring safe york =ecbc~a en~ ~ ~o~[c~.cq ::r;.;Lng out i:specCion cf signal ~)'*[e~ installed 5y cc:~C~actors ~nd ~inistr'/ personnel . ,- - r;,~), ac~ c.n beh~l~ ~f,ELe=tr~ca[ Crew ~u;:e~isor durin~ mh~ence~. ?jorkir~ Conditior,~' .' .. d.~t call Sk~ll~ ln~ ~aowledge (ConCir~ed) drawings, ~{r[ng fl/a~ramej ~0 ~Can~erde, C~cario ~dro Electrical ~da, a~9' .... ~ac,,,faccu~erl rec.:m~erdac:~n~, specific~:i~, =echods and procedurel~ ~u;erv~ae ~caEf eng~zed in rela~e~ wc~k ~nd To work frn~ aerial ~eyi:em, ~oelefs~o:t. c!-r. he ap~ropriace O~C~rl~ Classified Driverrs Licence and ~'C Equ~men: Operators