HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0046.Kuramoto.90-09-10
.-,\
J
I "
'~ ONTARIO EMPLOYÉS DE LA COURONNE
I ' CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
~
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 21(10, TORONTO. ONTARIO. M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE ITÉLÉPHONE: (4161 326- ¡ 388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G IZ6 FACS/MILEITÉLECOPIE ; (416) 325-1396
0046/90
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
.-
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Kuramoto)
.
Grievor
- and -
. . The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of Natural Resources)
Employer
- and -
w. Kaplan Vice-Chairperson
M. Lyons Member
M. O'Toole Member
FOR THE I. Roland
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE I. Werker
I EMPLOYER Fraser & Beatty
I Barristers & Solicitors
Ministry of Revenue
HEARING: August 1 f 1990
I
~
. i
2
AWARD
This is a relatively straight-forward case. By a grievance dated
December 20, 1989, Judy Kuramoto seeks an order directing the
employer to create a new classification for her position with the
Ministry of Natural Resources, otherwise known as a Carol Berry
Order.
At the time of the grievance, Ms. Kuramoto held the position of
Senior Toponymist in the Geographic Names Section, Surveys,
Mapping & Remote Sensing Branch in Toronto. Toponymy is the
study of place names of a region.
.
A position specification dated January 5, 1989 and effective
January 1, 1989 is attached as Appendix UAU to this decision.
.. Approximat,ely two months after Ms. Kuramoto filed her a grievance
- '
a revised position specification, dated - February 12, 1990 and
effective November 1, 1989, was prepared and given to the
grievor. A copy of this position specification can be found in
Appendix nsn to these reasons for decision. The major difference
between the first and second position specifications is that the
position title has been changed to Carto-Toponymist, and the
specification now applies to both the grievor as well as to the
Assistant Toponymist. Both the grievor and her assistant are
classified as Historical Research Officer 2, (Atypical) . The
parties agreed that these position specifications accurately
describe the grievor's duties and responsibilities.
I
·
~ì
I " .
--...
I \,
I 3
The Class Standard for the Historical Research Officer 2 is as
follows:
Employees in positions allocated to this class are
fully trained and qualified Historical Research
Officers in the Hist.orical Branch of the Archives of
ontario. They undertake research to verify the
authenticity of inscriptions to be placed on proviricial
plaques commemorating persons, places, events and
structures of historical importance throughout Ontario.
These inscriptions are presented for approval to the
Archaeological and Historic Sites Advisory Board of"
Ontario. They arrange ,for the unveiling ceremonies at
the sites approved by the Board by obtaining" local
sponsoring committees and advising them on such details
as official invitations, programmes of events, coverage
by local press, radio and T. V . outlets. In addition,
~hey compile historical pamphlets for use by tourists
and reply to enquiries from the general public on
matters related to the historical attractions of the
Province. They prepare draft texts of plaque
inscriptions and of press release's related to
historical information concerning the plaque site.
They may be required to correspond with professional
historians, librarians .and archivists in other
jurisdictions to obtain information not readily
available in Ontario.
QUALIFICATIONS:
l. 'Bachelor of Arts degree from a university of
recognized standing, preferably with a major in
History.
2. At least three years' experience as an Historical
Research Officer 1 or the equivalent experience in a
similar capacity.
3. Ability to present historical data in an accurate,
informative and interesting manner; facility in both
verbal and written communication; tact: good judgement;
initiative: personal suitability.
.
-
.
4
The Union Case
Ms. Kuramoto testified on her own behalf. She has been with the
Ministry of Natural Resources for approximately eleven years.
