HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0151.Sloat et al.92-10-21 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMI~L 0 YEES DE L'ON TA FIIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE
S LEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
~0 ~UN~AS STREET WEST~ SUiTE ErO0, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MEG ~Z~ TELEPHONE TE_E~O~JE
151/91, 157/91, 498/91, 50%/9%, 50~/91, 57%/9[, 844/91,
845/91, 869/91, 881/91, 891/91, 962/91, 1099/91, 1169/91,
1353/91, 1387/91, 1760/91, 1763/~1, 2420/91, 2421/9%
IN ~E ~TTER OF ~
Under
THE CRO~ ~PLOYEES COLLECTI~ B~G~INING ~CT
THE GRIEV~CE SETT~~ BO~
BETWEEN
OPSEU ($1oat et al)
G~ievo=
- and -
The crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
Employe=
BEFORE: S. Stewart Vice-Chairperson
P. Klym Member
H. Roberts Member
FOR T~.E D. Wright
UNION' Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, WriGht & Chapman
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE B. Christen
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING October 21, 1991
April 22, 23, 1992
May 7, 1992
July 6, 1992
DECISION
, There were eleven classification grievances before the Board
.in this proceeding. In accordance with the agreement of counsel,
the Board heard evidence and argument with respect to one group
of grievors, of whom it was agreed that Mr. J. Sloat and Mr. R.
Freel would give evidence as representative grievors. The
parties agreed that the evidence and argument with respect to the
second group of grievors would be dealt with following the
opportunity of the parties to consider the Board's decision with
respect to the first group. Accordingly, this panel of the Board
remains seized with respect to these other grievances.
Mr. Sloat and Mr. Freel are employed in the position of
Technician Surveys with the Ministry of Transportation. The
position specification is annexed hereto as Appendix A. The
position is classified as Technician 3 iSurvey. The class series,
which includes this class standard, is annexed hereto as Appendix
B. It is the position.of the Union that the g2~ievors are
improperly classified. They seek a "Berry Order", an order
directing the employer to reclassify them in an appropriate
classification. It is the Employer's position that the grievors
are currently properly classified.
The essence of the Union's position is that the current:
classification of the grievors does not reflect, the knowledge of
technology and the level of skill in that regard that the
grievors are currently required to utilize in the performance of
their duties.
NO evidence was called by the Employer and accordingly, Mr.
Sloat and Mr. Freel were the only witnesses. Mr. Sloat is a
graduate of community college architectural technician and
construction technician programs and has been employed by the
Ministry of Transportation since November, 1977. He was employed
in the Technician 2 Survey classification for six months until he
had completed examinations for the Technician 3 Survey
classification. He was re-classified to Technician 3 Survey in
-April 1978. Mr. Freel is a graduate of a three year community
college program and has been employed by the Ministry of
Transportation since September, 1987. He has been employed in
his current position since December, 1987. Mr. Sloat testified
that approximately 90 per cent of his time is involved in
carrying out. engineering surveys while 10 per cent of his work is
in connection with legal surveys. Legal surveys are carried out
for the purposes of buying and selling property while engineering
surveys are carried out to show the t6pography of a particular
arma. The purpose of engineering surveys is to obtain
information for purposes such as upgrading highways. Mr. Sloat
testified that virtually all of his work in connection with
.engineering surveys involves the use of the Total Station system,
a process which will be discussed in more detail below. There
are eight different survey crews in the southwest region. Their
composition may vary somewhat but they are generally composed of
one party chief an~ three persons in the position of Technician
Survey. The party chief is in a supervisory position. At any
particular time, six of the crews will be carrYing out~
engineering surveys while two crews will be carrying out legal
surveys.
The traditional method of conducting surveys involves the
use of rods, chains, levels and transits. In carrying out a
traditional survey the technician is required to read the request
and gather all the relevant plans. As well, it is necessary to
locate the known monuments or benchmarks. Notes of measurements
are made manually, in notebooks. Calculations are made with the
assistance of devices that have increased in their sophistication
over the years. In a traditional survey, the area covered must be
physically travelled five or six times and measurements are taken
at the various locations in order t6 obtain the desired
information. Measurements to establish cross-sections are done
3
at intervals to perpendicular to a centre line.
