HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0453.Gammage et al.92-09-16 ONTARIO EMPLOY~-S DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
ORIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE ' '
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STRE£T WEST, SUITE £100, TORONTO, ONTAR~, MSG I~ TELEPHONE/T~EPHONE;
" 453/89, 454/89~ 466/89, 2887/90,
.3127/90, 3128/90, 2880/91, 2983/91
IN THE MATTER OF ~NARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE B~tGAINING ACT
Before
T~E ~R~EV~CE SE~TnE~ BO~aD
~ (~a~e e~
- and -
The Cro~ in Right of Ontario
(Minist~.of Gover~ent Se~ices)
~plo~er
BEFORE: M. Gorsky Vice-Chairperson
J. Carruthers Member
A. Merritt Member
FOR THE C. Wilkey
UNION Counsel
Cornish Roland
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE D. McKeown
EMPLOYER .Counsel
Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart, Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARIN~ March 1, 2, 16, 1990
October 26, 1990
November 23, 1990
March 13, 1991
April 2, 1991
May 14, 1991
September 17, 1991
January 20, 1992
March 10, 1992
DECISION
There are three classification grievances before us:
1. The Grievor, Jon Davis, filed a grievance on March 30, 1989.
At the time of the grievance, he was classified as a Designer
1, and he seeks reclassification as a Specification Officer 2.
2. The Grievor, John Gammage, filed a grievance on March 28,
1989. At the time of the grievance, he was classified as a
Designer 1, and he seeks reclassification as a Specification
Officer 2.
3. The Grievor, Greg Clemens, filed a grievance on March 28,
1989. At he time of the grievance he was classified as a
Designer 2, and he seeks reclassification as a Specification
Officer 3.
The following appendices are annexed to the decision:
1. Relevant class standards for the Specification Officer series,
marked as Appendix A.
2. Position specification of the Grievors Davis and Gammage dated
February 14, 1989, marked as Appendix B.
3. Position specification for the Grievor Clemens, dated October
14, 1988, marked as Appendix C.
4. Relevant class standards for the Designer series, marked as
Appendix D.
Ail of the Grievors are employed in the Property Management
Division in the Employer's London District office.
The Grievors Gammage and Davis, whose seniority dates are,
respectively, April 21, 1986 and June 2, 1986, have the position
title of contract Technician. The Grievor Clemens, whose seniority
date is August 22, 1977, has the position title of Technical
Services Supervsor.
The Grievor Clemens is the immediate supervisor of the other
two Grievors.
The London District Property Management Division is headed by
a District Manager. She Managers of three areas report directly to
him: (i) Assistant District Manager, (2) Projects Manager and (3)
Manager Financial and Administration. The Projects Manager, who at
all material times was Eric Morris, is respoqsible for two
branches: (1) the Construction Branch and (2) the Technical
Services Branch. The Technical Services Branch is supervised by a
Technical Services Supervisor. The Grievors Davis and Gammage, as
Contract Technicians report directly to Mr. Clemens as Technical
Services Supervisor. In addition, a Drafter 2 and a Word Processor
'Operator report to the Technical Services Supervisor.
3
The Property Management Division is responsible for the
operation and maintenance of all government-owned and -leased
properties within the London District. The Technical Services
Section supports all construction projects and some operation and
maintenance projects by producing contract documents for the
various programs undertaken by the Division. Construction projects
can involve (a) Repair, (b) Alteration and {c) Capital or New
Construction.
The principal function of the Grievors Davis and Ga~mage is to
produce specifications and contract documents used in the tendering
process and thereafter during the carrying out of the work on the
projects handled in the London District Office. The documents
referred to set-out a detailed description of (a) the work required
and (b) the kinds of material to be used. Although the "purpose of
position" in the position specification applicable to the two
Grievors provides that they are:
To perform architectural-engineering design, prepare
specifications, drawings and contract documents and to
provide technical information for construction, repair,
alteration, renovation, health and safety, operation and
maintenance products involving government owned and
leased buildings in the District,
they spend the greater part of their time preparing architectural
specifications and engineering specifications (mechanical,
electrical, structural, sanitary) and contract documents used in
the tendering process in construction, renovations, alterations,
repair, and maintenance projects.
4
The evidence disclosed that all the Grievors' had a thorough
knowledge of and demonstrated experience in preparing architectural
specifications and structural, mechanical, electrical, and sanitary
engineering specifications and other contract documents,' and that
they had a knowledge of contract law as it related to the tendering
process and the preparation of specifications. They also had a
thorough knowledge of construction methods, materials, bidding And
industry practices, building sciences, codes, standards and
research.
The Grievors Davis and Gammage are graduates of the
Architectural Technology Program Offered by Fanshawe College of
Applied Arts and Technology which is in London, and at the time
they gave evidence were probationary.members of the Association of
Architectural Technologists of Ontario. The Grievor Clemens is a
graduate of a similair program and is an Architectural Technologist
certified by the Association of Architectural Wechnologists of
Ontario.
Work requests affecting the Grievors are made to the Property
Management Division by Property Managers or by individual
government ministries. .The property Manager forwards requests to
the Construction Supervisor, who assigns them to Inspectors. The
Inspectors prepare a scope of work document and a work order, which
documents are forwarded to the Technical Services Supervisor. The
-5
Technical Services Supervisor then involves the Contract
Technicians.
A meeting takes place between Mr. Clemens and either of
Messrs. Gammage or Davis concerning the division 'of responsibflity
relating to a project. After consultation, the responsibility for
preparing the drawings will usually be given to the Draftsperson or
the co-op student who is assigned to the Technical Services
Section. The evidence disclosed that the Grievors Davis and
Gammage were responsible for writing most of the specifications but
Mr. Clemens would also prepare some of them on an overflow basis.
The Grievors checked all work performed by the Draftsperson and the
co-op student. The work performed by the Grievors Davis and Gammage
was spot cheked by Mr. Clemens, on an infrequent basis, to see that
it conformed to Ministry standards.
Although there are Master Specifications on file for various
types of projects, these are not followed in a rote fashion by the
Grievors, who frequently modify them according to the needs of
particular projects to which they are assigned.
In addition to utilizing the Master Specifications which were
prepared at the Head Office in Toronto, the Grievors, on occasion,
referred to previous projects which they used as precedents. There
were also occasions when the they performed additional research,
which included communicating with manufacturers or referring to
6
published literature. They also obtained technical information
from a number of other sources which had experience with particular
products. It was only on rare occasions that either of the
Grievors, Davis and Gammage, would consult with their supervisor,
Mr. Clemens, in order to obtain assistance. We are satisfied that
they functioned with considerable autonomy in the most important
part of thei~ work, being the preparation of specifications and
contract documents.
Although the Grievors carried out their functions in relation
to capital projects, which at the time of the filing of the
grievances amounted to $400,000, larger projects were broken down
.into segments to accommodate the financial limit.
The evidence indicated that writing specifications for
construction projects .took up 70 to 80 per cent of the work
performed by the Grievors Davis and Gammage, with approximately 20
to 30 per cent of their work involving operational maintenance
contracts.
Some of the more complex construction projects for which they
wrote specifications, and contract documents were the Agronomy
Building in Centralia, Ontario, which was divided into five phases
and which had a total value of over $600,000 and the three phase
replacement of the roof at the Aylmer Police College, having a
total value of $700,000. Construction contracts'included the
7
repair, alteration and renovation of buildings. Operational
maintenance contracts included contracts with respect to: property
management, building maintenance, janitorial, preventive
maintenance, security, food seruices, elevator services and
generators.
Ail contracts produced by the London District Office are in
accordance with a Ministry-wide format. Contracts over $25,000 are
deemed sufficiently complex to require the use of a long-form
contract.
The contract documents produced by the Grievors have, what was
referred to as, a "front-end" which represent the legal contractual
portion, as well as specifications which detail the work to be
performed and include drawings (where necessary) and tendering
information.
We accept the evidence of all three Grievors that 90 per cent
of the time of the Grievors Davis and Gammage was spent in the
production of specifications and contract documents.
The evidence disclosed that a project has four stages:
1. The requirements stage, which includes identification of the
need for the project.
2. The design stage, which includes the development of solutions
or resolutions to the problems identified. It' is at this
stage that the contract documents are produced.
3. Tendering of the ~ontract documents and the engaging of a
contractor.
4. The inspection stage when the ministry responsible inspects
the contractor's work.
The Technical Services Section is involved at the design and
tendering stages. The Grievors are also involved in the post-
tendering phase where assistance is given to Inspectors in
i~terpreting the contract documents-and approving shop drawings and
change orders.
As part Qf their responsibilities within the London District
Office, all of the Grievors instruct and review the work of outside
professional consultants who are retained to produce
specifications, usually where there is a statutorily imposed need
for professional design services from an engineer or architect.
The Grievors provide technical direction to the Draftsperson
and co-op student in the Technical Servisces Section.
