New laws regarding architecture, engineering, and construction regulations

Hey,
Anyone here actually know the law? I need a legal mind to break down Sections 47, 48, and 49 of this act
because some parts are just totally muddy.

My company is right in the middle of pulling all the paperwork together to get our "permit to commence construction activities."
The thing is, my take on these specific clauses is hitting a massive wall because the lady over at the department thinks something completely different 🤷 so I figured I'd check if any pros here can settle the score.

Anyone here?

So the question remains: where exactly does the divergence in interpretation lie?

Section 47. states:
"...A chief site engineer, site engineer, and/or works manager can be any individual with an architectural, civil, mechanical, or electrical engineering background, provided they’ve passed their professional licensing exam and meet all other requirements laid out in this Law.
As for individual work supervisors, you can also appoint someone holding a Master of Engineering degree in a field not specifically listed in paragraph 2, as long as their specific degree program qualifies them for those supervisory duties and they have passed the professional licensing exam relevant to the field they are managing..."

Meanwhile, Section 49. says that for Group H individual work supervisors, you can appoint someone:
"...who has at least 3 years of professional experience and who:
...successfully completed a bachelor's or master's degree in the appropriate engineering field,
...Additionally, a Group H supervisor can be someone who graduated high school from a technical vocational program in the relevant field (Level IV, Associate's degree) and possesses at least 10 years of professional experience...."

Here’s my actual question: does a Group H supervisor strictly need to have passed that professional licensing exam, or are they exempt if they hit the requirements in Section 49? The folks over at the department are insisting they need it, even though Section 49 seems to say something completely different.

I just pulled the bits from the articles that actually matter to me, but if you want to dig into the full legal jargon, check out this link: You can grab articles 47, 48, and 49 there. They’re quick enough to read through, but honestly, they're way too damn long to bother pasting the whole thing here in a post...

What exactly was the Department looking at when they reached this conclusion? It’s certainly not the first time I've seen someone over at the Department seem a bit lost when it comes to the actual laws—but if that's the case, they really ought to be providing a clear explanation.

Even a toddler could have explained this better, and they basically said that since Article 47 clearly states work supervisors have to pass their professional exams—and that rule applies to all the other sections too—they didn't bother repeating the same phrase over and over in every single article just to keep things concise...

Anyway, that’s where it ended. I’ve called the department several times with different questions and ended up talking to the exact same person every single time, so I didn't want to start any unnecessary drama or get us labeled as difficult before we even officially submitted our application.

You’ve got a point there—the explanation they gave is honestly pretty nonsensical and just doesn't hold up under any scrutiny. Was it really delivered that poorly in person?

Does anyone actually wrap their head around this law, please??

copperdriver17 said:Does anyone actually wrap their head around this law, please??

Honestly, I think they're just jerking you around. You know how the bureaucracy works—it's a total circus. My advice? Demand everything in writing. Tell them you need a formal, written response to your specific inquiry, and then drop a little hint that you have connections at a higher level within the Department who will be reviewing their reply. Once you signal that you aren't just some random citizen they can brush off, and that you’ll be using their own paperwork to hold them accountable, they usually stop playing games and actually look into your case to resolve the issue.

copperdriver17 said:Section 47. states:
"...A chief site engineer, site engineer, and/or works manager can be any individual with an architectural, civil, mechanical, or electrical engineering background, provided they’ve passed their professional licensing exam and meet all other requirements laid out in this Law.
As for individual work supervisors, you can also appoint someone holding a Master of Engineering degree in a field not specifically listed in paragraph 2, as long as their specific degree program qualifies them for those supervisory duties and they have passed the professional licensing exam relevant to the field they are managing..."

Meanwhile, Section 49. says that for Group H individual work supervisors, you can appoint someone:
"...who has at least 3 years of professional experience and who:
...successfully completed a bachelor's or master's degree in the appropriate engineering field,
...Additionally, a Group H supervisor can be someone who graduated high school from a technical vocational program in the relevant field (Level IV, Associate's degree) and possesses at least 10 years of professional experience...."

Here’s my actual question: does a Group H supervisor strictly need to have passed that professional licensing exam, or are they exempt if they hit the requirements in Section 49? The folks over at the department are insisting they need it, even though Section 49 seems to say something completely different.

Well, that little "and" you tucked in there isn't actually present in Section 49 at all, so, I mean, in that case, the Department of Labor is probably right.

It seems like Section 49 just outlines the additional requirements for someone already covered under Section 47 to step into that role, rather than offering an alternative to the exam itself.
(I suppose laws sometimes—though they don't always, obviously—include a clarifying phrase like, "An individual who hasn't passed the exam might still be appointed if...")