Ms. Kuramoto testified that she was not a "fully trained and
qualified Historical Research Officer.1t She did not work in Itthe
Historical Branch of the Archives of Ontario. It She did not
"undertáke research to verify the authenticity of inscriptions to
be placed on provincial plaques commemorating persons, places,
events and structures of historical importance throughout
ontario. It Ms. Kuramoto did not present inscriptions for
Itapproval to the Archaeological and Historic Sites Advisory Board
of ontario.1t She did not "Ilarrange for the unveiling ceremonies
at sites approved by the Board by o"btaining local sponsoring
committees and advising them on such details a~ official
invitations, programmes of events, coverage by local press, radio
and T.V. outlets.1t
Moreover, Ms. Kuramoto did not "compile historical pamphlets for
use by tourists and reply to enquiries from the general public on
matters related to the historical attractions of the Province."
She did not Itprepare draft texts of plaque inscriptions and of
press releases related to historical information concerning the
plaque site. It She did, however, from time to time "correspond
with professional historians, librarians and archivists," but not
for the purposes of anything related to historical plaques. When
/\
,
~
.
5
such correspondence took place it was for purposes related to
toponymy.
Ms. Kuramoto also testified that she did not have the
qualifications listed in the Class Standard. She did not have a
Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in History. She was, in
fact, in the process of completing her B.A. and she was. hired
because of her background in geography.
.'
In cross-examination, Ms. Kuramoto elaborated on her duties.
Basically, the grievor researched place names. This research was
communicated to the Ontario Geographic Names Board. The OGNB
.
. would then make recommendations to the Minister of National
Resources. Sometimes the recommendations would concern new
names, sometimes they would concern the authenticity of existing
names. Research was conducted through correspondence with local
residents, historians and others. Research also included place
name etymology, and the preparation and circulation of
questionnaires.
Very simply, it was the position of the union that Ms. -Kuramoto's
position was improperly classified in that there was no
. relationship between the class standard and her duties and
responsibilities as described 'in the two position specifications.
-
.
. .,.
.-
~
6
The Employer's Case
Mr. Joel Rives, the Supervisor of Personnel Services, testified
on behalf of the employer. He had classified the grievor's
position and in his evidence he explained why he had selected the
HRO 2 classification.
In his view, an analogy could be drawn between the Archaeological
and Historic sites Advisory Board and the ontario Geographic
Names Board. Mr. Rives testified thât the structure.of the two
boards was similar and that they occasionally had overlapping
membership. Moreover, there was an analogy to be drawn between
the work performed by the Historical Research Officers and the
-
Toponymist/Carto-Toponymist, namely that the former conducted
research into, plaques, and the latter conducted research into
place names. In both cases, the result of the research was
presented to a board for approval. In Mr. Rives's opinion, the
drafting of inscriptions for plaques was comparable to the
preparation of submi.ssions to the Ontario Geographic Namo=s Board.
Th~ correspondence function was further evidence of the parallel
between the two, as was the fact that the skill base anu
qualifications for both were similar.
In cross-examination Mr. Rives agreed that the grievor had
nothing to do with plaques. He also agreed that her work was not
completely historical, in the sense that she was also involved in
the research of new names, for example, Cardinal Carter Falls,
I~
"1
7
and that research could hardly be described as historical. In
other cases, the research had to do with usage, and sometimes
research i.nvolved examination of geographical features, such as,
for example, Long Lake. Mr. Rives confirmed that the grievor had
nothing to do with arranging for unveiling ceremonies and
compiling pamphlets.
Argument
Mr. Werker argued that just às an individual has the right to
grieve, the employer has the right to classify, and that includes
the creation of atypical classifications. Moreover, counsel
argued that the employer was, in this case, dealing with a small
group of employees performing analogous functions to those
described in the class standard and that, in these èircumstances,
an atypical classification was appropriate. It was the
. .
employer's position that the HRO 2 (Atypical) classification
represented the best fit for the grievor in light of her duties
and responsibilities.
Counsel submitted that the Divisional Court decision in OPSEU and
Berry and Ministrv of Community and Social Services (March 13,
1986) did not preclude the employer from continuing to atypically
classify. This issue has, of course, been considered by other
panels of this Board.
~
r
.