A newer method of surveying involves what is known as the
"Total Station" system. There are four Total Stations in the
southwest region and most of the engineering work is carried out
using the Total Station system. All four may not be in use at
any particular time. Legal surveys could also be carried out
using the Total Station system, however there is currently a
legal impediment to their use for this kind of survey. The
initial steps of carrying out a Total Station survey are similar
to those in the case of a traditional survey in that it is first
necessary for the survey crew to familiarize itself with requests
from planning designs and to obtain the plans setting out the
monumentation pertinent to the survey.
To commence a Total Station survey, a baseline is
established, a known line between two control points with a
published value. The distance is "shot" electronically, using a
geodimeter which emits a ray which is reflected back by a prism.
The prism replaces3the rod employed in a traditional survey. The
total station points that the surveyors will occupy are then
established. The elevations of these points are measured and the
latitude and longitude are established. From this information a
network is established.
The total station equipment is set up at each of these
points in turn and measurements are taken along.strings from the
total station point. The prism is moved to various points along
each string and measurements taken in order to fully capture the
topography. The person on the prism and the operator of the
total station equipment must be in continuous communication
regarding the details of each measurement. The work order
number, pressure, temperature, control point, prism position,
latitude and longitude and elevation information are entered into
the geodat by the total station operator. The geodat is a
computerized data collector attached to the tripod holding the
'geodimeter. Ail of the data relating to the job is stored in the
geodat.
The use of the Total Station equipment results in a more
accurate product as the possibility of human error in measurement
is reduced. The work can be completed more quickly using the
Total Station system. There are fewer set ups required in a
Total Station survey than in a traditional survey. The entry of
the data into a computer program in a process that will be
referred to below results in a more refined product at the
conclusion of the job. The use of the technology associated with
the Total Station survey allows a designer to make changes in a
plan, such as a change in the position of a curve, without the
necessity of the area being surveyed again.
Mr. Sloat characterized the work in connection with a Total
Station survey as less physically strenuous, as it requires
walking an area once rather than five or six times. However, he
considered the work to· be more demanding in that, in his words,
it required the members of the crew to "think three-
dimensionally" in carrying out their work. He testified that the
job of the person holding the prism in a Total Station survey is
more demanding than the job of the person holding the rod in a
traditional survey in that this person must ensure that the
information necessary for the establishment of a three
dimensional image is conveyed.
Mr. Sloat has been using the Total Station equipment for
several years and has been involved in teaching others. He
testified that he presently feels competent to use the Total
Station equipment but that he is still learning things about it.
Mr. Sloat was unable to be precise about the amount of time
required to become competent in the use of the equipment. He
5
indicated that there is a variation in the time that it takes
'survey technicians to become competent in the use of this
equipment. He stated that in his view experienced survey
technicians could be trained to operate the Total Station
equipment within a month, excluding the computer work, however
they would still require limited supervision at that point. He
further stated that it would take inexperienced survey
technicians three to four months to become competent. Mr. Sloat
made reference in his evidence to student construction
technicians who have been assigned to his crews and stated that
in six months approximately half of them become competent with
supervision. Mr. $1oat was adamant that competence in the
operation of the Total Station system could not be obtained.
within one week. Mr. Sloat made reference to ongoing Changes in
field methods in connection with this system that it is necessary
for him to learn and adapt to.
As previously indicated, the readings taken in a survey
using the traditional method are recorded in a notebook. Curves
are plotted using a programmable calculator, lin a Total Station
survey notes are still taken, however fewer notes are required.
In a Total Station survey the information contained in the .geodat
is downloaded into a computer which is kept on a %ruck on tlhe
project site. The downloading is a straightforward mechanical
function that'takes only a few minutes.
