Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0217.Auld & Solomon.92-12-18 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 1gO DUNDAS STREET WES~ SUITE 2~00, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G IZ8 TELEPHONE/T~LEPHONE. i4 16)326-t388 fSO, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU?~O0, TORONTO (ONTAR~]. M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILE/TEL~CO~E . i4 t6j 325- 217/91, 219/91 IN THE H~TTER OF ~ i%.~BITI~TION Under THE CROW EHPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEV~CE BETTLEHENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Auld/Solomon) Grlevor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) Employer BEFOP~ S. Stewart vice-Chairperson E. Seymour Member M. O'Toole Member FOR THE J. Monger GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE C. Foster EMPLOYER Grievance Officer Ministry of Correctional Services HEARING November 28, 1991 April 10, 1992 July 30, 1992 DECISION The grievors, Mr. D. Auld and Mr. R. Solomon, are employed in the position of Driver by the Ministry of Correctional Services at the Burtch Correctional Centre in Brantford, Ontario. The position description for their position is attached hereto as Appendix A. The position is classified as Motor Vehicle Operator 1. The class standard for Motor Vehicle Operator 1 is attached hereto as Appendix B. In grievances dated January 14, 1991 and January 19, 1991, the grievors claim that their position is improperly classified. The Union seeks an order directing that the grievors be classified in the Correctional Officer 2 classification, or alternatively, a "Berry Order", an order directing the Employer to develop an appropriate classification for the position. The Correctional Officer 2 class standard is attached hereto as Appendix C. The Union bases its position on both a "standards" argument and a "usage" argument. It is the submission of the Employer that the position of the grievors is properly classified. Mr. D. Auld gave evidence as a representative grievor. Mr. Auld has been employed in his current position at Burtch Correctional Centre for approximately 17 years. Burtch is a mimimum security institution during the day but is considered to be a medium security institution at night when it is locked. In carrying'out his duties Mr. Auld wears the same uniform that correctional officers wear. He is in possession of handcuffs which he was provided with by the institution. Mr. Auld testified that his position description is generally accurate, however he stated that he spends between 40 to 60% of his 'time in contact with inmates, rather than 80%, as his position description indicates. As well, Mr. Auld took issue with 'the description of his duties as "transport" of inmates in the position description. Mr. Auld testified that his practice and his understanding of the Employer's expectations of him at the time of the- grievance is that he was responsible for the care and custody of inmates during transit. Inmates are transported on a daily basis to attend medical appointments and carry out volunteer work in the community. According to the evidence of Mr. Auld, at the time of the grievance, the process by which an inmate was taken to a medical appointment was that a calendar was prepared which he was responsible to check. A medical temporary absence permit was prepared by'nursing staff. At the time of the grievance the passes were pre-signed by a supervisor. Accordingly, as a general rule, there was no pre-screening by a supervisor with respect to the security risks associated with the leave'of a particular inmate attending a medical appointment. Mr. Auld called the unit for the inmate to come to the duty office where the inmate signed the temporary absence pass and he witnessed it. There is a box on the form to indicate whether the inmate is escorted or unescorted. Mr. Auld testified that if the inmate is taken out by him, without a correctional officer, as was normally the case, he would indicate that the pass was escorted and would enter his name in the space on the form for the name of the escorting officer. Mr. Auld was shown a form dated subsequent to the grievance on which the inmate's signature was witnessed by him but his name was not entered as the escorting officer. However, Mr. Auld's evidence about his general.practice at the time of the grievance was not specifically challenged. Mr. Auld testified that he waited for the appointment with the inmate and would also attend with the inmate during his examination or treatment by a health care provider, at the request of that person. Mr. Auld testified that if he did not know an inmate he would check background