8
In Kuntz (85/89) Mr. Verity considered whether or not the
atypical designation survived the Berrv decision. Mr. Verity
found:
Simply stated, the judgment in Berry stands for the
proposition that where an employee is improperly
classified, the Board has the remedial authority and
indeed the obligation to order the employer to properly
classify that employee. (at 8-9)
Under s. 18 (1) (a) of the Crown Emplovees Collective
Barqaining Act the employer has been given the
exclusive right to determine the classification of
positions subject, of course, to the employee's right
under s. 18(2) of the Act to grieve that the position
has been improperly classified. The right to classify
gives to the employer the right to determine methods
employed in the classification system, including the
designation of an atypical allocation. S. 18(1) of the
Act also specifies that the Board has no authority to
classify positions. Accordingly, the Board's
. jurisdiction is with the results of" the employer's
classification system and not with the methods
. employed. At the present time, the atypical allocation
is an integral part of the employer's classification
system. In the result, the Board is obliged to
consider the merits of any atypical classification on a
case by case basis. (at 10)
Mr. Roland argued that the duties and responsibilities of the
grievor were clearly set out in the position specification. Ms. i
Kuramoto was not employed in the Historical Branch of the
Archives of ontario researching plaques¡ she was employed in the
Geographic Names Section, Surveys, Mapping and Remote sensing
Branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources researching place
names. With a single and unimportant exception, nothing in the
HRO 2 Class Standard applied to the grievor.
I~ ,
\ ' .
I "-,.
~
9
Mr. Roland recognized the right of the employer under section
18 (1) (a) of the Crown Emplovees Collective Barqaining Act to
determine the classification of positions. That was not in
dispute. What he contested, and what this grievance contested,
was the application of the HRO 2 classification to Ms. Kuramoto.
She had the right under section 18 (2) (a) of the Act to grieve
this classification, and Mr. Roland argued that the evidence
indicated that the grievor had in fact been incorrectly assigned
to this classification. ~
In Keluskv (1098/86) the Board held that an atypical
classification, must "not vary widely in its core features from
the archetype of the classification." (at 10) Other panels of,
this Board have adop't:ed this approach. (Alexander 25Ö4/86) In
Kinq (2028/86) the Board held:
Since Berrv, this Board has consistently held that it
remained possible .for the Ministry atypically to
classify a position....ln other words, the Board
recognizes that its power to create a classification
must be exercised reasonably and, in certain
circumstances, it may be reasonable to refuse to direct
the Employer to create a classification for some
positions.
We can imagine that it might be reasonable to allow an
atypical designation to stand where the position in
question is unusual, in the sense of being occupied by
only a few incumbents. It might well be unreasonable
to expect the Ministry to proliferate classifications
for such individuals like so many rabbits in a warren.
It, indeed, would be unreasonable to mak~ an order
which would have the effect of t1gridlocking" what might
seem to be an already overburdened classification
system. (at 5)
. t
r
~
10
But that, of course, is not the present case. Here, we
see no reason why we should not issue an order
directing the Employer to find or create a proper
classification for the position occupied by the
grievors. We agree with the sUbmission of the Union
that it is irrelevant whether among existing
classifications, the classification of Social Worker 2
is the "best fit." It is still a misfit, and a misfit
by a significant margin. Accordingly, we deqlare that
the grievors are improperly classified and we direct
the Ministry to create a proper classification for
them. (at 5-6)
Union counsel noted that while successive panels of this Board
have recognized the continuation of the atypical designation,
"'
there has not been a single classification case in vlhich that
designation has been upheld. Mr. Roland argued that the concept
was irrational and inconsistent with the Berry principle; namely
- that the Employer is obliged to properly classify. He urged us
to find that it was inappropriate per se. And he concluded that
since it was the employer who determined classifications, it
could ensure that the "gridlock" effect would not be allowed to
take place.
Decision
We are persuaded that the work performed by the grievor is
different in kind .and in purpose to that described in the Class
standard. The grievor's core duties, indeed virtually all of
her duties, are different from those described in the class
standard.
We are also not persuaded by the employer's analogy argument.