In performing their work in connection with conventional
engineering surveys the grievors are required to operate the
SPEARS computer program. The vast majority of this time is taken
up with the inputting of data. This computer work involves
approximately 25% of a crew's time on a survey. The SPEARS
program calculates elevations. The information entered on this
program in connection with a particular survey is copied on to a
disk and the disk is forwarded to the office along with the
6
survey notes by the party chief. A one or two day training
'period is required to become familiar with'this program. Prior
to the use of this program elevations would be calculated
manually. The calculations were carried out by the party chief
however one of the grievors could be called upon to check his
calculations. The grievors are also required to operate CORD, a
computer program used only in connection with a Total Station
survey. When the information from the geodat is downloaded into
the computer the CORD program operates to place co-ordinates on
unknown points. Curves are plotted by the computer. This
program allows the detection of gross errors, which may then be
corrected. The data is edited, a process which Mr. Sloat
described as taking approximately fifteen minutes. However, for
tess experienced people this process could take significantly
longer. Generally the party chief will carry out any rudimentary
manipulation of the data that is required however Mr. Sloat has
also been called upon to carry out this function. Mr. Sloat
testified that he commenced using this program with "hands on"
training and subsequently received a one week training course.
As well, the grievors are required to operate MTC-COGO, a program
which is used in connection with legal surveys. This program
calculates distances and bearings between two points and
eliminates the need for hand plotting. Mr. Freel testified that
approximately 40 per cent of an entire legal Survey job involves
computer work in connection with this program. The other change
that has taken place in connection with legal surveys is that
electronic measuring devices have replaced chains.
The work in connection with the operation of the computer
programs is shared between the Technicians in the crew and the
party chief. Mr. Freel testified that after a one week training
period in which the various programs were dealt with he required
four to six months to reach a "comfortable working level" with
the programs.
7
One further aspect of the evidence that must be addressed is
'a report entitled "Revitalization Regi°nal'Surveys and Plans
Organizations" which was identified by Mr. Freel. This report
was apparently prepared by the Ministry's Senior Manager, Surveys
and Design Office and the Manager, Operational Policy and
Analysis, however it is unsigned and undated. The document
indicates that it is in the form of a recommendation submitted
for approval. There is no indication that it was approved. This
document makes a number of recommendations, including the
recommendation that the current position of the grievors be re-
classified to the Highway Construction Inspector 1 level. We
agree with Mr. Christen's submission that the opinion expressed
in this report with respect to the classification of the grievors
cannot be given any weight. There was no direct evidence from
the authors of this report and the status of the report was not
established. It cannot be construed as any sort of concession of
the grievance on the part of the Employer. The Board must reach
its own determination as to whether a position is properly
classified on the basis of the evidence of the duties and
responsibilities of the position and in considering this matter
we have given no weight to the opinion expressed in this report.
As previously indicated, the issue to be determined in this
case is whether the position of the grievors is properly
classified as Technician 3, Survey. It is clear that the
technological advances in the surveying field has resulted in
changes in the duties of this position. The test with respect to
whether the addition of new duties will result in a conclusion
that a position is improperly classified is succinctly set ()ut in
Aird et al, 1349/87; (Slone) at p. 8 where the Board states:: "...
the addition of new duties may take a job out of its original
classification, but only where those duties are of such a kJ.nd or
occur in such a degree as to amount to a different job
altogether". Accordingly, the determination to, be made is
8
whether the job performed by the grievors can be characterized as
ra "different job altogether" than the job Contemplated by the
Technician 3, Survey class standard.
The effect of the incorporation of technological advances in
a position in relation to how it may affect the classification of
that position has been addressed in a number of decisions of this
Board as well as of other arbitration boards. In Sperry Inc.
(1~85), 20 L.A.C. (3d) 385 (Hinnegan), a case referred to by Mr.
Christen, a number of decisions are reviewed and at p. 388 their
effect is summarized as follows~ "... advances in the state of
the art in a given area, requiring advanced skills in new
technology, does not, in and of itself result in the creation of
a new job." In a case before this Board, Sovereign, 241/91,
(Low), the Board dealt with a claim by a traffic technician that
his position was improperly classified on the basis that, ~nter
alia, he had become responsible for downloading information into
a personal computer and generating printouts from it. At pp. 6-7.