information about the inmate in the duty office. If he had concerns about a security risk associated with taking the inmate out by himself Mr. Auld would raise the matter with a supervisor who would decide whether a correctional officer would also be required to accompany the driver and the inmate. There would sometimes be direction initiated by a supervisor to have a correctional officer attend on the trip. If Mr. Auld did not consider that it was necessary for a correctional officer to attend on a trip he would take the inmate himself. As previously indicated, when taking the inmate himself Mr. Auld testified that he understood that he had responsibility for the custody and control of the inmate. Mr. Auld testified that it is his · decision whether or not he will handcuff the inmate, but that it is rare for him to do so. Mr. Auld testified that 90% of the time he was alone with one or more inmates. The remaining 10% of the time there was a correctional officer who was also present. Mr. Auld stated that the functions that he performed in relation to the inmate were no different than those performed by a correctional officer. ~ Mr. Auld stated that he reported.to the duty office, indicating how many inmates he was taking and their destination. Mr. Auld testified that if he had a suspicion about the inmate he would search him on the way back. If the inmate had been out of his sight, the inmate would be searched. Mr. Auld does not cary out full body searches, as correctional officers may be required to do. On a daily basis, between Monday and Friday, volunteer inmates are escorted to their assignments in the community. These are inmates who are considered by the institution to be a low security risk and they have ongoing temporary absence permits. In the morning, both Mr. Solomon and Mr. Auld observe the inmates when they change from their prison clothing to their street clothing to ensure, for example, that no money is being taken out. They then take the inmates to the destination in the community, drop them off, and return to pick them up at approximately 3 o'clock. They observe the inmates changing again 4 when they return. As well, as the position description indicates, Mr. Auld is involved in duties such as picking up and delivering parcels and supplies. Mr. Auld testified that about half his time is spent in this kind of work. When there is a problem with the vehicle it is reported to a mechanic on duty. The vehicles are cleaned by inmates under Mr. Auld's supervision. There are instances when Mr. Auld is involved in transferring inmates to other institutions or to court. On those occasions a correctional officer is present. Mr. Auld testified that if an escape takes place during his shift, he is involved with the search. This may take place once a month or it may be a year between such events. He may be accompanied by a correctional officer or he may be alone. Both Mr. Auld and Mr. Solomon carry out a perimeter check of the institution one or two times daily. This is carried out at various times. Mr. Auld testified that it entails looking for things such as cars making drop offs, and checking culverts to see if something might be hidden. If something suspicious is seen it is to be reported to the institution~ Mr. Auld testified that he was instructed to carry out such checks when he had inmates with him so that they would know that such checks were carried out. Mr. Auld testified that if the institution is short staffed he has been asked to carry out picket duty, which involves standing in a particular position when the inmates are going to the dining room. This is something normally carried out by a correctional officer. It is not an assignment given to Mr. Auld on a frequent basis. As the position specification indicates, Mr. Auld is paid the custodial responsibility allowance provided for in Appendx 8 5 of the Collective .Agreement. Payment for the custodial ~ responsibility allowance is based on the following requirements: (a) they are not professional staff such as teachers, nurses, social workers or psychologists (b) the positions to which the employees are assigned are not covered by classes which already take into account responsibility for the control of inmates or wards, such as COrrectional Officers, Industrial Officers, Supervisors of Juveniles, Observation and Detention Home Workers, Recreation Officers (Correctional Services), Trade Instructors and Provincial Bailiffs: (c) (i) they are required, for the major portion of their working time, to direct inmates or wards engaged in beneficial labour; or (ii) as group leaders/lead hands, they are directly responsible, for the major portion of their working