9
The position taken on behalf of the Grievors was that their
grievances should succeed on four grounds:
1. The res judica~4 argument. That the Employer was bound by two
decisions: Franciosi, 355/89 (Dissanayake), dated March 14,
1990, and by Hartung/ Wolf, 59/89 (Slone), dated February 28,
1990. It was submitted that the facts in those cases, where
the decision was that the grievors were misclassified and
should be properly classified as Specification Officers 2,
were substantially the same as those relating to the Grievors
Davis and Gammage and that, pursuant to Bla~e, we were bound
to follow those two cases.
It was further argued that Mr.-Clemens, as the bargaining unit
supervisor of the other Grievors,' was entit'led to a one-step
differential, and therefore his proper classification ought to
~e Specification Officer 3.
2. The usage argument. It was submitted that the Grievors Davis
and Ga~nage were performing substantially the same duties and
responsibilities as the grievors classifi'ed as Specification
officers 2 as a result of the decision in the Hartung/Wolf
case, and were therefore entitled to be similairly classified.
Mr. Clemens was said to be entitled to the classification of
Specification Officer 3, on the same basis as was argued in
the first position, above taken.
3. The class standards argument. It was argued that, relying on
the core fun6tions of the Grievors as being the preparation of
contract documents with an emphasis on specification writing,
with only a limited involvement in the preparation of drawings
(plans and design sketches)., they were entitled to be
classified in the Specification Officer series; the Grievors
Davis and Gammage as Specification Officers 2 and the Grievor
Clemens as Specification officer 3.
4. The Berry order argument. In the alternative, Counsel for the
Union req~zested that we issue a B~r¥ order should we find
that the Grievors cannot be placed in any of the suggested
classifications.
In support of her class standards argument, counsel for the
Union made the following representations:
1. Under the Designer 1 class definition, the class is said to
cover "employees performing architectural preliminary design"
duties. It was submitted that the work of the Grievors was
not preliminary but 'final, subject only to those limited
circumstances where an architect's or engineer's seal or stamp
was required under the relevant legislation.
2. We were asked to note that, in context, the preparation of
specifications represents only a minor element of the core
responsibilities set out in the Designer 1 class standard, and
that "design" is found in a context which emphasizes the
preparation of drawings: "produce designs and prepare
drawings."
3. It was also submitted that in the characteristic duties found
in the Designer 1 class standard, there is no responsibility
for preparing specifications in the architectural portion of
the duties. In addition, in referring to performance as a
mechanical engineering designer and an electrical engineering
designer, the specifications to be prepared are referred to as
being in "draft." On the evidence before us the Grievors
effectively produce final specifications.
There is a clear indication in the Designer 1 class standard
that a person within that classification will be assigned
"relative to their speciality within clearly defined limits"
being one of architectural, structural, sanitary, mechanical
or electrical engineering. The work of the Grievors was not
restricted only one of those specialties but included all the-
areas.
§. In the first sentence of the Designer 1 class definition, the
work covered is said to be performed "under close
supervision." The evidence disclosed that the Grievors Davis
and Gammage were subject to general direction, being in the
12
form of periodic spot checks .of a cursory nature to insure
compliance with Ministry standards and not to check technical
competences.. Those Grievors had only an infrequent ~need to
consult with Mr. Clemens. The evidence disclosed that the
Grievors operated quite independently ia carrying out their
major responsibility of producing final specifications and
contract documents.
6. Counsel for the Union submitted that 'where the words "draft
specifications" are found in the Designer 1 class standard,
they are used as adjectives rather than verbs. This appears
to be borne out becauses in the case of a sanitary engineering
designer the .responsibility is to "pre_pare drawings,
detailings and specifications," while as mechanical
engineering designers and electrical engineering designers the
responsibility is to "prepare drawings and draft
specifications." This leads to the conclusion that the word
"draft" is. employed as an adjectiue rather than a verb. In
addition, using the word "prepare," along with the word
"draft," would be redundant if it was intended to employ
"draft" as a verb.
7. Counsel for the Union argued that the Grievors Davis and
Gammage only prepared drawings infrequently on an overflow
basis, the number amounting to one or two a project.
13
Counsel for the Union noted that in addition to the fact that
the Grievors were not confined to any area of specialization,
the only limit placed on them was with respect to the dollar
value of the projects to which they were assigned. It was
argued that in practice the financial limits were flexible and
could be effectively overcome by segmenting projects for the
purpose of bringing them within the Grievors' scope of work.
In addition, the evidence did not show that there was any
direct relationship between the complexity of a project and
its dollar value. Counsel for the Union questioned how there
could be a relationship between the value of a project and its
complexity when a contract could be broken down into segments
to satisfy the dollar requirements.
9. The monitoring by the Grievors of the work of outside design
consultants to ensure that the work met Ministry standards was
said to be inconsistent with the limited form of supervision
referred to in the Designer 1 class standard, which was
limited to the supervision of "draftsmen," with the incumbents
only being "required to maintain effective working
~elati~nships with others on projects."
10. It was also submitted that Mr. Clemens, in his capacity as
supervisor of the Grievors, did not "review. design assignments
in progress and on completion." Rather, Mr. Clemens was said
to have limited his supervision to ensuring that the overall
quality of the work was maintained by conducting spot checks.
He did not conduct a full review of all design assignments in
progress or on completion.
11. It was also argued that the Grievors did 'not supervise
projects in the field as is provided for under the
characteristic duties of the Designer 1 class standards.
12. There is nothing in the Designer 1 class standard that refers
to the important aspects of the Grievors' functions which
relate to (1) the p~eparation of a full range of coatract
documents and (2) the need for a knowledge of contract law as
it relates to the preparation of contract documents to be used
in the tendering process.
13. There is nothing in the Designer 1 class standard which deals
with the preparation of contract documents relating to
operational maintenance, which involved twenty to thirty per
cent of the Grievors' work. In the case of operational
maintenance projects, the Grievors were able 'to, and did,
function in the case of contracts of large dollar value, such
as the London Court House maintenance contract which was for
over $700,000.
In pursuing a best fit argument, counsel for the Unioa also
examined the Designer 2 class standard and made the following
representations:
1. It was her submission that the Grievors Davis and Gammage did
not operate under "general supervision," as is provided for in
the Designer 2 class standard, but were under general
direction. They received an assignment and proceeded to carry
it out, independently producing a final work product. Under
the class definition for Designer 2, the supervisor "checks
the completed work for technical competence." The evidence
with respect to the Grievors Davis and Gammage was that only
spot checks were conducted to see whether Ministry standards
were being maintained, not for technical competence.
2. Counsel for the Union noted that the work performed by the
Grievors was not "preliminary" in nature, except in the
limited number of cases where an architect's or engineer's
seal or stamp was required by the relevant legislation.
3. As in the case of the Designer 1 class standard, the Designer
2 standard contemplates that an incumbent would function
within one of the noted areas, not within the whole range of
the areas referred to.
4. The Designer 2 class definition emphasizes design work in the
nature of preparation of drawings, which function was
ancillary to the ~principal function of the Grievors in the
preparation of specifications and contract documents. The
evidence disclosed that, except in overflow situations, the
Grievors only prepared drawings to the extent necessary to
instruct and review the work of Draftspersons.
5. As in the case of the Designer 1, Designer 2's .are only
responsible for the preparation of draft specifications, while
the Grievors were responsible for the preparation of final
specifications.
6. The Grievors do not provide "estimates of costs," except in
rare instances.
7. As in the case of the Designer 1, counsel for the Union
emphasized that the Designer 2 characteristic duties
contemplate: (1)involvement in only one technical area, which
was not the case for the Grievors, and (2) supervision of
actual construction in the field, which was not part of the
Grievors' responsibilities.
8. It was also submitted that, as in the case of the Designer 1,
the qualifications section of the Designer 2 class standard
emphasized the drafting of drawings, there being no reference
17
to the production of specifications and contract documents for
use in the tendering process.
Counsel for the Union also submitted that the Grievor Clemens
did not fit within the Designer 2 class standard. Among her
submissions were:
1. Mr. Clemens was said not to be in a position of an employee
"performing responsible architectural preliminary design work
or structural, sanitary, mechanical, or electrical engineering
design work under general supervision." What Mr. Clemens does
is direct Technical Support Services in the production of
specifications and contract documents and other design work
required to support the production of specifications and
contract documents for use in the tendering process. He does
not produce specifications except on an overflow basis.
2. Mr. Clemens does not, under the characteristic duties
performed by him, restrict his functioning to a single area
but is responsible for ensuring that those employees under him
perform their work in all subject areas according to Ministry
practices, and he is also required to be able to recognize
when there is a need for professional design assistance in all
areas. He has no personal responsibility for the production
of complete work in most instances, but his responsibility
relates to the direction of the activities leading to the
production of specifications and contract documents, including
such drawings as are necessary to support them. The work
product is final rather than draft, and he only infrequently
provides cost estimates.
3. It was acknowledged that Mr. Clemens supervises secretarial
help and drafting personnel including co-op drafting students.
He is required to work in concert with other managerial
personnel in the London District Office, such as Project
Managers and Construction Supervisors.