the Board states as follows:
Class standards are not intended nor drafted as
compendia of job functions'. By their very nature,
they are to describe in general terms the role
of an employee within the public service and do
not nor are intended to contain an exhaustive list
of functions or duties to be carried out by persons
within the standard; nor are class standards
intended to designate tools or methods by which
employees are to fulfil their duties. While it may
be attractive to suggest that, because a computer
is a sophisticated piece of equipment, the operation
thereof puts greater demands upon an employee required
to operate one and requires a greater degree of
qualification, this concept must, however, be put
into the context of the purpose to which the computer
is being used. The purpose of the position and the
role of a person holding the Technician 3 classification
is to conduct traffic studies, which to a large degree
involves counting, recording and compiling. The
advent of the computer has relieved the technician
from the tedium of manual counting, recording and
compilation, and in the circumstances of 'this case
at least, we cannot accept the proposition that the
use of a tool which makes it possible to do the job
faster and more accurately is the equivalent of
changing the nature of the job. The job is the
same and the function is the same. It is merely
done with a better tool.
In Eldon, 1324/88, (Samuels), the Board concluded that the
changes in a position resulting from technological advances were
such that the position could no longer be considered to fall
within Drafter 2 classification. That class standard refers to
"the exercise of manual skill in the manipulation of drafting
tools, and the utilization of knowledge of technical procedures,
engineering practices and mathematics in order to complete clear
accurate plans". The class standard also refers to "complex
drafting work". In that case the grievor's work had formerly
been done exclusivel~ by hand. However, at the time of the
grievance his work was carried out almost entirely on computer
and he was required to work with a number of different computer
programs. The decision states as follows at pp. 5-6:
The fundamental issue in this case is whether the
computer is merely a "drafting tool". Or has
Mr. Eldon's job moved beyond "the exercise of
manual skill in the manipulation of drafting
tools"?
It is true, as the Ministry argues, that the
grievor's final product is essentially the
same today as it was twenty years ago. But
that is not the end of the matter.
If-a hole is to be dug in the ground, one
could employ a man with a shovel or a man
with a steamshovel. The final product will
be the same, but these two workers are
fundamentally different. The first man is
a manual labourer. He can produce the hole,
but he brings to the job no more than
muscle, and the job will take a very lon~
time. The second man is a machine operator.
He brings to the job a knowledge of how to
run the machine which will do the job, and
as a consequence he can do the job in a
brief period.
The computer has been progressively introduced
into the drafting office because it can increase
the productivity of the employees substantially.
But there's no advance in productivity until
people like Mr. Eldon become proficient in the
use of the new technology. Mr. Eldon is a very
experienced draftsman. He knows his work inside
out. But he is more than a draftsman. He has
become a very experienced and knowledgeable
computer operator. This has changed the way he
does his work dramatically. He has become a
much more valuable employee to the Ministry as
a result of his increasing expertise in the new
technology. He no longer digs a hole with a shovel.
He rolls up to the job in the morning in a
steamshovel.
In Nadavallil, 1411/90 (Roberts), this Board also dealt with the
effect of advances in techhology in relation to a position
involving drafting duties. In that case the Board reviewed the
decision in Eldon, found the circumstances to be comparable to
the case before it and concluded that the grievor's skills were
not encompassed by his existing class standard. At p. 11 Of the
decision the Board characterized the grievor's computer skills
as having "taken the forefront".
These decisions provide a useful framework within Which to
examine the duties of the grievors. As well, there is an earlier
decision of this Board dealing specifically with the issue before
us based on circumstances that existed at that time. That case
also involved grievances alleging that Technician Survey
positions were improperly classified as Technician 3, Survey.
Mr. Sloat was one of the representative grievors in that case.
In that decision, Ministry of Transportation and OPSEU (Parker et
i1
al) 1528/88, (Roberts), which was issued on July 27, 1989, the
'Board dismissed the grievances. The Board'reviewed the nature of
the Total Station method of surveying as well as the involvement
of the grievors in the use of computer operations. At that time
the southwestern region had two Total Station systems.
Accordingly, the majority of the survey work was performed in the
traditional manner. The Board states the following at pp. 6-8 of
its decision:
...We agree that technological change in the
work of a particular classification may
become so extensive at some point in time as
to require a revision to be made or, perhaps
a new class standard to be issued. At the
same time, we recognize that.a class standard
is not a job specification° .In classifying a
job, the "typical duties" set forth in the
class standard are not the sole determinants
of classification. Consideration also is
given to whether a class standard'is most
appropriate to a .job in terms of level of
respons%bility, complexity and qualifications
of incumbents.