time, for operations involving the control of a number of inmates or wards engaged in beneficial labour; and (d) they are responsible for the custody of inmates ,Dr wards in their charge and are required to report on their conduct and lay charges where breaches of institutional regulations occur Mr. J. Butler,.Senior Assistant Superintendent at Burtch Correctional Centre, is the supervisor of Mr. Auld and Mr. Solomon. He has been in that position for two years. Mr. Butler testified that inmates who are involved in outside work in the community are released on unescorted temporary absence permits. Inmates may also be released on unescorted temporary absence permits to attend medical appointments. Mr. Butler testified' that the policy of the institution is that if the inmate is considered to be a security risk he will be released on an 6 escorted pass and a correctional officer will be assigned to attend with the driver. Mr. Butler testified that whether or not a correctional officer is accompanying him the responsibility of Mr. Auld is to transport the inmate to his destination and return the inmate. Mr. Butler testified that his expectations of the grievors with respect to watching inmates change was that they would ensure that the inmates were wearing the proper clothing and that they changed into the proper clothing when they returned. Mr. Butler testified that when an appointment is made for an inmate to attend a doctor's appointment, physiotherapy or admission to a hospital there is to be a check of security by the shift supervisor who determines whether or not a correctional officer will be assigned to go out with an inmate. If there are sufficient concerns about security the pass is designated an escorted pass and a correctional officer is assigned along with the driver. He stated that the drivers can make recommendations with respect to this matter. Mr. Butler testified that when inmates attend on unescorted passes they are deemed not to be a security risk. According to his evidence, on an unescorted pass the inmate is e~sentially responsible for himself and is to abide the terms of the permit. Mr. Butler referred to two policies contained in the institution's standing orders. The first is entitled "Medical 7 Temporary Absences" and is dated March 22, 1990. This policy indicates that completed medical temporary absence forms are to be completed by institution health care staff and forwarded[ to the shift supervisor who: will complete a preliminary security check in consultation with unit staff and senior on-call administrator and decide whether an escort is required. If so, the instructions for the escort/watch officer shall be written in the form.. Another policy, entitled "Community Escorts and Offender Transportation", d&ted August 1, 1990 indicates that the shift .supervisor will be responsible for decisions about escorts. It goes on to state: One or more escorting officers shall be assigned in addition to the driver of the vehicle except for community occupational development (work) and recreation pro~rammes, transfers to community resource centres and similar activities, provided that there will be no unnecessarylrisk to the driver/escorting officer. Mr. Butler testified that while these policies were prepared and dated prior to the grievance they were not printed and distributed until about August, 1991. Mr. Butler testified that he had assumed that these policies were complied with at the time of the grievances however he determined that security matters had been dealt with at the duty office rather than at the shift supervisor's office. Mr. Butler acknowledged that it was possible that no seourity check other than that described by Mr. Auld was in fact carried out at the time of the grievance. 8 The Board heard certain evidence called by both parties about events subsequent to the filing of the grievance. Mr. Butler prepared a memorandum dated October 31, 1991, indicating that medical temporary absence permits are to be initiated by the completion of the form by the medical staff during office hours and by the shift supervisors outside of office hours. This memorandum goes on to state that for permits completed by the medical staff: ...The permit will then be forwarded to the Shift Supervisor who will complete the balance of the form, and assess the degree of security risk and establish staffing needs, as required. He may also Consult with his colleagues, refer to the inmate's file and institution history to finalize whether an escort is necessary. Institution d~ivers are not to be used as escorts. They are to convey the inmate(s) from the institution to the appointment and back again. If escorts are