4. It was submitted that as Mr. Clemens' supervisor Mr. Morris,
the_Projects Manager at all relevant times, had no expertise
in specification and contract writing and did not check the
work of any of the Grievors in the Technichai Services
Section. He did not supervise Mr. Clemens' primary work in the
sense that he did not provide "professional guidance" or check
"the completed work for technical competence."
5. It was submitted that the class definition of the Designer 2
class standard does not recognize the principal .responsibility
of an employee so classified for the Preparation of
specifications and contract documents and the monitoring of
the work of outside consultants, nor the responsibility of Mr.
Clemens in the hiring and recruitment of consultants. Nor
does the Designer 2 class standard recognize such duties and
19
responsibilities performed by Mr. Clemens as processing change
orders and dealing with issues of contract interpretation
during the post-tender phase.
Counsel for the Union submitted that the Specification Officer
class series more accurately reflected the essential nature of the
duties and responsibilities of the Grievors, whose core duties and
responsibilites concerned the preparation of contract documents and
specifications used in the tendering process.
In reviewing the Specification Officer class standard, counsel
for the Union submitted that none of the Grievors fell within the
Specification Officer t class standard for the following reasons:
1. They were not engaged in work at "an entry or junior working
level."
2. Their positions were not restricted to the preparation of
"architectural and engineering specifications for tendering
purposes," but included all of the areas of architectural,
sanitary, mechanical, electrical and st'ructural
specifications.
3. It was also submitted that all of the Grievors produced
"specifications for moderately complex, small to medium-sized
projects" However, it was also argued that they did more than
"assist in the production of large and complex projects under
more direct guidance by senior officers." It was submitted
that they prepared final specifications and contract
documents, and that, where necessary, larger projects were
broken down into smaller dollar contracts so that they fell
within their permissible range. It was submitted that they
produced specifications and contract documents with respect to
large and complex projects on their own. Their work was not
~in the nature .of offering assistance in the production of
specification and contract documents for tendering purposes
but of furnishing a complete product. They operated
independently in a way that is not envisaged in the
Specification Officer i class standard.
4. It was also submitted that the Grievors do not assist more
senior Specification Officers in monitoring the work of
associate architects and engineers but do so independently to
ensure that the work conforms with Ministry requirements. In
this capacity they use office precedents and the resource
library available to the Technical Services Section.
In support of her position that the Grievors' Davis and
Gammage best fit within the Specification Officer 2 class standard,
counsel for the Grievor~ submitted:
1. They not only perform all of the duties and responsibilities
covered under the Specification Officer 1 class standard, but,
as well, employing the examples given of the projects they
worked on, operate at a level where the projects are larger
and more complex. In part, this results from the breaking
down of large projects into segments.
2. The skills and knowledge component of the Specification
Officer 2 class standard is the same as that set out in the
Specification Officer 1 class standard.
3o Counsel for the Union noted that in the Hartung/Wolf case the
employer called as a witness, Robert Briggs, who was then a
Senior Advisor, Specifications-, in the Design Services Branch
at Head Office in Toronto. At the time of that grievance he
was the Head of the Specifications Group of the same Branch,
responsible for supervising the Branch's Specification Officer
2's. The evidence of Mr. Briggs disclosed (at p.6) that
Specification Officers in Toronto restrict their efforts to
the architectural and civil engineering area, leaving
electrical and mechanical work to consultants. And that the
Toronto office handled some very large and complex projects,
involving values of up to $4,000,000, but the normal range of
values was $200,000 to $300,000. The Board found that the
latter value was "within the competence of the Guelph office.
What [the Board] did not learn from Mr. Briggs or anyone else,
22
was whether other branch offices have the same limitation, and
what factors determine.whether such a project will be' handled
out of Toronto or a branch office such as Guelph."
The Board also stated (at p.6):
Mr. Briggs agreed that dollar value does not necessarily,
although it might, correlate with complexity. He
testified that 'the work done by the Specification Officer
2's in Toronto included a mix of moderately complex,
complex, and very complex tasks ....
We were asked, in. the absence of any different evidence being
called by the Employer in the case before' us, to rely on the
findings of the Board .in Hartung/Wolf as to the continuing
existence of the system in place as described by Mr. Briggs and of
its applicability to the case before us.
CounseI for the Union also referred to the finding of the
Board at pp. 11-12 of the H~tung/Wolf case:
Smaller and less complex vs. Larger, Bore complex
p~oiects
As we noted during the hearing, both size and
complexity are entirely relative concepts. Our ability
to assess these factors is severely limited by the scant
evidence on these points. What is clear is that within
the Guelph office itself, there is no limitation on the
size or complexity of projects that the grievor is
qualified to undertake. In attempting to compare the
grievor's job to that done by specification writers in
Toronto, as testified to by Mr. Briggs, we run up against
several difficulties. First of all, it is not clear how
many of the projects undertaken in Toronto are more
complex or larger than those done in Guelph, although we
can infer that some of them are. We must also bear in
mind that the grievor handles not only the architectural
and civil aspects of the classifications, but must draw
on a broader base of expertise including also the'
electrical and mechanical aspects of a construction
project. How do we measure the complexity of the
architectural and civil aspects only of a hypothetically-
larger job, as against the entire spectrum of
architectural, civil, electrical and mechanical aspects
of a hypothetically-smaller job? And lastly, is it not
at least possible that the Specification Officer 2's in
Toronto are themselves wrongly classified? On the little
evidence available we must conclude that with respect to
this criterion, the grievor can fit equally well into
either classification.
In referring to the claim by Mr. Clemens for classification at
the Specification Officer 3 level, counsel for the Union submitted:
1. That there was the limited form of technical supervision of
less senior~Specification Officers as described above and that
Mr. Clemens provided supervision for the draftsperson,
although it was acknowledged that he was not engaged in
instruction and training.
2. It was acknowledged that Mr. Clemens did not usually prepare
specifications, but it was submitted that the evidence
disclosed that he was, on occassion, called on to do so, and
was capable of producing "specifications for the largest and
most complex projects," being a registered specification
writer.
3. Mr. Clemens was said to have considerable responsibility for
the hiring and supervision of professional consultants where
professional design was required by statute. He was also
responsible for the preparation of consultant bid packages
('Exhibit 18), reviewing bids and making recommendations to the
Projects Manager as to who should be retained. He monitored
professionals retained, as did Messrs. Davis and Gammage. Mr.
Clemens works with considerable independence, as his
supervisor, not'being in the same professional area, must rely
on him to carry out his responsibilities independently.
4. The skills and knowledge component of the Specification
Officer 3 class standard is similar to that of the same
component in the Specification Officer 1 and 2 class
standards, however, it adds the words "direct support staff."
Mr. Clemens is responsible for the direction of support staff,
including the Grievors Davis and Gammage, in the manner above
described. - ,
Counsel for the Employer argued, relying upon Brick, 564/80
(Samuels), at p.48, that the Union bore the burden of showing that
the Grievors were improperly classified, and also relied on the
Br~ck case at pp.48-50:
When this Board said in Montague (referred to above in
the Union's argument) that the first consideration is
"whether the grievor's job comes in within the words of
the higher class standard", I don't think that anything
different is meant from the language of Professor Adell
in Dehavilland A~Ncraft (quoted above in the extract from
Re Franklin found in the argument for the Employer), when
he said that we must look at "the significant job duties
of a higher classification", and that the grievor must
perform those duties "a majority of his time".
Furthermore, this Board's decisions do not differ from
Judge Cross in Deh~villand Aircraft (also quoted in the
extract from Re Franklin above), when he said that:
"The classification must be taken as a whole for
the purpose of obtaining a higher classification
when a lower Classification is comprehensive enough
to cover the job which is being done."
(emphasis added in Brick)
Nor have we differed from Macdonald in Re U.S.W. (also
quoted in the extract from Re Franklin), when he said:
"A grievor must not only establish that his ability
and work are beyond his present job description but
he must brin9 himself squarely within the
description of the classification he seeks, both as
to ability and responsibility."
The various decisions say the same thing in different
ways. There has been no conscious move in this Board to
part from the jurisprudence in the private sector, nor
has this occurred by accident. The most that may be said
is that the Board in Hooper (referred to above in the
argument for the Union) varied from this jurisprudence
somewhat in seeking the "best fit".. However, the Board
there was faced with a situation where neither Class
Standard really fit the ~grievor's job comfortably, which
is an unusual situation.
Our task is to decide first whether or not the grievors
are properly classified in their existing classification.
If they are not, then we must go on to dec,de whether
they would be properly classified in the classification
which they seek. We must look at the Class Standards as
a whole, and not classify according to some peripheral
part of the duties of the classification. Obviously not
all employees in a class will do all the duties mentioned
in the Standard, but one must be doing the essential
duties on a regular basis in order to be classified in a
particular classification. We must also consider the way
that the Employer has classified persons holding the
higher classification, in order to understand the meaning
of the words used where there is ~jgnif~Gant ropm fQr
varied interpretation, or where it can be shown that the
Employer's actual classification system differs ~rom the
written one.