With these considerations in mind, we
cannot say that at the moment the class
standard for Technician 3 Survey has become
so irrelevant to the duties and
responsibilities actually performed by
persons in that classification as to justify
the issuance of an order from this Board
requiring the Ministry to make a change.
Because there are only two Total Station
Systems and 8 survey crews, the large part of
the work of the grievors is still being
performed according to the standard survey
techniques contemplated in the existing class
standard. It is not yet outdated, in terms
of its description of "typical duties" as to
justify the issuance of a Berry-type order.
Moreover, it is impossible to state in
precise mathematical terms when that point
might be reached. It seems to us that such a
question must be approached on a caste-by-case
basis and likely will involve an evaluation
of both quantative and qualitative factors.
It does seem that the computerization ·
inherent in the new ~echnology will require
12
the grievors to acquire new knowledge and
perform new duties. We make no determination
as to whether the new knowledge and duties
might be of a higher or lower order than
those involved in the standard survey
techniques contemplated by the current class
standard. On the evidence present, all that
we can say is that they are different --
perhaps so different as to suggest that the
Ministry contemplate changing the class
standard if it decides to pursue a complete
changeover to Total Stations Systems. But,
of course, that is not the situation
presented in the case at hahd.
There was a subsequent classification grievance of persons
in the Technician 3, Survey classification considered by this
Board in Boulang~r et al, 1038/90 (Fisher), where the Board
rejected the Union's position that the positions were improperly
classified. One of the bases for the rejection of the Union's
position was that the facts with respect to the advances in
technology and their effect on the position were really no
different than the facts before the Board in the Parker case.
Clearly, the facts before the Board in this grievance must
be considered in light Of the conclusions of the Board in Parker.
The Board has ruled on the issue raised in this grievance based
on the facts before it in connection with that grievance and the
Board's ruling is final and binding. The Board will not allow
the re-litigation of the same dispute. However, the Parker
decision specifically contemplates that circumstances may change
in the future to the extent that it may be concluded that the
-position is improperly classified. The evidence before the Board
13
in this proceeding differed in certain significant respects from
the evidence in the Parker case. The number of Total Station
systems in this region have doubled from two to four. Mr. Sloat,
who gave evidence as a representative grievor of a sub-group of
the grievors, testified that virtually all of the ninety pe~c cent
of his time spent on engineering surveys involves the use of the
Total Station system. With respect to the duties of this sub-
group of grievors, the use of this equipment is now significantly
greater. As a result, the computer work perfo~n~ed in connection
with the CORD program has increased. As well, the SPEARS program
has come into operation and there has been an increase in the
involvement of the grievors in connection with the MTC-COGO
program.
However, as is pointed out in the Parker decision, it is
not simply a matter of quantity of new duties. The qualitative
nature of the functions must be assessed. The issue is whether
there are skills the grievors are required to exercise which
differ from those contemplated by the class standard. One method
of assessing the complexity of the skills is a consideration of
the time required to learn them. In Parker, there was some
evidence from a witness called by the employer indicating that
competence in the use of the Total Station system could be
attained within a week. Mr. Sloat was Uncontradicted in his
evidence that it would not be possible to become competent in the
use of this equipment in the course of one week. While Mr.
14
Sloat's evidence with respect to the issue of the amount of time
required to develop the skill to operate this equipment was
somewhat descriptive, his evidence viewed most favourably from
the Employer's perspective establishes that a minimum of a
month's training is required. Mr. Sloat was also uncontradicted
in his evidence that there is a greater demand on a surveyor ~hen
carrying out a Total Station survey in that the surveyor is
required to "think three-dimensionally".
Mr. Wright emphasized.that the class standard was drafted in
i965 and, that it specifically contemplates the use of
traditional surveying tools in the performance of engineering
surveys. In his submission it does not contemplate the skills
and responsibilities associated with the operation of computer
programs. In our view, however, the computer work performed by
the grievors is not work which by itself would cause us to
conclude that their position is improperly classified. The
grievors do not have'sole responsibility for this work, as it is
shared with the party chiefs. While, according to Mr. Freel's
uncontradicted evidence, it has taken some time for him to reach
a comfortable working level with the various programs, given the
nature and the quantity of work that is performed we are not
convinced that the performance of this work has made the job a
"different job altogether". The computer work performed by the
grievors is clearly more complex than the work in issue in the
Sovereign case, however it is not of such a complexity, nor is it
15
performed to such an extent that we could conclude that the
performance of this work takes the position out of its current
classification.