required, correctional staff members shall be utilized. Mr. Auld and Mr. Solomon were sent a copy of this memorandum and told to "abide by it" by memorandum dated Decembner 4, 1991. This memorandum goes on to state: If you have other duties to complete while on a run, you may leave an inmate on his own. If you do not have other duties, you are to wait until the inmate is finished, or otherwise directed by the Shift Supervisor. Correctional officers only are designated as escort officers. Mr. Butler testified that he' issued this memorandum to the grievors because he understood that they felt that they had been 9 assigned escort responsibilities. Mr. C. Thompson was called by the union as a "usage" witness. Mr. Thompson is employed by the Ministry of Correctional Services at Rideau Correctional and Treatment Centre which is in Merrickville, Ontario. This institution is a medium security facility. Mr. Thompson's position specification is attached hereto as Appendix "D". Mr. Thompson's position is classified as Correctional Officer 2. Mr. Thompson testified that the position specification represents a fair description of his duties with the exception that some of the percentages are different. Mr. Thompson testified that he spends 65-70% of his time transporting inmates and that when he transports inmates he is assigned as the escorting officer on the temporary absence permit. Mr. Thompson is responsible for a full search of the inmate. All inmates are transported in handcuffs or leg irons. Mr. Thompson stays with the inmate during the entire duration of a medical or other appointment. He testified that he is expected to have visual contact with the inmate at all times. When there is more than one inmate, two correctional officers attend. When the inmates are returned to the institution they are searched. Mr. Thompson also carries out duties such as delivery of parcels, which entails about 30% of his time. Mr. Thompson has had the entire training of a correctional officer which includes matters such as hostage training, self 10 defence and training in the application of standing orders. If there is an inmate disturbance while he is in the institution he is expected to respond and assume full duties of a correctional officer. He is required to relieve correctional officers in the dormitories, on meal lines, in admitting and discharge and as a security officer on the front gate. He is given this assignment about once a week, although not for a full shift. When he relieves a correctional officer he has responsibility for full security, to check to ensure that the area is secure and to take control of the keys. Mr. Thompson assumes the duties of back up officer during misconduct hearings two or three times a week. We will deal first with the Union's "standards" argument. The effect of the payment of the custodial responsibility allowance in relation to a classification grievance has been addressed by a number of panels of this Board. A number of decisions have indicated that the payment of the custodial responisibility allowance is "irrelevant" to the issue of.whether a position is properly classified. However in Braund, 39/89, (Slone), a number of decisions were discussed and the Board stated at p. 26: ... where the classification is prima facie appropriate, except arguably that it does not recognize the full de~ree of custodial responsibility allocated, it is our view that the CRA is relevant. The CRA is part of the bargain between the parties. It is a supplementary allowance for supplementary duties performed. It is the grievors' argument that those duties have changed the character of their jobs. If that argument were to prevail, then possibly every job involving custodial duties sufficient to enjoy the CRA could be held to be wrongly classified. That would render the CRA superfluous. More appropriately, in our view, the CRA should be seen as a consensual ~ pro quo for employees whose jobs have been given an added component which probably is not reflected in their classification, but where the "bottom line" responsibility of the job, as described in the standards, has not changed. We agree with the foregoing approach. The issue is whether there are core duties and responsiblities of the position of the grievors at the time of the grievance that are not contemplated by the classification of Motor Vehicle,Operator 1, considered in light of the fact that the custodial responsibility allowance is paid, such that we are persuaded that the job that the grievors perform is really a different job that the job contemplated. Notwithstanding the suggestion in Mr. Butler's evidence that the grievors do not carry out custodial functions when