There must be some direct relationship between the class standard
.
'.
I ~
I
.
11
and the position being per~ormed. We could not find such a
relationship in any of the analogies that the employer drew. Ms.
Kuramoto's duties and responsibilities have nothing to do with
those described in the class standard. Indeed, we are far from
convinced that there can be a proper classification by analogy
only. A position may not perfectly reflect the class standard
and still be found to be wi thin that standard. But that is a
different situation than the present one where there is virtually
no relationship between an extremely specific class standard and
the classification of the grievor's position.
To paraphrase the Board in Jewer (699/88), the attempt to "shoe-
hornll the grievor into the HRO 2 class standard was, to say the
least, a tortured one. Whatever one thinks of the viability of
the atypical designation post-Berry, its attempted application ~~
this cåse was too far off the mark. As noted by Mr. Gorsky in
Jewer:
It . . to understand why the Employer wishes to
1S easy
avoid a proliferation of classifications, but there
must be a greater relationship between the duties and
responsibilities of the grievor and the class standard
to enable us to conclude that the Employer's actions
were possible. We have to weigh the natural interest
of the Employer in wishing to avoid a result tha't:
"Would have the effect of 'gridlocking' what might seem
to be an already overburdened classification system,"
when to allow this would create: 'a misfit by a
significant margin.' Here, ~e have such a misfit.
(at 28)
In Kuntz, referred to above, ~he employer was required in similar
circumstances to create a new classification- for a single person.
.
. (-
12
In this case, there are only two persons in the Province
performing toponymy functions. Nevertheless, to uphold the
atypical classification would create a misfit, and a serious one
at that. It is not necessary in reaching this decision to decide
whether or not the atypical classification is inappropriate per
se. It is inappropriate on the facts of this case and it is on
that basis that we reach our result.
The grievance is upheld. The 'employe~ is directed to reclassify
the grievor within 90 days. We retain jurisdiction over the
implementation of this award, including entitlement to
retroactivity and interest.
.
.
DATED at ottawa this 10th day of September lQqO. ".
/f/!aPlan - I
Vice-Chairperson
--.. / , / ,: l ':
) n I
/0;,¿~ :. <-." /"/"
I . "
J ,':. /
/í! M. Lyons /
Member
~ (j(7d{
M. O'Toole
Member
I
IÌI APPENDIX HAil PoatHon S~teHlcallon & Clan Alloeatlon.CSC S1SC
--; lR.r.r '0 back 01 lonn for oompl.uon In'lNctlon.
· r;'CSC ¡. OI~. ....Ul..... ¡ - ~'....IWt M'~~ nlJ~- 1 N I" uti.1 "\,1m b.f"
1
"" 0ftIy
-
JI;I~ lot.. - rllii.... ~o. f"o.<Îill-"-!4.nu!It, (So< ......,
I · S.nior toponymi.t 09·0331-18 1
. "'. .. .
'''. H'I, ~..t IllJ'.T;-'ðt". oNrl jt¡1I i ..-.... -.. n.. -'''_1 C;,,"W -- . r~"""'NI~
. 6 - 0 .... Cl __ 0 'II 0 I ~j I -
'0'111'" lit.. - I '0111 lOtI 0Mt 0....1;'.. ..., e04.
d JOt,_": 'toponrmU~ 09-e~n·U Ml,tO{lc.l al..arch Ottlelr 1 01eH
11fII1."" O"'''1ðft
N,tYf.l 1'.ourcl' t.nd. .nd ~.ttrl
'tt\cll.... "',1001 Loeoclotl - . - -. ~Ct~_ Loc. eo¿"
CloarlpbiCll ~a=.. Stctlou 90 Shl?pard Ave. II.t, 4th Vi 69~Ol
· .or..... .....,.. .. 'T" ":¡a'" ·...b ,,~ .. - .