(emphasis in original)
On the evidence, we would find that "there is significant room
for varied interpretation" and that the Designer class series does
not fit the job of any of the Grievors "comfortably."
26
Counsel for the Employer made much of the fact that~ the
Designer 1 class standard provides for the preparation of
specifications,, while counsel for the Union focused on the
allegedly .minor emphasis on specification writing found in that
class standard when compared with the Specification Officer series.
In dealing with the meaning of the word "design," Bull, J.A,,
stated in Pentagon Co~str~ction {1969) Co. Ltd. v. United States
Fidelity & Guaranty CQ. (1977) 77 D.L.R. (3d) 189 (B.C.C.A.) at p.
192:
It is true that the word "design" has many dictionary
meanings, as have a large percentege of words in everyday use.
But different dictionary meanings of a word does not mean that
it is ambiguous. Whether or not a word is ambiguous involves
the consideration of its use in its place and context. It is
only when two or more different meanings are equally,
reasonably and sensibly applicable that it can be said to be
ambiguous ....
I think, too, that the reference to "design" in the leading
textbook on construction contracts..., namely Hudsons Building
Contracts, 10th ed., at p. 274, has great relevance. The
"design" is referred to as being a wide term which includes
not only structural calculations, shape and location of
materials, but their choice, as well as the choice of
particular work processes and concludes with the following
words: "In other words, in sophisticated contracts the design
includes the specifications as well as drawings.
In the Designer 1 class standard, under the class definition,
reference is made to the fact that "these employees produce designs
and prepare drawings and draft specifications .... " Because
designs will frequently be found to include plans or drawings as
well as specification, what is to be made of the addition of the
word "designs"? Bull, J.A., at p. 192 in Pentagon, sets out
27
definitions of the word "design" found in four dictionaries, which
emphasize the word "plan": Funk & Wagnalt New Standard Unabridge~
Dictionary (1943), Webster's Third New International Dictionar~
(1971), The Shorter Oxford D%ctionary, 3rd. ed. (1950) and
~nternational Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary 9f the English
Language (1973~. The definition of "plan" emphasizes the aspect of
drawing rather than the preparation of written specifications. In
Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, (1988),
"plan" is defined as: "... a drawing or diagram ... any outline or
sketch .... "The definition also includes "a scheme or program for
making, doing, or arranging something" which could encompass the.
prepartion of specifications. Nevertheless, a review of all of the
parts of the Designer 1 class standard indicates an intention to
stress the drawing asDect of the word "plan." For example, as'an
architectural designer, an incumbent prepares "preliminary design
sketches and plans to illustrate client requirements .... "
When the drafters of the Designer 1 class standard chose to
add the concepts of preparing "designs" to those of preparing
"drawings" and "specifications" it appears that they intended to
encompass the greater range of design responsibilities involving
sketches, drawings as contrasted with writing. Certainly, in
context, the Designer 1 class standard emphasizes the drawing
aspect of design, while the Specification Officer class series
emphasizes the writing of specification aspect of design.
28
On the facts before us, we conclude that many of the contracts
assigned to the Grievors were sophisticated, and that the Designer
class series contemplates some design work on what might be termed
sophisticated projects. However, as above noted, the class standard
spel~s out a variety of duties. In considering the "place and
context" of the word "design" both as a noun and a verb within the
Designer class series, we conclude that the emphasis is on that
aspect of design Which involves the preparation of drawings, and
that specification writing is secondarY. Wherea~ specification
writing in the context of the tendering process is the core
responsibility of employees classified as Specification Officers.
This is what gave rise to the grievances: the perception by the
Grievors that the duties of the Contract Technician position had
changed over time from creating drawings to creating specifications
and contract documents used iN the tendering process.
We are satisfied that the evidence of the Grievors is correct
in its description of what they do. This is not a case where the
Grievors duties and responsibilities disclose a reasonably
confortable fit with their existing classifications. The above
recital of the evidence relating to what they do makes this clear.
That is, unlike the facts in the.Brick case, the Designer 1 and 2
class standards do not fit the Grievors' jobs comfortably. We do
not read that case as holding that because the duties and
responsibilities of grievors can be forced, with considerable
difficulty, into a class standard that that ends the matter. We
29
believe that this reality was taken account of in the Franciosi and
Hartun~/Wolf cases, above referred to, where the Ministry had
reclassified the grievors in those cases as Specification officers
1, with the grievors seeking a higher classification within that
class series. The creation of class standards, and their
application to individual cases is not an exercise in perfection
and some flexibility has to be afforded an employer in considering
whether a fit is comfortable. However, at some point the comfort
zone is passed.
Counsel for the Employer referred to Maitland, 388/82
(Brunner), where the Board stated, at p.10:
In our opinion, the grievor, although discharging
his duties and responsibilities with admirable skill and
diligence, and although possessing the qualifications for
the higher qualification, is not really performing a
substantial part of those duties of the Safety
Instruction Officer III position which clearly
distinguishes it from the lower Safety Instruction
Officer II position.
In the case before us, the Grievors perform a substantial part of
the duties of the classifications they seek within the
Specification Officer class series. Accordingly, the Maitland case
cannot assist'the Employer.
Counsel for the Employer also relied upon Boileau, 724/88
(Kirkwood), where the Board stated at ppo8-9:
The case of OPSEU (Anderson et al.) and The Crown in
Right of Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources)
(G.S.B.~30497/85) (R.J. Roberts) explores the premise
upon which the class standards are based, and finds that
by their nature, they are general in scope and finds that
there will be significant variations in the
concentrations of the duties which the employees who are
properly classified do. However, when there has been a
substantial difference in the actual, work performed and
the description of the job a re-classification will be
ordered. In OPSEU (Cabeza et al.k and The Crown in Right
of Ontario (Ministry of Labour) (G.S.B. ~0909/86,
0910/86, 0~97/87 {P.M. Epstein), that board found that
the job classifications, which had been formulated
approximately twenty-two years prior to the grievance,
did not describe the real roles which the grievors
performed and therefore reclassification was ordered,
Applying the same concept, the board in OPSEU (Jack
Sears) and Thc Crown in the Right of the Province o~
Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Servicesk
G.S.B. ~ 446/86 (A. Barrett) found that the job
classifications were not Obsolete and therefore did not
order reclassification.
Therefore, the union has the onus to prove that the
job is substantially different from the job standard and
class standard in order to obtain an order for
reclassification.
Counsel for the Employer arghed that the important facts to be
considered concerned whether the duties and responsibilities
performed by the Grievors existed in their current class
designation and that it was irrelevant how much time they might
spend performing particular duties. In this regard, we note that in
Boileau, at p.9, the Board stated:
We do not find that the percentage of the time
allocated for the duties relating to sales was so
inaccurate as to find that the amount of time spent on
those activities created a substantial difference from
the job descriptions ....
Further at p.10 of the Boi]~aau case, the Board stated: .
In the cases which were presented to the Board, in
which reclassification was ordered, there were a
substantial difference in the duties performed~ by the
employees and those referred to in their job
descriptions. In the case before this board', the duties
recognized in the descriptions but they were not
~cated as great a percentage of time as the 9riev~¥
.d have allocated to them. There was some difference
:he percentages, but not to the degree that there was
ubstantial difference from the job descriptions.
· efore, this board cannot order the grievor's position
~e reclassified.
no mention in the Designer class series of certain of
core duties of the Grievors: (1) The preparation of
in the area of architectural design, (2) The
contract documents. (3) Preparing specifications and
,ents in all areas rather than in a single area of
(4) Being able to rely on a good knowlege of
n carrying out their duties. (5) Monitoring the work
and engineers, (6) involvement in the tendering
duties of the Specification Officer class series are
~ the preparation of specifications and contract
though the fit is not perfect, the core duties
~e Grievors represent a significantly better fit with
~s set out in the classification standards of the
s which .they seek. Accordingly, the Boileau case
the Employer.
f the above reasons, we would allow the grievances on
ye class standard argument put forward by counsel for
Therefore, it is unnecessary to consider the further
32
arguments presented based on the application of the usage test, re~
judicata or the applicability of the issuance of a ~ order.
The parties indicated that in the event that the grievance
succeeded they were unable to agree as to the retroactivity date
that should apply, and evidence and argument was presented with
respect to this issue.
Counsel for the Union relied upon Hillman, 2007/89 (Kaplan).
In that case, counsel for the union (at p.3) acknowledged "that the
usual procedure in.classification cases is to limit retroactivity
to 20 days prior to the filing of the grievances."
The Board, in Hil~man,, at p..ll, referred to Smith, 237/81
(Roberts), where the Board said, at p.6: "The usual rule is that,
barring 'the existence of circumstances which would make it
inequitable for the Ministry to rely upon it, retroactivity will be
limited to the period of time in which it was permissable for the
grievor to file his grievance."
ln~ o~, 675/~5 {Brandt), at p. 15, the Board discussed the
policy considerations that come into play when deciding whether to
apply the 20 day rule, and referred to the:
... line of cases which have limited compensation to a
period of 20 days prior to the date of the grievance.