transferring inmates on unescorted passes we agree with Mr. Monger that the grievors do carry out custodial functions in connection with these transfers. Indeed, the position description specifically states that: "they are responsible for the correctional control and welfare of the inmates {hey transport and submit reports re their conduct as required." It is our view that other functions carried out by the grievors at the time of the grievance are also properly viewed as custodial kinds of functions. These other functions include perimeter searches, searches of the inmates, assisting with escapes, occasional picket duty and reviewing information about the inmate prior to making a suggestion with respect to the necessity of a correctional officer escort. The first sentence of the Motor Vehicle Operator I class standard indicates that it "...covers positions in which the employees' prime function is the operation of motor vehicles..." The second paragraph of the "characteristic duties" of the classification touches directly on the kind of work performed by the grievors in that it initially refers to the carrying of 12 passengers and. goes on to state: Passengers may include residents or inmates being transported from institutional facilities to hospitals, other institutions, medical/dental appointments, recreational outings etc. who are usually accompanied by attendants, counsellors or correctional officers. The Motor Vehicle Operator 1 class standard specifically indicates that drivers will "usually" be accompanied by correctional officers when they are transporting inmates. While this portion of the class standard suggests that responsiblity for the custody of the inmate will' generally not be that of the Motor Vehicle Operator 1, the use of the word "usually" indicates that it is contemplated that there are occasions when the persons in that classification may be alone when transferring an inmate. Were it simply a matter of the grievors having control and custody of inmates who were assessed as being sufficiently low security risks that they could leave the institution on an unescorted pass it would have been our conclusion that the situation was precisely the kind of situation that the excert from the Braund decision referred to above contemplates. The duties of the grievors as they presently exist, following the clarification of this matter in late 1991 fall clearly within the first sentence of the'Driver 1 class standard in that their' "prime function is the operation of motor vehicles". There is a recognition of the custodial component of the grievors' duties by virtue of the fact that they receive the custodial responsibility allowance. The other custodial duties that the grievors perform are not of such a nature nor are they carried out with such frequency that we could have accepted the Union's submission that notwithstanding the payment of the custodial responsiblity allowance the position is improperly classified. However, at the time of the grievance the grievors had the responsibility of assessing the security risk of persons going 13 out on passes and determining whether a correctional officer was required. While there were some instances in which the matter of security on passes was addressed by supervision at the outs. et it was clear from the evidence that it was common for this matter to be left to the grievors to deal with. While they would only make recommendations for further security in the form of a correctional officer, they were allowed the responsibility of determining whether that request would.be made. In carrying out this task they openly reviewed information relating to the inmates and consulted with supervisors'in relation to this matter. While Mr. Butler may not have been aware of this matter, other supervisors obviously were. Although the policies of the institution contemplated that members of supervision rather than the grievors would carry out this task, the grievors carried out this work openly, for an extended period of time and, according to the uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Auld, in accordance with the training that he received when he commenced performing this job. In making the determination as to whether a recommend, ation for a correctional officer would be made Mr. Auld considered himself to have the obligation to fulfil custodial responsiblities to an extent equivalent to that of a correctional officer. Clearly, the Rmployer has had the benefit of his assumption of responsibility in this regard. Again, while this greater assumption of responsibility may not have been contemplated by Mr. Butler and by the policies of the institution, Mr. Auld was uncontradicted