mandatory hats!??

[Knitting]

We're not letter carriers? News to me. Regardless, that section of the ELM states uniform headgear is at the option of that list of employees.

However, the next section, ELM 934.12, states: Wearing of the cap is mandatory for (a) casual employees, (b) new employees who are not required to wear a uniform during the first 90 days of their employment, and (c) all other employees who are authorized only a cap as a means of identifying them with the Postal Service. No substitute headgear may be worn by these employees.

Above that in the ELM it states

934.11​

For the following employees, the wearing of uniform headgear is at the option of the employee:

1. Area maintenance technician/specialist.
2. Letterbox mechanic.
3. Letter carrier.
4. Motor vehicle operator, tractor trailer operator, driving instructor.
5. Ramp clerk and transfer clerk, AMF.
6. Clerk/special delivery messenger.

On the plus side, free hat.

 

[gotstamps]

she said she will write us up if we don’t wear it lol

Follow orders AND file a grievance. Mgmt cannot tell Rural Craft what to wear, only the guidelines of what is appropriate.

 

[Lyra]

Follow orders AND file a grievance. Mgmt cannot tell Rural Craft what to wear, only the guidelines of what is appropriate.

I just submitted the second paperwork for the grievance.

 

[Link]

We got our hats friday as a surprise. PM said it was a treat did not mention that it was mandatory to take one or to wear them whatsoever

 

[blamethesub]

I just submitted the second paperwork for the grievance.

In the meantime, there's nothing that says you have to wear the hat on your head. Clip it around a belt loop or your scanner holster and smile while your boss has a meltdown.

 

[Wilco183]

I was talking with my carrier today and he said they had a stand up this AM. reference these hats. Summarizing the PM:
- Management and union have come to an agreement (wondering what now).
- PM will pass out hats with USPS logo after talk.
- Doesn't have to be worn.
- USPS wanted to make it such that if a hat is worn then it needed a USPS logo or was blank. Union said no and no it is agreed to.
- PM concluded by telling a carrier "so yes, you can wear your Notre Dame hat".

That's what I'm told anyway.

 

[Dominator]

Bill them 8127 time for the entire day for additional duties (carrying/wearing the hat is an additional physical exertion of force), then grieve and contact DOL-WHD when the money doesn't show.

City Craft Mantra: If you want to get rich, just follow their instructions.

 

[Lyra]

update win settlement on not mandatory

 

[Dominator]

update win settlement on not mandatory

I'd grieve again arguing for management's failure to compensate during the period which wearing the hat was mandatory.

While local management was notified that carriers have discretionary authority over that directive (through the settlement) , if a ding to the pocketbook staves management from shooting future illegitimate orders from the hip, so be it.

The union may resist or play down this grievance or claim it's "untimely", but the settlement is a "new understanding", else, local management knew the rule the whole time when they issued the order and were feigning good faith, both in issuing the bad instruction and refusing to "resolve the issue at the lowest possible step" - another grievance.

 

[Haygrrl]

Tell them when I get a clothing allowance I will wear a hat, proper footwear, and etc.

She's buying it though

 

[Haygrrl]

I just submitted the second paperwork for the grievance.

Just me being me. But since I'm in a Mid-Atlantic cold winter area, I'd wear my knit hat over it? Until my grievance was settled

 

[Wilco183]

Just me being me. But since I'm in a Mid-Atlantic cold winter area, I'd wear my knit hat over it? Until my grievance was settled

A free thinsulate-lined USPS logo beanie would be nice for the winter. All cloth cap that turns orange after being washed from sweat, no.

 

[Rt2mailman]

Never allow managers to go overboard like this hat mandate. We as carriers can always pull out the unsafe card.
During covid a former veteran used it to avoid wearing a mask or a shield by saying he suffered from PSTD and wearing a mask/shield made him feel like "Killing people". In this case hats may make you feel unsafe by not being able to use all of your peripheral vision. Direct orders maybe ignored when we deeme them unsafe, illegal, or immoral.

 

[Dominator]

Direct orders maybe ignored when we deeme them unsafe, illegal, or immoral.

Yeah, but union has to agree with your perspective if management follows up with discipline. If the union agrees with management that no illegality, immortality, nor unsafe conditions existed, your defense (unfortunately) falls to the ground.

From there, you'd have to take it to court.

When the whole office bills them by the minute for wearing a hat, it gets pricey quite quickly, and many managers will understand losing money much quicker than they will understand losing grievances.

 

[Rt2mailman]

When we don't follow an order due to OUR
Perceived unsafetyness of the order, it doesn't matter what others think, union or management. We believed the order to be unsafe, therefore we couldn't follow it and risk our safety.

 

[Dominator]

When we don't follow an order due to OUR
Perceived unsafetyness of the order, it doesn't matter what others think, union or management. We believed the order to be unsafe, therefore we couldn't follow it and risk our safety.

I agree in the sense that I'm also not going to risk my biscuit if my spider senses are tingling. I'd deal with any flack after the fact.

My point is that when an employee uses the emergency/unlawful/ immoral card, management isn't restricted from issuing discipline for "failure to follow instructions." The case hinges on whether management can compel acceptance of a theory supporting no unnecessary danger, no risk of unlawfulness, and no opportunity for immorality. If the union agrees with management to settle with some discipline, so be that outcome.

If this weren't the case, a carrier could, for example, habitually refuse to drive a perfectly functional LLV out of the general risk of a ball bearing going out and swerving the vehicle into an occupied playground.

If management doubles down on the propriety of the perceived unsafe order and dispenses discipline, but the case ultimately falls to the ground, things can get... realllllly uncomfortable for local management.