Those cases reflect the view that where there is a
continuing course of conduct which can be the subject of
a grievance at any time, i.e. a continuing grievance,
"grievors" who postpone their decision to grieve and seek
relief should not be able to claim compensation
retroactively to a point in tim~ when they could have but
did not grieve. There are sound policy reasons which
support that. approach. If there are disputes or
differences between the parties they should be aired and
not permitted to simmer.
Yet there is a competing policy which comes into
play in this case. That is the policy in favour of
settling disputes short of invoking the grievance
procedure and having recourse to the Grievance Settlement
Board. A rigid application of the "20 day rule" would
discourage employees from attempting through less formal
means to settle their dispute. It would be far more
desirable to grieve and "lock in" a fixed date which
would become the basis for determining compensation in
the event of success.
The Board went on to say at pp.15-16:
In the instant case the employees began to have some
concerns in early 1985 about their classification. They
had known since July 1984 that they were responsible for
all of the functions although not all of them had been
trained at that time, By the end of 1984 training had
virtually, been completed on all of the functions. In
early 1985 attempts were made to have the position
reclassified by rewriting the position specification in
a way which would more accurately reflect the job as it
changed and submitting it to Personnel for
classification. Those efforts were unsuccessful but they
should be applauded. Classification officers are far
more competent than we are to classify jobs and to the
extent that classification disputes can be resolved by
those most competent to do so the parties should not be
discouraged from seeking relief through such informal
means.
Thus, we do not believe it appropriate to apply t'he
20 day rule where informal efforts have been made to
achieve a settlement of a dispute short of recourse to
arbitration. Those efforts should be encouraged and, in
the event that they are not successful in achieving
settlement and it becomes necessary to grieve, such
relief as might be awarded by the Grievance Settlement
Board should be retroactive to the point where steps were
first taken to settle the grievance informally.
34
Counsel for the Union also relied on the four-fold test set
out in Marshall, 1797/89 etc. (Keller), at pp.ll-12:
It is usual that retroactivit¥ be awarded only 20 days
prior to the filing of a grievance. However, in
exceptional circumstances that limit may be extended.
The issue has been discussed, in among other
discussions, Boyle 675/85; Robbs. et al 462/86;
Smith 237/81; Corman 13/82; Kelinky et al 1098/86;
Baldwin 539/84; Hooper 47/77; Robbs and Allen
4'62/86; Gam 1209/85; ~ 777/86.
In order for those circumstances to apply the following
tests must be met:
1) The g~ievors must have, at some time prior to
their formal grievance raised the issue with a
responsible member of management;
2) There must be at least a tacit understanding
that the purpose of raising the issue is to avoid the
~eed for a formal grievance;
'3) 'A management representative must have become
actively involved in the-employee's claim;
4) There must be continued understanding by the
employee that the matter is still being pursued and has
not been irrevocably denied.
Exhibit 19(a) is a letter from Mr. Clemens, dated April 21,
1987 to Bill Jarrell, the then Technical Services Supervisor in the
London District Office in the Ministry, in which he took the
position that he was called upon to perform certain listed
functions which he regarded as not being within his then job
classification as Designer 1.
Exhibit 19(b) is a memorandum to all three Grievors dated
October 2, 1987 from Mr. Jarrell, on the subject: "Position
35
Specification, Contract Technician, London District" which
provides:
This is to say that Eric Morris [Projects Manager] will
meet with the Contract Technicians, London District, and
myself on Wednesday October 7, 1987 at 8:30 a.m. to
discuss the above position specification in relation to
the work duties.
Exhibit 19(c~ is a memorandum dated October 22, 1987 to Eric
Morris from the Grievors entitled "Re job specification -
classification revision", which was written after the October 7,
1987 meeting, which states:
In reviewing our duties against those of the position
class standard (~12240 Designer 1), we feel that although
we perform many of the functions of this position, our
major functions fall into the class standards ~60102
Specification Officer 2, #60104 Specification Officer 3
with some duties not categorized in any class standard of
which we ~re aware.
Since these duties have been performed by this
position for a time period in excess of two years, we
therefore are requesting a full review of our job
specifications and position classification to accurately
categorize the position.
Your attention to this matter would be appreciated.
There was attached to the memorandum (Exhibit 19(c) :
general statement in detail description of [the Grievors'] current
position duties .... "
Exhibit 19(d) is a memorandum to the Grievors from Mr. Jarrell
indicating that he delivered Exhibit 19(c) to Mr. Morris on October
26, 1987, with the indication that: "Mr. Morris will review the
document; -further discussions will take place as required."
36
Exhibit 19(g) is a memorandum dated January 26, 1988 from J.K.
Cook of the Property Management Division to Ed Malloy - Personnel
~Administrator "Re position specification - contract technician"
which states:
The attached Position Specification is submitted for
classification. It is being written to more accurately
reflect the duties and related tasks of the position.
Exhibit 19(h) is a memorandum, date-stamped May 17, 1988, in
which certain concerns of the Grievors are set out for
consideration by Mr. Morris relating to the contents of the
position specification. This memorandum bears the handwritten
first name of Allan Lambert - Personnel Administrator, Human
Resources Services Branch of the Ministry.
Exhibit 19(i) is a memorandum to Mr. Lambert from Mr. Morris
which indicates that there was enclosed with it an updated position
specification in accordance with Mr. Lambert's comments of May 17,
1988.
Exhibit 19(j) is an excerpt from Mr. Clemens' diary indicating
.that he had spoken to Mr. Morris on August 4, 1988 asking for
information about: "classification."
The diary also contains the further comment: "Returned with
copy noting typo's and grammar areas - we read and returned for
typing them to T.O."
37
Exhibit 19(k) is a further extract from Mr. Clemens' .diary in
which he notes, on October 19, 1988: "Eric informed us re
class[ification] is approved - information to follow couple of
days."
Exhibit 19(1) is an extract from Mr. Clemens' diary dated
November 29, 19B8: "Ask Eric about J~b Spec; informed that they are
coming but he would call again."
Exhibit 19(m) is a memorandum dated January 17, 1989 from Mr.
Morris to the Grievors re "Position Specification - Designer 1" in
which Mr. Morris stated:
I have arranged a meeting for Wednesday January 25, 1989
at 10:00 a.m. with A1 Lambert, Human Resources Branch, to
review the' noted position' spec. Please schedule your
time so that you can attend.
Exhibit 19{n) is an extract from Mr. Clemens' diary of January
25, 1989, indicating that a meeting had taken place with Messrs.
Lambert and Morris to discuss the job specification and the
classification of the Grievors.
Exhibit 19(o) is a letter dated March 15, 1989, from Mr.
Gammage to Bob Gibson, Personnel Administration Section, indicating
that it was being written: "... to express my dissatisfaction that
my fellow workers and I have with the Personnel Administration
Section."
38
On the second page of the said letter, Mr. Gammage states:
"Our reclassification struggle has met one delay after another from
Alan Lambert .... We tried to get reclassified without having to
grieve, a costly and timely procedure, but one Mr. Lambert's
delaying tactics may force us to take."
Exhibit 19(o) also contains a letter to Mr. Gibson from Mr.
Davis, dated March 16, 1989 expressing similar concerns to those
expressed by Mr. Gammage.
Exhibit 19(o) also Contains a letter from Mr. Clemens to Mr.
Gibson, similarly expressing his dissatisfaction, recounting the
history of the matter from October 22, 1987.
Exhibit 19(p) is a letter dated March 28, 1989 to Mr. Clemens
from Mr. Gibson acknowledging receipt of the last noted letter
relating to Mr. Clemens' "attempts to have the classification of
the position of Contract Technician reviewed."
Mr. Gibson's letter also states:
While I understand that the description of the
position duties has been finalized, there is continuing
discussion regarding the classification of this position,
and others similar to it, in the Property Management
Division.
In closing, I would like to assure you that we would
also like to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
I appreciate your efforts to resolve this issue directly
with your management and the Personnel Administration
Section.
Employing the rules set out in the Marshal~ case concerning
when the 20 day rule would not be applied:
1. We would find that the Grievors had raised the issue with a
responsible member of management by October 2, 1987. The
exact date cannot be ascertained. The letter of April 29,
1987 to Mr. Jarrell cannot be regarded as the raising of the
issue with a responsible, member of management. Mr. Jarrell
passed on the matter for consideration by Mr. Morris, who was
a responsible member of management, some time between April
21, 1987 and October 2, 1987.
2. It is clear from a number of the documents filed as Exhibit 19
that there was "at least a tacit understanding that the
purpose of raising the issue [was] to avoid the need for a
formal grievance."
3. It is also clear that Mr. Morris was actively involved in the
claims of the Grievors.
4. The understanding that we gather from reading the several
parts of Exhibit 19 is that there was a continuing
understanding by the Grievors that the matter was "still being
pursued and [had] not been irrevocably denied."