in his evidence that his approach was consistent with the training that he was provided and that he has operated in this manner on a consistent basis for a lengthy period of time. It is our conclusion that the responsibilities of the grievors referred to in the foregoing paragraph exceed those Pcontemplated by the Motor Vehicle Operator 1 classification considered in light of the custodial responsibility allowance. Accordingly, the grievances must succeed. However, the Employer 14 has now limited the responsibilities of the grievors in such a manner that in our view there is a comfortable fit between their duties and responsibilities and the language of the Motor Vehicle Operator 1 class standard, in light of the fact that they are in receipt of the custodial responsibility allowance. Given that we have accepted the Union's "standards" argument it is unnecessary to address the "usage" argument except to note that even if we were to accept this argument with respect to circumstances as they existed at the time of the grievance it is clear that this argument could not prevail with respect to the circumstances following the limiting of the responsibilities of the grievors in late 1991. The Board heard extensive submissions from Mr. Foster with respect to the appropriate test to be used by the Board in concluding whether usage evidence established that an employee is improperly classified. In Mr. Foster's submission, there has been some variance in the jurisprudence of the Board with respect to the appropriate test. In our view, whether the test is properly described as "virtually the same", "the same", "substantially similar", or "substantially the same"~ the result is the same in this instance. The nature and range of Mr. Thompson's duties and responsibilities are clearly significantly broader than those assumed by the grievors following the restriction of their duties in late 1991. Given our acceptance of the Union's "standards" argument that the nature of their duties and responsibilities of the position of the grievors at the time of the grievance go beyond those contemplated by the Motor Vehicle Operator 1 class standard at the time of the grievance it is necessary to address the matter of remedy. In our view, the duties of the grievors as they existed at that time properly fit within the Correctional officer 2 classification and we so declare. While we note that the grievors did not fill the formal requirements for this classification in that they did not formally complete a year of 15 sevice in the_Correctional officer 1 classification nor did[ they fulfil the alternative requirement of completing a prescribed training course, in our view the nature of the functions that they performed placed them comfortably within this classification. However, given our conclusion that the duties and responsibilities of the grievors now fit comfortably within their current classification, the issue of a different classification for the position is essentially an academic matter. The real issue is compensation for the duties that the grievors assumed for the period of twenty days prior to the filing of the grievance and December 4, 1991, the date that the grievors were specifically advised of the limitations under which they were to operate. We retain jurisdiction in this matter to deal with any difficulties in the implementation of this decision. Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of December, 1992. S.L. Stewart, Vice-Chairperson M. O'Toole, Member ~-- '- ......... APPENDIX A ,:L,, Orive~. ', , ' -~ a~VlSE~ Driver ~ Drlvar 1 -.' .-: ~17226 {-'19-3153;1~ jhif~ Supervisor ' " { 19%703-07 · .~t' '.L." ,' ' Institutions '- ' Correctional Services Western Region.'. Burtch .C.,'C. Burtch, O~tario :: ,. 2 I~ .... · ': To operate ~he instltuti~nal vehicles fo~ ~he t~enspo~ of'inmates .... ~ ,.'""". and various materials and supplies.' :~ :. . :. '.. ~ ' ' h - '[, .- ' ..'~ ... ~, ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ ' ;UMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSlBtLIT~E$ BNDlCATE PE&CENTAOEOF T:ME $~[NT ON EACH SIGNIFICANT FUNCTION, · ,. -.. , . .,: ':-," ,. ... ::.- ,,?.} ..:. 100% Operates vehicles by performinq duties such ss: ' :~' '"'""' ..~ : .. - ' ' · The incumbents'operate the ~nsti[ut~ona[ vehicles ~o.,~ran~por~ medical appointments, courts,' volunteer las~ignment$~ etc/; pick up'~qd'<; ..... ,. liver parcels to institutional offices, etc;. they, ensure that the' , vehiel~ are maintained end keep operating recordsl they'are responsible. · fo~ the co~ectionaI eon~ol and welfa~e of the..'inmstss thoy and submit reports re their conduct es required' The incumbents operate ail motorized vehicles, l,e,, bus, vans,, trucks, otc',', and perform other ~elated duties as assigned. Vehicles driven include'l -'12 passenger yap, .