f;" pit.. r'(IWldelt'- "''''''''I~: 1""",1d1o. ........IIof. l!llt ,,_""JOt'¡-}'..'ï......it
No. "I*'t\9fot 1 NO, vf ~
1 1· \ !'Iln."" Geolr:aph1ce1 lhlllCl 09-0)~Ji:-21
, 'vrpou of pot/tloll 1.....,_. \lilt H\1Il0ll0l1tl'1
· To {....rc~ ,"d .v.lu.te f1,ld .nd do<ymlnt.rr lnform.tion on nl~I' or 'Iolraphlcal {catu{l,
and populat.d ptae.. vith rllard to YSIII, application .nd orthOlrlphlc fora (ór sub~i,.lon.
to OÇ~'1 to mllntlln Provlnclal foponr-lc Data B.,. and dl's.~ln.tl lnlare.tlon to lntereltld
putln. To lAv.,tllltO Ind proc,la tOponymle Ippl1c.tlon Iub.lsll~nl tor lo.rd con,ldlr3t¡on
q Ind-Minilter', .pprov.t.
. DII1I" Md "bud lulu 1~1 h ."",1;1" ~;~1rt(I !;~, J\O"I-~ >ofl!! J~:.ITI ø../'CtM.p, 0' -lin.. >ÞtJ\l 0tI Nell ð~IY'
I. lnveltllltt.. rlcord., cO=pll.. and procl.... dati on local and com~on Itolrtphlcll {Iaturt
n.Qt U'III and toponymlc .pplicltlon. Ilthtred {rom thl documtntter retorJ (e.,. ~~pl,
· chartl, corrlspondence. report., d.el.lon ll.t., ItC.) and examInatloa of the rtSulti of
tield lntervllvl Ind thl content ot r.aponl'. to mall.d que.tlonn.lre.;
2. Prep,re. ~utstlonnllre. for .'111nl to ~novladl'lbl. rlsidlnt. relpoctlnl IloaflPhic
f.aturl nl=I., rlvilvln¡ r..pon... Ind Iybmlttlnl resultl iD report tor. to OGNB tor
· rICO-=In4.tlon and .pproval by the Mlnlst.r ~ndlr the provillon. ot the OCNI Act Ind
prtp.rIn¡ 'Pfelll flport. .nd pl~lr. tor prl..ntltlon to the OCHB a, required.
. ). Colllt.. toponyalc d.t. Cro_ Sectlon (lle. Cor clirlClcltioD of toponymic applications,
loc.l .ftd co~on u..,e. ortho,rlphlc fora C'rtnch, !nr11lb, OJlbv'1. Cra.. atc.)
collaborat,a vlt~ !opoaymle Ðlt. Ba,e Coordinator In QctIvltl.. rllltln, to the orlan1~~tlO;
iI of and input to t~1 'rovinc111 Ceo,r.phi' I'ulgrøatlon SYlt.. and .lectronic a.cltteer:
v.rlfle. C..,tt.., lnfor.atl0n, oralui... end lnput. infors.tlon for th, trov1nclll
C,olr.phlc Naml' 1ntore.tion Sr.t...
'. Sup.fvi.e. ~Þd.te. at SeCtiOD c.rd-lnð... b...·..Pl and othtr 'lftfenCt maps. chart. and
M dOC~.'nt. end dlll..in.to. tOPO~IC InformltloD to "int'try field oftice" other Hlnlstri.~
Ind .Ipplftl .,IDell., lnclu41ftC deel.1on, Oft novly IPprovtd nlÞlt. n,~, Iltlr.tlonl,
deletlon. Iud r..,il.lons, .ltlrtd .ppllcltionl, .nd 0lflcI,111 .pproyt6 .It.t~~t. na~9S
in french for ,xl.tln, offlcl.l tQr-.1
s. Inp~tl Ypdlt" of C'olraphi~.l ~aue. InformltloD Sy.t.. .nd Is.1st. .1n cO~pll.tlon of
D a.olrlPhic ftlturt lee.tor codlul infor.atlon .nd dlta Intry In CNIS:
6. Pvrlor.. other related dutl,..
· ,
,- I, Skilb .ncllulowlld.. rlqulfod IO~ptrforlD job ., fvU ffOrklnt Inll. 111odlcl" _deWy .-o4.~u.1¡ or ~,*," 'ØØllð/ll¡lol -- -
,
I
Sound ~ftovl.d&. of Clrtoar.pb, Ind Ontario hi.tory (tqulv,ltnt to co~~l.tlon of Icade=ic ,
~;,] tr.lnlnl In ph,s1c.l ItOlrlphy). l~tlntlY, e.plrline. 1ft toponymy; 'Oynd knovledlt of r..m~nl
prlnctøl.. and procedure., Prolraa.ly,ly re.pon.lbl. tXparleDca in re.olvln, problem. 1n
&.olrapM.~ ftllll, .eiUtion.. Coo(f ~0=.~n1~..att~1l ,uth. heord ot tact.nd_ dl;lolll.cy In
fl:1 .........-. -" Do. ~Y""'" ,," "'T~'" ,,,.
t ,.... '2 ~. l ., MOIllll V.., ø ._, ...,. 10191111\ ......
N . . SlIa t OS I 01 1 It, J .. ~ tune .:_ ~ O!. I 01 I 89
'" S-'-'I ...- T, 0 ~l_. Ill..
11· 8l S~It'~ Muau_'r'. C~S:~ Knet . ,t,l,-" ..Uf.Yr.lr:L D1Ul:tC11
I. eo....II_... C..... -- _·.....·~·-I ."".".. I
N Hhtorlcal 'esearcb Ot He.r 2 (Atyplcll; ,,07852 _ 5P.04 8f" I èfr'" 1 ~~..
..... "'-';''''' "* IMUoIl In ~ wlltl .,.,. QtiI s.1"<'Iot tommlMJooo ¢1..,/flu:lotl '1A104orW 10< U\o foIlQoo4". ...MIII
'. po,ition of . fully trlSDe4 and qual~Iled toponymi.t Ja the Ceo,raphJc Hame, Section of
ÞIJ th9 Sur..y., Happlnc and l'DOt, Senaln, Branch.
~ Und'rt'~'1 rt.,arch to .n.ure tOþOnymle accuracy of .govtrnBent mep. and documente.
N :. Coftptl.. htatorteal d.ta to ev.lu.te. prepare en~ ¢eten~ I~olrðphlcal end Þ13~or1c.l
back around ..ter!a1 for nama d,çl.lona. Hay be required to corrl.pond vith pro!~ss1onal
hl'torlanl, librart.n. end toponyet.t. l~ other Juri.dictlon. to Q~toSn l"!~r~tlon not
readily avatlable in Ontarl0. . - -
s.....!~" '" ._orl.... ...r....'nr .J"" "-Y"'."'lh..,Qf'.·_
ÞI ,~~.'o,L~ ~-~ I j~ i Otl~ "'- I
C.l.I fJ J. R1n:.
, - "':"" -...... ,. _Iþ L......
I
.
~
APPENDIX "B" POlltlon SpKlncatlon &. C1a.. Alloeatlon-CSC 6150
'(j) (R.r., 10 þ,K1I 0( form lot oompltUon lnall\lctlont) ~.
.
OnII'1o n~csc l' 0... ,.~(..... i .. ....w M. \&1 .......... r 101.. ..,l.! ~ J
UII~
~ -
t f.......... Ii'" - ' ,- - 1'0."'" c.- - r-llI"''*" llo_r
. Cuto-Topon)"lDhe 09-0337-18 . _ I
,....ÞOI...""..'III'.T.'_...."'¡ - FttlNI01..-....-II-.-...- e-<&l l'\I-~"
. . 6 -0......0 _0...0 I 1_1
--'.i;,*' w. l'''''*' ~ ~. tnIII .,., ....