However, in our view, the work that the grievors now perform
in connection with the operation of the Total Station system~in
carrying out engineering surveys entails skills~ that go beyond
those contemplated by the Technician 3, Surveysl class standard.
We h&we reached this decision after considering both the
quantitative and qualitative aspects of this work. As previously
noted, the evidence of Mr. Sloat as a representative of a sub-
group of the grievors was that virtually ninety per cent of his
work entailed surveys ca~ried out with the Total Station sy~tem.
This is clearly a significant portion of his work. As Mr.
Christen emphasized, the grievors are still carrying out
measurements, recording information and providing a similar final
product. However, the use of this technology results in this
work being carried out more efficiently and with an ultimate
product that is superior. Technological advances in connection
with work performed in virtually all positions will require the
learning of.new s~ills'. This matter will not necessarily lead to
the conclusion that the duties of a position go beyond that
contemplated by the classification to which the position has been
assigned. However, on the particular facts of 'this case we are
persuaded that the use of this technology has imposed the
requirement for significant additional skills beyond those
16
contemplated by the class standard. Of critical significance in
our decision is Mr. Sloat's uncontradicted evidence with respect
to the time required to become competent in the operation of this
equipment and his evidence about the increased intellectual
demands in carrying out a survey using this equipment in contrast
to carrying out a survey using the traditional methods, where the
demands are more physical in nature. The Technician 3, Survey
class standard indicates that the qualifications for the
positions are grade 12 or its equivalent, two or three years
experience and good physical condition. While the fact that the
representative grievors both have educational backgrounds that go
beyond that contemplated by the class standard does not
necessarily indicate that the position is improperly classified,
their uncontradicted e~idence about the challenges that the
advent of technological changes have provided'for them
notwithstanding their educational backgrounds was a factor in
persuading us that the scope of the intellectual demands of the
position are not recognized in the position's' current
classification.
Accordingly, we find that the position of the grievors is
improperly classified and the grievances are therefore allowed.
The Employer is directed to find or create a suitable
classification for the position of the grievors. We retain
jurisdiction with respect to any difficulties in the
implementation of this decision, including any issue with respect
17
to compensation. As indicated at the outset of this decision, we
also retain jurisdiction to deal with the additional grievances
in the event that they cannot be resolved by the parties.
Dated at Toronto this 21st day of October, 1992.
S.L. Stewart, Vice-Chairperson
P. Klym, Member
H. ROberts, Member
.~=?e~..~ j:t:o~'ttlon Sp oration & Class Allocatlon. CSC
~e ~o describe and c~at~y Ill ~ol~6ons except ~ho~ covered
~c~ sm~s ~c H ~ 0 ~ ~al~' :~' ',.'.:~i " ~ ~ :
'~'' ....... ' .... ' ~'"' ......
e~ag~ [n e~i~eri~ ~, legal 1~ ~ys for[~'~:
slo~ disc~ces, ~ ~C detail ~ le~l,,s~y~,..dfmc~ ~er ~s o( s~C[ in (ietd
a pmcts[~ level Co dete~ re~ ele~t~
2. :~c~cs ~or ~rs o~ C~ s~y pa~ as'Co
~7~bcatnt~ ~dzoncal a~ ~t~[ ~a~Cs, clea~
pLanc[~ or- sea~ (or legal s~y :~scs or
· ~3. ~tes ouC ~C~Ctca[ cal~acto~ ~iltzt~[el~c ~l~a~ors co obtain solucto~
'~o vari~ trtg~t~ ~ ~ p~bl~ ~essa~ {~ ~leti~ o( ~ield s~y o~ratiom
,4. ~ ~casi~, ~y t~ ~rge of a ~y f~eld'~y
OT~arty ~ef ~ ~ds In asce~ le~l title ~n ~ ~sC~ ~fices.