- 1 - !0 passenger van, 1 - } passenger panel t~uck, 1 - }6 passenger bus,: . and I - }/4 ton truck .... ~,- .".. N.~.Position involved responsibility o~ incumbenta.~o~ custody of inmates · in their charge snd incumbon~ are requieed [o report on inm,tes' conduct and !ay charges where breaches of Institution's regulations'occur.~ - approxima~sty 80% of ~orkin9 time is s~ent in~contsdt ~ith Custodial Responsibility Allowance (Note K-l)' therefore 'is applicable:~7~:.,.':: ~ ..: ;KILLS AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE WORK car,~'re Possession of Class "C" licence for Ontario. Acceptable experience.in operating.and maintaining motor vehicles. Ability supervise inmates in their charge. CLASS ALLOCATION ' ' Ho ~oc/Vehic~e,~Dp~¢~.~o~1( ~;?~,~qS~ j: O~' fhe incumbents carry passengers (i.e. inmates~ from the institution to other institutions, medical appointments, courts, etc. lhe incu~,~ents transport parcels from one i:mtitutionol site to ~nother [he incumbents are responsible for ~ehicle ~,;ai~tt'r~ance and the keeping ['ocords. APPENDIX B £~--~iE£: ~cu:r Vehicle f~era'~or .' CLASS STA=~DARD: CLASS CCDE: 1 7201 MOTOR VE~ZCLE This class covers posi:ions in which ~he employees' prime ~e opera:ion of ~:or v~ic!as, wagons, ~on ~ucks. Charac'~eri$~ic Duties: They ~ranspor= goods such as mail, office equipmen: ~nd fur~'.i~ure, pi~=s ~d cons~c~ion ~=erials, s~ and au=~o~ve par~, 1~ spec~ens ~d ch~cats. They also l~d a~ ~l~d v~ic!es and ~y be ass:isned as si~ed helpers. ~ o~ posi=ions, ~ey c~ p~s~s, ei~ on a fuli-t~ basis, or ~ c~~on wi~ ~e ~por~ng of g~ ~d ~=eri~s. Pass,gets ~y incl~e resid~ or ~s berg ~~r=ed fr~ facili=ies ~o hospi~is, o~er l~~ons, me~cal/d~l recr~a:ional ou=~ngs, e~., who ~e usually acc~p~i~ by co~sel!ors or corrmc=ional officers. ~ese e~loyees may also passengers ~ch as helpers, s~li work p~es ~d ~ior m~is~y ~ployees hn all 9osi~ons ~e re~s~le for en~r~g ~: ~=en~ce, e.g. oil, =irs, press~e,~br~es, is ca~ied ou= on v~i=!e(s) ~ order ~ ~~ ~.e safe~ of v~i=les, passenger~ and cargo. ~ey ~so ~~n ac~a=e records of ma~=e~ce and cos~, pick-ups deliveries, Skills and ~nowi~e: . . A minimum of a Class "G" Ontario Driver's Licence as issued by the Minis~=7 of Tr~-nsporta=ion and Coamaxnica~ions. in addition, Class S, C, D, E or F Licences may be required. A working knowledge of the Highway-Traffic Ach. Good ~riving skills and safe driving record. Good physical condition. NOTE: Excluded fr~m ~lnis group are posi+-ions involving t.he operation of heavy du:y vehicles, such as highway main=enance and equipmen=. Such posit_ions are covered by other ¢lassifica=ion series. November 1, 1981 APPENDIX C .,. CLASS STANDARD: ~ 50563 CORRECT IONAL OFFICER 2 This class covers positions of qualified Correctional Officers engaged in" general Correctional Officer duties, usually on a rotational shift basis. They may be assigned to any functi6nal area in the institution, either on a long ....... term basis or as dictated by day to day needs. This class also covers positions of Correctional Officers who control and guide female inmates in jails where female inmates are present for more than 275 da}-s 'per year., ba.sed on a five year average. These officers are ~ssigned to other duties during the 89, or less~ days per when there are no fen~]e inmates in the jail. ., Basic: See preamble. .~ ' ..... - ..... CLASS LEVEL: ....... -. One year of satisfactory experience as a Correctional Officer; o_E an equivalent combination of additional education, and/or experience acceptable to the Civil Service Commission. For example: completion of a Social Services course at a College of Applied Arts and Te.chnology;. or completion of an Ontario Hospital course as attendant or hospital aide; or a Registered · Nursin~ Aide certificate. NOTE: %q~en an employee is recruited at this level 'on the basis of an ' , acceptable alternative to one year of satisfactory experience as a Correctional Officer 1, appointment to Regular Staff is conditional upon successful completion of the prescribed Staff Training course ~thin si~¢ months after the initital appointment..- Revised January 1. 1970 · ..,m~-, .... "- ':' ' .... ~.bem_~,~_ ,,41BI'~I!M~ T)R~TEK/LICORT r, OP.R~TIQIIAL OF~Z~ ~ .~9-~,16 ~ ~, .~ . _ - ~ ~n .~ ~cL~ ~ ~ ~ ~lt~ ~d~tlon ..... dt~o~ i~eTvs ~ lfl~l~ion ie BurGh C.C., ~fle~d ~~a] Pl~. - ~1~ ~ ~1~ ,~ I~i~; ' - pic~t~ ~ t~lt~l~l mits ~it~ . /~ r~ ~t- ~ ~] . tM ~ .....~__ .... ~ 'C ~/~' _ -.'-' '~, ,. _~ ~ ~ .... ~m~-.~.-.': ~_~. , _ ~ __.,~ / I.~,tm~ s~l,~ , officer dutLeo for · Mjorit7 oJ ~e time,