40
As in the Boyle case, we h~ve no precise evidence before us as
to exactly when a responsible member of management, in this case
Mr. Morris, became aware of the position of the Grievors.
Accordingly, we can do no more than issue our award in terms
similar to that contained in Boyle. Tha~ is, the Employer is
ordered to compensate the Grievors in respect of the difference
between their rates as Designer l's and Designer 2 respectively and
the rates they would be entitled to as Specification Officer 2's
and Specification Officer 3 respectively from a period between
April ~21, 1987 and October 7, 1987. In the event that the parties
cannot reach agreement on precisely when a responsible member of
management received notification of the Grievors intention to
obtain reclassification, the Board can reconvene to resolve the
matter.
The Board does not regard this as being an appropriate case
for the awarding of interest as requested on behalf of the
Grievors.
The Board remains seized of jurisdiction in respect of any
problems which may arise out of the implementation of this award.
41
Dated at Toronto this 16t~ day of September, 1992.
M, Gorsky - Vice Chairperson
.. Carruthers - Member
A. Merritt - Member
APPENDIX "A"
/~'7 60100
SPECIFICATION OFFICER 1
~ This is an entry or junior working level, covering positions
where the employees p£epa£e'architectural and engineering specifications
for :endering purposes.~ Employees in positions in this class produce
specifications for moderately complex, small to medium sized projects
and assist in the production of large and complex projects under more
direct guidance by senior officers.~They also assist more senior
Specification.Officers in monitoring the work of associate architec~
and engineers'+in providing info~-mation systems to facilitate the
prcductio~ of specifications by others and in reseurch studi~s. They
perfo:~ related du:ies as required.
·
Q~' .A good knowledge~of architecture, engiheering, m~terial costs
and general es~ima~ing.~Good kn~ledge of construe:ion law and a
sound knowledge of tendering a~ specifica~ioas.
't") 'Ability ~o analyze con~ract $y$¢ems and documents, pre,pare
and c~-ordina'~e specificati~ns;,~co~unicate and co-o~rate with
,professional and technical staff.
APPENDIX "A"
6O102
SPECIFICATION OFFICER 2
!]"~ This is the full working level, covering positions of employees
who perform all the functions of the Specifica=ion Officer 1 level,
~.i exceD= that ~h~ protects involved are oredominantly large and complex.
kT.>They receive technical directiom and guidance from supe_~ising officers
~C</~nd may provide advice and guidance to junior officers.
SKIiJ, S AND ~OWLEDG~:
A good knowledge of architecture, engineering, ma=erial co$=$
and general estimating. Good knowledge of ¢ons=ruc=ion law .and a
sound knowledge of tendering and specification.
Ability ~o analyze con~rac~ systems and documents, prepare
and c~-ordina=e specifications; communicate and oo-opera=e wi=h
professional and =echnical s~aff.
60 104
- CLASS STANDARD:
SPE('IF.~CATION OFFICER
~.~ Characteristics of positions in this class is the provision of
technical supbrvision to less senior Specification Officers, in the
writing of specifications, monitoring the work of a~¢hitects and
--.engineers and in research projects which may be policy oriented,
materials and sys;ems or statistical in nature. They also provide
instruction and training for lower level officers and check their work.
~ In addition, :hose employees may produce specifications for
.~he largest and most complex projec:s, including the hiring and
'supervision of professional consultants in s~e¢ialized areas.
~ The very ha;ute of positions qualifying for ~his class limits
the number of positions/incumbents. These employees, work w~th
considerable independence.
I~/~KILL$ AND KNOWLE~'E: - -
A good knowledge of architecture, engineering, material costs
~nd genera] estimating. Good k,owle~ge of construction law and a
sound knowledge of ~endering and specifications.
Ability to analyze contract systems and documents, prepare
and co-ordinate specifications; dire?~sup~ort staff; com-.~unicate
and co-operate with professional and technical staff.
October ~ , !q74
APPENDIX "B"
Position Specification & Class Ailocation-CSC 6150
(Refer Io back of form Ior c0mpledon instruclionsl
Date ¢eceived Previous serial number New se.al ~umDer
)R{~[iO For CSt
use only
;-~,','~,,: Contras: Technician[ 18-4~-61 ' Designer I 12240
4mi~lry Division
Covernmen~ SeFv~ceB t'~ope~C7 Hana~ement
:~anch and Seclion ~Locadon 900 Highbury Avenue
Sou~hGestern Region/London District Lgj~~rio I 41501 __
10, ot alaces P~ovldes g, oup leadership to: ~m~ia{e Supervisor't lille Su~ervi~r's position code
No. ol pos~tion~ I No. Of
3 Technical Services Supervisor t8-4610-60
L Pu~ose of position (why ~oes Ihil flotition
To perform architectural/engineering design, prepare specifications, dra~ings and concrac:
documents and to. provide :echnical in~orma:ien for construction, repair, alee:orion,
renovation, health and safety, opera,ion and maincenmtce proJecEs involving Governmen:
o~ned and leased buiZdinSs i~ the
',. Duties and relat~ tasks Iwha~ i~ emoloyee reaulr~ to do. how and ~hy~ Indicate ~e~¢enta~ o~ time s~nt on each duw)
:~]der g~oup ~ea~e~shlp of the Technical Services Supervisor:
.0 Perform design and rela~ed ~uties (architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical,
si~e engineering) re~ired for minor capital, repairs, alterations, leasehold ~provement
projects by:
~- consulting with client Hinistry an~ Construction Inspector on project requirements;
~ - ensuring space re~ired complies with civil service ~licy and procedures;
4 -'visiting sites ~o ~ete~ine site conditions, design criteria on complex projects; when
~equi:e~;
~- selecting appropriate building types, construction methods, design,, materials and
construction details to meet client requirements and to comply with building, fi=e,
safe~y, and health codes (through consultation with design projessionals, supervisor,
70% con:=ec: inspectors; when re,ired);
~- ~riti~g final contract doc~ents (specifications) usin~ app=opria:e specification
fo:ma:;
~- briefing drafting personnel on technical drawing retirements ensuring
co-or~ination between specification ann Stowings, ch~ing and verifying completed
drawing work;
- parroting drafting duties as required;
~ ~ dete~inJng professional design ~s required and ~f so co-ocdin~ting preparation of
specifications and drawings complying with design professional's.¢e~irements=
~- checking (verifying, presentation, design concept, technical accuracy and detallfn~)
90[-100~ design drawings ~n~ speci~icattons and provide co~ents and ~nput ua required,
whe~ p~epared by D.S.B. or private sector consultants;
.... OVER
:. Skilh and knowledge requtred to perform ;' ' st full working level. HndiC;lte ,,,a,~daIor¥ creden ~ ~r licencet if aOp~icab~el .............
'borough knowledge of and demo ~rated experience in architectu 'L. structural, mechanical,
:l,ectrical design, specifications and contract t. aw, usualiy gained through studies in
~rchitectural technology or certification as ~,~ATO, or related field with several ,fears re[at~d
~xperience. Thorough knowledge of construction met:hods, materials, biddi:ig and...OVER
T~~me and tiHe
'ype SuPervisO~'s
L Class allo~tion Cla~ tlt~e Cta~s cude Occupational ~roup number E tlective da~e
Day Month Year
D~G~R i 122h0 ~3 ~ ~ lO 8~' .'
have classilicd this posilion in ~Co~da~e wil~ Ihe Civil SIrvi¢e Commission Cl,~stiHcalion Slandards [or the [ollowino r~tso~: ~ '
'. Under group leadership of the technical servlce~ supervisor, position perfor~ architectural
desl~ work and prates drawings and spectficmtion~ for construction, repair, alteration,
and renovation projects.
Position provides fnfor~tion In the form of esttmtes regarding construction design,
to clients ministry and ~ntstry personnel..
Position chec~ drawings (e.g. 90% - 100S design drawings and complex shop drawings;,
verifies, and advises on ~uttability.
~ ~'~~~' ~ p'9 ~ne Corbel, Sr. H~n Resources Consultant
Instru%tlons for completing form CSC-6150 '
Use l~his I'orm as indicated below tot all posilions excepl Ihose covered'by tile Executive Compensalion Plan, Managemenl Compensation Plan or Office
AdmJnislralion GiOUp.
Classllfed Full and Part-time positions: Form lo be completed in ils entirely oxrepl fo~ Ihe Functional Code box ~n Sect~n 1.
Unclassified Seasonal Positions (Group 3): Complele Sections t and S excepl for lhe Functional Code box in Seclion t. and the evalua.
ripe rationale in Sectio~ 6.
AIl other positions: Complelior~ el this Iorm lo lull o~ as set out at3ova lot UnclassMied Seasonal Positions, is optional.
Instructions tot coding Position identifier Instructions for coding Seasonal Work Period
Code
(as applicable) Coda 1 2 3 4
Ctassilied Pos,'tions Seasons Wlnier Spring Summer Fall
Part-lime 2 and their Dec. Mar. June Sap.
consecutive Jan, Apr, Jul. Ocl.
Unclassified Positions or(Jet FeD. May Aug NOV.