Berfoms ~ttt~l ~ttes ~h as:
~ratt~ M.T.C. ~cles as re~, to tr~~r~l tn abse~e of or on
~°inst~tt~ of Pa~y ~e~, .~
-~r~oml~ oC~r ~tie~ as asai~. ,: ': ....
~ :; ..
Several yeara expe~tence tn =e[a~ad fie~ and ~ccess~l
Technician 3, S~vey. Vorktng knowledse of ~u~vey~cec~tq~%, procedu~e~ and H.T.C.
Su=v~$~and~. Ability CO use sighting tnecrua~n~i and'tO perform sudsy computations.
:
F. E. Loecombe A~c~onnell¥,~r. ~.' & ~.O,W.
~.<,,,,~,,o.,,o. ~ .... '"" ... ~:,~:....,~1:::,~~:..,___r... -. '"". ' ' ,1:' '
: ' ii,'. ~. "l.".. ;l:.,.l.,:. , ", '-., ' "
(Confirming existing class allocaCiou) .~
· ~ ~ :~ i~l . ,' .'} :~-' ' '
~.. . .. :{.~,.~ {,~{{M~t~~' .. ~:} ~ ~ .....
--~ · :t.~"~, ':1~
,d ~. · ,. , ~ , .
· ., I..:,~ _ . ,,. ;. .
:: ' '~.,~ ..~ ~i~,~ ' ~1~:~ ~ ~. :"
Carry ouC control survey for precise secCin{'of lii~nC' ~d~lavq~lpps.~og ney consrructio.. ,
.md use standards ~u.ey' ~ech~iquea for ~he
· .,~...., .jr, . :'.::,'. :JjJ.'r ' ','~t~ ; .. .... .., J: '.
Appendix
C_a~eqorv
TEGH MICAL SERVICES CATEGORY
Thts Category tncludes:
- post, ions involving the installation, operation, servicing.
repair, modLftcatton and maintenance of eLec~ntc systems
and e~lpment: and the piann~g and c~otcltnatton
telephone and radio communications ne~orks ~sed fo~
transmitting w~rk ~i~nments and dtspetch:Ln~ e~tpmen~
and
- positions tnvo[vt~g such duties as the preparation Of
sketches, drawings and specifications for new butld~qs.
alterat~ns, bridges, highways, ~tertor layouts, exhorts
and m~ets, and mechanical and eLec~tcaJ systems; the
compilation, pto~ttn~ or drafttn~ of s~ey plans,
topo~aphtc or p[animetrtc maps. land use maps, pmft~es.
co~to~s, cross-sections, mosaics, and site plans
rela~ to aerial, qround a~ legal /a~d s~eys.
archttecture, eng~eertng, community plannLn~, forest.
so~ research and conse~atton; the review and recommen-
dation on,types of cons~ctton, materials, etc., a~ the
~eparatton of estimates and specHtcattons for tender~g
putpose s;
- positions involving sub-professional suppqm: se~tces
tn such areas as highway planning, pre-cons~ton
eng~eer~g, cons~ctton, eng~ee~g and legal s~eys.
entering such duties as sc~edu[~g, expedtt.~g,
~spectton and con~oHtng construction p~oJects.
ensurmg ~att~ ata~ards and compliance with
specifications related to cons~ctton projects;
- positions involving the filming o~ still or motion pictures
m btaek and white or co[our, the deve[op~, prating and
en[~g~g o~ [t[m. the retou~h~g, s~tb~g and s~tp~tng
of positive and negative film and paper pr~ts and the
edtttnq, cutt~ and spltctnq of f~m.
- positions involved In the pr~tston of'such
professional suppo~ se~tces as a~tcu[~a[
and inspection, gelo~cal test~, and ~ the support
a~eas of conse~attom and hat, al resoles
- positions involving [he devetopmen~ and promo[ton of
~ades tra~g pro~ammes, tnctud~q counselltn~ tn
the apprenticeship trades, and the supe~tston
technical, vocattonat and ~ades training adult co~ses
under shared-cost aqteemeucs.