s""_~ : I'JliY-Jð'S1'I'tYi'Rtm1et ß9-oJF-17 "~.torlc.! .....rch OUten lttbO~n~
\f' .... . ~ J? l~ -, - ,..1'.. aUurc.l\ 0 C~ i I ^ 2-
Ifllllll'
NATU!W. USOtlRCES Land. .ad Vatlr. Croup
'...~...:;.4"Sil\iell eloluphlc Nalll" Sect10ll ~*' 90 Shap-pud AVlnu' la.c - --- h:"'~C:-
S\l1"Y'~" Kappln~ '_.ltellOtc Stfldnl ,Branch. 4t~ Ploo.!, cn. Hou.,. Korth To k 6UOI ,I
)(0. or IIIHR ,,0'WWt1 ..""- lÞØtt1lll. 1'1 11-.. .......... a. [....._'~ ...1. .... I
2 ",,"1*1'''- J No..'II- Han"Ir. ~Inphic s.... SecUon.
- - Ont. Ctolraphlc ~~. 14. S'cr~t.r at 09-0)37-01
Z. "\I,po.. of potil.io" lwtoy ...."'b _111000 ..IU?)
To tl..arch and .valuat. fl.1d and docuaentary 1n(or.-tlon on n.... ot ¡aOlrapblca1 t..turca
.nd popul.eed pl.ce. relpectlftc local .nd/or eom=oo uAaC'. topoayaic .pp110&t1oft .nd orthoe-
raphy lor .ubœl..1oD to Oneario Ce0lraph1e Na..a loard (OCNl): to ..lat.la Provlnc!.l Topony-
~lc Dat.b.,e. .nd dia..min.ea Information eo lneer..ced parelt'l to lave.tl..C. , procI.. tOPOl
nymlc application data for Sr~tlon tor ,ub=i.aioft to Board and recommendatloft to Hinl.etr.
3, Oll'¡.. .nd "I&lld Utili c......., I, -.pIo,.. roqwlrtd 10 _, .......... ""', ~"l. potWAl. fit ..... I IotfIIII' . ""'I - - - , '1
1. lnv,se1sae.., rlcotd.. coapll~. Ind proc..... lnfore&tlon on 10ell .ad CORnQn 1'0&- i
raphle.l n.øl uta'l re.plctinl topOlraph!C81 6 hydro¡raphic '.atura. aad populated
plaeei, toceChar v1th topoayc1c application. extract.d froa the 4oc~nt.ry reeGrd I
I
(map.. ch.rt., eorre,pondtnCI, report.. dlci.10n lilt.. ,tc.): .xam1at' eb. relult. I
ot field lntervlew. , phone loquit!.., and rt'p6n,., to qu..çlonn&lr.a, I
Z. Prepare. queleionnaire. for G6111n& oue to .Il.cted informant.. ralpoGd.at.. etc. in
r and out. ide Ontario (tl.ewber. 10 Clnaå. aad the US) relp.cein& Domenc1aturl 0' loc.l
, ItO¡raphl~al fe.tutll & populat.d placa., reviev1nl , ......In' re.pon... . .ubø1tt-
In& rtsult. to OCNl 1= vrltlnl tor ie. roco&Zend.tion to K1ni.ta~ .. nasa. 6 r.l.t.d
lnformtclon pertalnln& to c&~e tor officlalu.e UDder th. OCNl Ae~l pr.,ar.. .pecial
r.port.. p3p,r. , ~ek5roun4 docu-,nt.tloa for pre.tat.tlon to Io.r« ., r.~utr.dl
3. Collate. topo=rœic data from SteeiOD record tor purpo... of c1arlfylaa. II r.qulr.d.
topoaye1e applic.elon., locI1 Ind c~a U1as.., octho¡raphlc forma (francb. !n&li.h.