G~oup 3
a) Seasonal work period 8 consecutive
wee~s or more but less lhan 4 months 3 Build cope as Iollows:
D) Seasonal work period 4 conseculive · Single season, i.e., Spring Examples
months or more but less lha~l 12 monlttl 4 _
$, Indicate seasoh. ~N,*tel : 5t~mrne, ; : Co,lc
Grou~ 2 5
2. Insert applic, code
GrOUp1
6
Olhet C~'own ?
· * Multiple seasons, ko. Summe~. Fall. Winter
instructions 10~ coding Sch. Mrs. Work
2, Insert code et slart
· Complele this box lot R.P.T, Positions only. season in tell hafld box. w,n~., L=l Summa,, I;,I Co, es
' Include portions el hours 1o 2 decimal places. 3, Follow wilh codes el
/
I
NOTE: The average Ot the aclual hours worked (less overtime)over4 subsequenl consecutive
consecutive weeks by R.P.T. eml~loyees assigned lo a pos[~io~ seasor~s.
must coincide wilh Ihe Scheduled Hours PI Wo~k idanlilied
Ihal posdion Any change Io Ihe Scheduled Hours PI Work will
require the establishment and documenlation of a separate NO'rE: Multiple seasons must be consecu~,vo Io qualdy as one posil,on
position
UT!ES AND RELATED TASKS cont'd
~/- briefing and assisting private sector consultants (architectural-e~gi~eerir~g
specialists) regarding regulation, design requirements, ministry policies on building
design, drawings and specifications;
~ - completing non-technical portion of contract documents;
.~ - assisting construction inspectors to resolve disputes during construction
material use, intent of drawings and specifications);
,~, - answering questions and queries of contractors, client Ministry and constructiun
inspectors during tender period;
· '~ - conducting site visits during tender period (when required);
~ - providing interpretations regarding contracts to office personnel, dealing with
contract tender ~roblems, disputes;
~' - providing construction, design and related information to client Ministry and Ministry
personnel as instructed by Supervisor; i.e. feasibility studies, estimates, design
proposals, negotiate with building officials and assist in resolving disputes, life
safety studies, material and construction ~nformation;
5- checking complex shop drawings and analyze requests for substitutions when assigned,
verifying and advising on suitability.
Prepare contract documents for preventative maintenance, janitorial, security, ground
maintenance, 'landscaping, fire protection, power generation, food service, door control
contracts by:
~- determining requirements via consultation with 8uitding Managers and Ministry
20% representative and writing final specifications (contract documents) ensuring accuracy
and compatibility with.: Master specifications, applicable requirements, relevant
building, health and safety codes and laws/
.0 Performs routine duties as follows:
~'~- Maintaining files r~lated to design specifications and drawings and reference librar¥~
10%~_ Duplicating specifications and drawings.
.£ - Meeting with trade and manufacturers' representatives.
KILLS AND KNOWLEDGE - cont'd:
ndustry practices, building science, codes, standards, research. Good oral and written
ommunication skills to interact with clients, contractors, technical specialists.
APP.~X "C"
~ . Position Spec~ lion & Class AIIocatlon-CSC ~150
(Refer Io ba~4' of form for completion instructions)
Dale received P~eviou~ serial number New serial numbe~
)ntario For CSC
u~e only
P~irion lisle ]Po~ition Co<fo ~Pos~[ion Ide~m~ier
Technical Services Supervisor ~ ~.A~2o.b~ j
Position til~e ' }Polit{o~ ~de Clns~ title end code
uoer,ede,: Tec~ical' Set.cea Su~visor 18-h620-6~ ..... ~_~~ 2 122h2
i~i~trv O~vts~nn /
Governmen~ Services R~A~ ~ouP/Proper~y ~anagemen~
London D'istric~ 90~ ~~Rw ~ ~ ~m~o~ t
o. Ot pieces Provides group leoaership to~ Imm~iete Su~ervilor's title Supe~itor:t peril[on co~e
NO. el posilJOnl [ No. OI
Purpose of position (why does this pOI[lion
re arFange and/or supervise the prepa~'~ons of contract documents, including architectural/
mgJneerfng design, spec~fJc~[~ons and d~awJngs, by the District Off,ce, Design Services
~ranch or Private Consultant [o facJ]iLa~e construction, alteration, ~enova~ion,
~pe~a~on ~nd maintenance of government owned and leased buildings in ~he D~s~c[.
Duties an~ relat~ taskl [wh~ }s emDInyee requi~ed t~do, hOw lnd whv~ I~di~ar~ gercen~a~ el time spent on erich duty)
~nde~ genera~ dfrec~Yon of ~he Projects Nonages:
t.O Direct the d~velopment of contract documents including architectural/engineering drawings,
and specifications required for minor capital, repairs, alterations, leasehold improvement
projects by:
.,,- supervising and coordinating the contract technicians, drafter on specification and
drawing requirements ensuring coordination between specification and drawings, checking
and verifying completed work;
.~ - ensuring consultation wi~h Client Ministry and Construction Inspector on project
requirements;
- ensuring space required complies with civil service policy and procedures;
~ - arranging site visit~ to dateline site conditton~, design criteria on complex projects,
when required;
.~ ' ensuring selection of appr~riate building types, construction methods, design, materials
~0% and construction details to meet client requirements and to comply with building, fire,
safety, and health codes (through consultation with design professionals, supervisor,
contract inspectors; when required);
~- ensuring final contract documents {specifications) use appropriate specification format;
~- determining professional design is required and if so coordinating preparation of
specifications and drawings complying with design professional's requirements;
~- checking (verifying, presentation, design concept, technical accuracy and detailing)
90-100% design drawings and specifications and provide comments and input aS required;
when prepared by D.S.B. or private sector consultants;
~/. - briefing and assisting private sector consultants (architectural - engineering s~ecialists)
regarding regulation, design requirements, ministry policies on building design, drawings
and specifications; OVER .....
'horough knowledge of and demon '~t~"experience"in arc'hitecttmr structural, mechanical,
~l.ectrical design, specification~ and contract law, usually gaineu through studies in
trchjtectural technology or certification as MAATO, or related field with several years related
:xperience. Thorough knowledge of construction__ methods, materials, bidding and ....
Minirt~y Olliciml% .~ ~
allocation Cla~ title ~tass coho Occupa6on~l ~fo~p ~ulnber Efl~ive cate
Day Month Year
Desl~er 2 122~ [ ~ 03 O1
classilied lhis DOshion i~ accot~a-ce w~h the Civil Sorvlce Comm}ssion Classificetion ~.dm d~ ~or the f~tlow~g ~eason:
Posi%[on is ~es~ns[ble fo~ su~rwis~n~ and coordin~t[n[ the pFe~r~tton/p~oduc~on of
des~, dr~in~, s~ciflcs%[ons and cos~ es%~tes fo~ m[no~ c~p~tal, reich,s, ~lter~tlons,
~nd l~eho~ l~ovemen~ p~o~ects.
Pos~t~on is res~ns~ble fo~ the su~rvision of contract tec~ici~ns and
Position is res~ble for checkin~ ~ad ~e~n~ comDleted work of tec~lci~, we~ ~ desl~ of Desl~ Services ~sneh o~ pr[~%e sec%Or
Use this form as indicated bslOw for ali positions except those covefe~ by the Executive Compensation Plan, Management Compensation Plan or 0
Administration Group.
Classified Full and Part-time positions: Form to be completed in ils entirely except for the Functional Code box in Section
Unclassified SeBsonal Positions (Group 3): Complete Sections t and 6 except lot ~he Functional Cocle box in Section 1, and the eye,ua.
tio~ ~stionale in SectiOn 6.
I
All other positions: Completion Of lhis tote in full or as set out above for Unclassified Seasonal Posilions. is optional
_. I
Instructions tot coding Position Identifier Instructions ~or codmg Seasonal Work Period
Cods =' -
(as applicable~ Coda 1 "2 3 4
C!assilied Positions Seasons Winter ~ptlng Summer Fall
Full-time I
Pert.lime 2 and theft Dec. Mar. June SoO.
consecutive Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. i
Unclassified Positions order. Feb. May Aug. Nov.
Group 3 '
a) Seasonal work period 8 consecutive
weeks or more but less Ihan 4 months 3 Build code as follows:
b) Seasonal work period 4 co,secutive * Single season, I.e,, Spring Examples
monlhs or more bul less than 12 months 4
1. indicate seasom w,,~ f ] s~,.~,,~, i;
Group 2 5
2. Insert applic, code
Olher Crown 7
· Multiple seasons, i.e., Summer, Fall. Winter
tnslructions for coding Sch. Hrs. Work t. Indicate seasons.