This Category also includes:
The conduct of sub-professional applied scientific work and the
provision of support services [o professiona! $[a[f. entailing such
responsLbtlities as:
- [he observatio~t, calculation, cecordtng and
interpretation of tests, analyses, experiments,
field surveys and investigations;
- the operation of equipment such as elect4'oencephalographs,
etecttocardtographs, audiometers0 X-ray and f.!ourtscopes
tn support of pro<F'ammes for the dlag~osts, treatment.
and prevention of human diseases and hazatdot~s physical
conditions:
- participating Ln the management and conduct of specLali~ed
pcogtammes or ~tntts tn arbortcuittt~e, horticulture,
landscape, desitin, agriculture, parks, hatcheries, [ish
and wtldltfe and fca-est protection: ~
- positions involving .~e identification, classification,
circulation, organization and compilation of materials
tn support of such socia! science areas as museums,
archives, and libraries.
This Category does not !r[clude:
- positions involved primarily in the operation of radio
transmitters or telegr,~ph equipment, telephones or teletype
, equipment and electronic data processLng equipment;
- positions primarily tnvolved tn the operation of projection
equipment:
- Positions tn Which a university degree and teaching
certification ts required to teach the subject matter.
- positions requiring the appZtcatton of prc~[esstonal
knowledge tn the socta! areas; m'
izgoo
TECHNICIAN 1, SURVEY
CL~$ DEFINITION:
This is the entry and training level intended to provide familiarity
with the elementary functions o£ surveying.
These,dmployees act as chainman or rodrnan and. receive detailed
instructions in the use oi the transit level and field no,e-keeping. Work
is scheduled, continually checked during progress, a~d reviewed on corn-'
pletion for accuracy and adherence to instructions.
Typical duties include assisting in making linear measurements with
surveyor's chain, assisting in taking ground elevations by acting as rod-
man, clearing underbrush, sharpening stakes an~ planting survey m:~.rkers,
.. cleaning and taking care of equipment, assisting in making copies of
~'~ registered instruments and plans' and plotting simple graphs.
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Grade 10 or equivalent corpbination of academic training and practical
experience.
2. .No previous work experience.
3. Good physical condition.
May 1965
12902
TECHNICI~ 2, SUR. VE¥
CLASS DEFINITION:
This level is intended to give training in the use of sighting
instruments in addition to acting as a rodman or chainman. These
employees act as a levelman or transitman receiving detailed instruc-
tions on the nature a_~d purpose of the work and procedures to be
followed. Complex or preci.se instrument work is not undertaken at
' ~this level.
Typical. duties include taking stadia readings, producing line,
i recording angular and linear measurements, taking cross-sections,
.' taking profiles, setting grade stakes, performing a variety of computa-
tions such as closures on simple level circuits, slope corrections,
...: simple trigonometric calculations and carnputation of quantities for
'-~.~ payment on construction contracts.
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Grade 12 or an equivalent of education and experience.
One year of related experience and successful completion of
departmental examination OP~ two years' of related experience
where an examination does not exist.
3, Good physical condition."
.'i
l~f. ay 1965
12904
TECHNICIAN 3, SURVEY
GLASS DEFINITION:
This class covers employees who act as senior chalnznan for a
legal land surveys. They obtain precise linear measurements, assist
in taking astronomical observations, assist with title semrching in the
. registry office and pl6t information from field notes or deeds. OR
These employees act as transitman and levelrnan on engineering s'~urvey~,
without detailed instructions, on all routine phases of the: work, taking
field notes for alignment, toposraph¥, profiles and cros~-s.ections. OR
These employees take charge of a sub-party working on a limited portion
of a construction contract. They carry out control surveys for the
precise setting of alignment and elevations of new construction and use
standard survey techniques for the measurements of quantities.
Typical duties include completing level circuits, laying out complex
circular and spiral curves, booking field notes in a standard manner,
computing quantities of materials including complex shapes in concrete
structures. They assist in the supervision and training of junior me'tubers
of the party and may act aa party chief when require~l.
OUALIFIC ATIONS:
[. Grade 12 or an equivalent combination of education and experience.
Two yea'rs' experience and successful completion of the departmental
examination OF[ three years' experience where an e~:amination does
not exist.
Good physical condition.
May 1965