Ojibway, Cree, etc.); coll.borate. ~ltb Topoor-lc Dltab... Coord1netor In or,anltat-
ion 01 & enery of lnformatton tato the 'roYiaela1 Ceo&r.phlc lafora&tloft Sf.tt. (CIS) ,
and Ontario carettelr d.tab"I; verifle. Caeltt..r l.t. 6 ora.aice. loput of tnfor~t-
ion lnto the'ProvlDei.l Clo&rlphic NaDe. InformattcD s,.e.. (PÇN%S):
4. Updaeei eNS c.rd-ind._. ba,e..a,a .ad a..oclat.d careOlt.pblc 6 oehar dacu.entary ca·
erence. (oftlc1al NTs/xrc/OlH/cøS "p. , chart.), eto.. , 4i,.ealaato. toponyalc in-
lormatioa to KKl fiald oltlce.. othlr,Minl.trta. and aapplri, ',Iacle. r.~ulrlu¡ up-
ðle,4 topon,.y re.pectlftl nlvl,. a,prOYed ~'. n... alt.ratlon.. del'tloa.. rescl.,-
1on.. Iltered topcny.lc .pplle.clod., OrthoSf.pb1e .tand.rd.. Itc.l
s. Input. revi.lon. of Ceocr.ph1cal nama. data Into C.o&r.,hleal Name. tftforaltton Sy.tem
(GNlS) .ad....i.t. in thl co.ptl.ttoA of leolr.pbtc f<ura loc.tor codln¡ lnfor=at-
ion and daea entry In CHIS Uftder41r.ceS~ 01 Dteaba.. Coordinator: 6. Other dutSe.
., Sldll, Iftd kn_kodO' ~ 18 PO"1'_ job" Ml iiiOt1LlIIf Iot'l'tt, Cl~·",;",~';....u... ..-1'-,. ~I I' ""'fld.
Sound knovledg' ot cartoaraph,. phy.lc.l ae¢gr.phy .Q4 OntariQ hi.tory. Toponya!c eKp.r~
t'"ce and sound knovledae 01 ItO¡raph!eal naaift& prlaetple. aad procedure.. Procrt..ivtly
~)onaibl. '~perlence 1n re,olutlon of p:obleml .IIOC1lte& vIth topoarœlc iave.tia.tion.
, €! "",""I~."" .n< Intm"'.." 'kI;~'J.. tatL .... '.'...n..
!I. ~ ,..J~ D... . ~..
· r 0.., Motoft 'I'll' 0--1' 0.... "OMIt V_
~_._K .r' 07) 02 190 ,.t.an)'e It. 02 190
Tyþt l ,,,,,,', _ r Q"'ICltI'lI_ IIIlt
Hich..l B. S=art J.N. uJcU
t. CLuulloel1Î011 eta.1ld1 . r-- ." IW """II> .........1 t 110.'.... -...
._ Uhtadc.! J,e.eerch OUlcer 2 (At7Plw A0711SZ tIty Mttt1II "1'....
SP-06 01 t 11 I 89
I "- C>lo.ln... oh:t _1_ III _ wi'" IN CMI ~ ec..-IMII<'I t::IMlfConltlo s._ '-" ... '-'-'" ,_
"" Po.~tlon of . lull1 trained snd qu.ll!ied topon7mi.t In tbl ~olr.phic He~' SectloD of tha
SUCV.7.. Happio¡ 'Dd le=ota Sen.inl !raoeh. '
.. Undertake. historical and lto¡raphic re...tch to ~D'ur. topon7m1e .ccurlCY o!lov~rn~Qt ~p.
.nd docUllIenu.
e. Cocp1la. hi,torical da~ to evaluate, pre~c. .nd de{eod ,toaraphlc.l and ~lltorlcll
backtround ..ttrial for n~ decision.. x., b. r~qu1red~ to corr..pond with professional
hi'toriane. l1brarlons and toponyœ1lt. 10 other Jurisdiction. to obtain in!orÞltlon Dot
readl~av.ilèbl. in Ontario.
~... l¡"'¡ ~I..._ 0,. Tnoo .,.¡...............
/? - I Door ~ '(- I
I ',J. ---- ~;J. J 1 J, Rtvu
_' . I o~ 01
)$.60·IQ' .. INnSl