· Complete Ibis box for R.P.T. Posilions only. 2. Insert code of star!
season in left hand box. wi~ Iii S~mm~ ~*l Co~
· Include portions of hOurS to 2 decimal places. 3 Follow wdh codes of
NOTE'. The ,verageoltb. eacluathoufsworked(tessov,,t,me) ove, 4 subsequen, consecutive So,mg[.'~ ~. ..... ~t' l' L
consecutive weeks by R,P.T. employees asstgned to a Dosilion seasons. --
must comcicle w~th the Scheduled Hours Of Work identified for
I. hal position. Any change to the Scheduled Hours el Work will
require the establishment and dOCurnemation of a separale NOTE: Mulliple seasons must he consecutive re quality a~ one posi.hor;
posihon.
DUTIES AND RELATEO TASKS cont'd
]obtaining building, labour, transport permits relating to building construction;
assisting construction section to resolve disputes during construction (i.e., material
use, intent of drawings and specifications);
~- obtaining answers to questions and queries of contractors,'Client Ministry and
construction inspectors during tender period;
~-~ - arranging for staff to conduct site visits during tender period (when required);
~ - providing interpretations regarding contracts to office personne!, dealing with
contract tender problems, disputes;
~. - providing construction, designland related information to Client Ministry and
Ministry personnel as instructed by Supervisor; i.e. feasibility studies, estimates,
design proposals, negotiate with building officials and assist in resolving disputes,
tifelsafety studies, material and construction information;
f - checking and assigning checking of complex shop drawings and analyze requests for
substitutions verifying and advising on suitabi~tity;
~- processing change notices and change orders and expediting same to ensure prompt
settlement;
~ scheduling of work to ¢omp)y with~program timing.
2.0 Direct the development of contract documents for operation and maintena~)ce contracts, such
as preventative maintenance, janitorial, security, grounds maintenance, )landscaping, power
, generation, food servicing, door controls, by:
~- supervising and coordinating the technicians and drafter{s) on specification and drawing
30~ requirements, ensuring coordination between specification and drawing, checking and
verifying Completed work;
.~- ensuring requirements are determined via consultation wi'th Building Managers and Ministry
representative and checking final specifications (contract documents) ensuring accuracy
and compatibility with: 'Master specificationS, applicable requirements, relevant
building, health.and safety codes aqd laws.
3.0 Performs other duties as follows:
~- alIocating and checking work of subordinate staff and providing advice and guidance
20% in the solving of more complex problems;
~ - dealing with personnel matters such as maintaining discipline, recommending merit
increases, granting time off,' etc.;
- meeting with trade and manufacturers' representatives;
maintaining log of technical submissions to office.
SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE cont'd
industry'practices, building science, codes, standards, research. Good ora) and written
communication skills to interact with clients, contractors, technical specialists. Ab'~Ztt¥ to
_. APPENDIX
DESIGN'ER 1
C. LA~$ DEFINITION:
This class covers the positions of employees perfor~ng archi~e'czura!
p~eli~na~.desi~ o~ s=~c~ral, sanita~, 'mech~ical or e!ec=rical engineering
design wor~under close supe~ision.~?As members of tec~ical s~aff assigned
const~c:ion and ~in~enance pro~ects, ~ese employees produce desi~s ~d prepare
dra~ings ~d draft specification~ rein=ire to their speciali~ wi=hin clearly
defined li~s.CyThey ~Y, on occasion, SUDe~is~ ~raftsmen ~d ar~.required
~o ~ain of fee:ire work~g relationships with'o~ers on projects.d Supe~ision
is e~rcised on =hose positions by desi~er~ of higher level or by other senior
profes=ional s=aff who give ~idance on =ec~ical problems ~d review desi~
assi~en~s ~ progress and on completion.
CH.~ACTERISTIC PUTTS:
~ As ~ architectural fl,~cuer, prepare preli~na~ design sketches and plans to
il!u~trate ~lian= r~quiremen~s in a specified
"'As a saniua~ engineer~g desirer, pr~x~__d~ags, det~i~p~s ~d specific.a:i~ns
~ as assigned f~r con~t~c=ion prajec:s; check ~d approve zhop dra~ng~ prepared
e~he.r~; es:~=e quan:iti~.S amd cos:~ .el ~ri~l'~' required; ~y
supe~ise sani~a~-%~-gineering phases of cons:~c~ion or ~inten~ce
~e field.
-., ./ As a mechanical eng~eering 'desirer, prepare 4raw~zs ~d draft specifications
., ~.. as assi~ed; check ~d approve shop ~a~ngs prepared by o:hers,
~ qu~=i=ies ~d cos:s of ~eri~s required; ~y occasionally supe~ise the
mech~icai :rades aspect of cons=~c=ion and ~in=en~ce pro~ec:s ~ =he field.
,~ As ~ elec:r!cal engineering desirer, prepare ~ra~n~ ~ ~r~f:
as assi~ed; check ~d approve shop ~a~ngs prepaid ~ others;
qu~=i=ies aud ~o~ ~ ~a~erial~ -equired; ~y occasionally supe~ise
hlec=r~cal ohases ~f ccns=~c=ion and ~intenance projects in the field.
As a s=r~craral engineer~g desire'r, prepare ~a~ings, detai~ngs ~d
specifications as assi~ed for cons=~ction or ~intenance projec:~; check
and approve shop drawings prepared ~ o~hers; esti~e qu~:i~ies and costs
of ~erials required; ~y occasionally supe~ise st~c~ura1 phases of
const~ction ~d ~ain~en~ce projects in the field.
QUALIFICAT~ONE:
1. G~ade 12, p~ferably graduation from a ~echnical school i. =he appropriate
~peciality or an equivalent combination of education and e~erience;
knowledge of subject speciali~ as i~ relates to the architectural, s~ita~,
electrical or mechanical desi~ aspecbs of ~ilding cons~c:ion
~inte.a.c= amd ability ~o apply in .the work sination.
A ~ni~ of two vea~s as Draftswan 3
.' 2. Nine years' progressively ~sponsib!e d~afting a~'i desiring e~erience in
the appropriate field.
_ ~. Evidence of abili~* to car~ difficult propagator, construction and ~intenance
problems ~o compietiom; abili~, to work c~operatively ~ith te=hnical staff;
abili~' :o exercise sound jud~e.~; ~ersonaI suitabili~..
L2242
DES IGNt~I( 2
('. . CLASS DEFINITION:
['- ~i. This class covers the positions of employees perfor~ning responsible archi-
'" tectural preliminary desitin work or st~ctur~l, sanita~~, mechanlcai or electrical
_ engineering design wo~ under ~eneral $upe~ision.'~?~As members of ~echnical staff
assigned to const~ction and ~intenance projects, these employees are responsible
for the production of complete desi~s in their area of speciali:a~ion~ inclu~ng
drawings, draft specifications ~d esti~tes of costs.' These employees ~y super-
'- vise designers, draftsmen or technicians and are e~ec~ed to develop and ~intain
effective workin~ relationships ~th others on the projectJ'~ Supervision is
exercised on these positions by a divisional supe~sor or other p~ofessional
staff ~o provides professional ~idance ~d co-ordinates various phases of the
design ~ctivity and check~ the completed work for tectmical competence.
CH~AC~RISTIC PUTTS:
As ~ architectural designer, prepare preli~na~ sketches .of a complete project
~o satisfy the needs of a departmental client.
As a sanita~ engineering de.sider, prepare drawings and draft specifications
for the complete sanita~ engineering projects; esti~te quantities of ~terials
. required ~nd approxi~te costs; ~y occasionally supe~se the sanita~ eng~eering
_ design aspects of cons:~c~ion ~d ~intenance projects ~ the field.
As a mechanical engineering desirer, prepa~ drawings ~d draft specifications
fo~ ~he college mechanical engineering project.' Esti~te quantities of ~teriats
required ~d appro~mte costs; ~y occasionally supe~ise the mechanical engineering
aspects of cons~cti~n an~ ~in~enance projects in the field.
As an electrical ~ngineering desirer, prepare 4ra~mgS ~nd dr~ft specifications
for the entire new or ~in:enance projects; esti~te quantities of ~terials
required and appro~m~e costs; ~y occasionally ~pe~ise the electrical aspects
of cons~ction and ~incenance projects in ~he field.
As a st~c~ral.en~ineering desirer., personally desi~ st~ctural aspects of
complete const~c:ion projects and prepare dra~ngs and plans; check and approve
shop drawings p~pared ~ others; esti~te qu~tities'amd costs of ~terials
required; ~y occasionally supe~ise st~c~ral phases of const~ction and
~i,tenance ~rojec~s in the field.
QU ALIFI CATI ON.~:
i. Grade 12, preferably graduation from a technical school in the appropriate
subject speciality or an equivalent combination of education and experience;
good knowledge of subject speciality as it ~elates to the architectural,
sanita~, electrical oF mechanical design a~pects of const~ction and
maintenance.
2. Thre~ years as Designer 1.
OR
2. A ~ni~m of twelve }'ears' pro~res%ive!y responsible draftinc an~ de~i~
experience in the speciality indicated.
3.Demonstrated ability to car~ difficult comst~c~ion and ~intenance desi~
problems to completion; initiative in organi:ing work programs .~d ability
to work co-operatively with technical staff; abil'ity to exercise sound judgmemt.
December ~ 1~6.3.