Is management-authorized meeting time with a union representative, compensable?

[Dominator]

Today, a 3-chain link of union representatives (NRO DR ADR) has expressed to me that management-authorized meeting time with my union representative is not compensable.

I wholeheartedly disagree (via mainly F-21 §251), but since no source documentation was provided to me from the NRLCA, I have no idea what rules the NRLCA relied upon to come to this conclusion, if not just by unsupported fiat.

The union's argument is that union investigations are not mandatory meetings, therefore management is not required to compensate for it.

It appears (to me) like the chain has confused "meeting time" with "training time", but maybe I'm mistaken.

The union has consecutively withdrawn the past 5 or 6 of my grievances. While I suspect their pattern will continue with this one too, I'm still interested in reading arguments for either side.

 

[neciat]

I don't know about that. Article 17 ;

Section 4. Payment of Stewards

The Employer will authorize payment only under the following
conditions:

Grievances:

Steps 1 and 2 — One Union steward (only as permitted in
Section 2.A) for time actually spent in grievance handling,
including investigation and meetings with the Employer. The
Employer will also compensate a steward for the time reason-
ably necessary to write a grievance. The aggrieved will be
compensated (or provided equivalent auxiliary assistance) for
time actually spent discussing the dispute with their immediate
supervisor and for completing the employee portion of PS Form
8191 (if applicable) in accordance with Article 15.3 (Step 1) a.
Steward hours actually spent in grievance handling, including
investigation and meetings with the Employer, will be
recorded and accumulated. Upon the accumulation of eight
(8) hours, a Z day will be provided. On those occasions where
the steward will be unreasonably delayed, auxiliary assis-
tance will be provided the steward, and the hours will not be
recorded or accumulated.

 

[Shannonboy]

So Neciat....translate for me please....is that a YES, or NO, because I believe the answer should be YES...

 

[Dominator]

@neciat , I agree that stewards are paid for attending meetings. No dispute from me on that.

Article 17 (Stewards Rights) addresses the steward's compensation in what you've cited; section 4, Payment of Stewards, in addition to employee compensation for the common employee/management interactions involving grievances.

The union asserting that an employee is not compensated for participating in steward/employee interviews is a first for me. According to the rep, that's a conclusion from both the NRO and the DR.

Unfortunately, the NRO nor the DR provided the ADR with any documentation or support for the position. That being the case, I can't put any stock into the (unsupported) position presented.

 

[Dominator]

So Neciat....translate for me please....is that a YES, or NO, because I believe the answer should be YES...

That's one aspect of employee compensation related to grievances, but it does not address whether rural carriers are entitled to be compensated for the time involved in being interviewed by the union.

 

[really]

That's one aspect of employee compensation related to grievances, but it does not address whether rural carriers are entitled to be compensated for the time involved in being interviewed by the union.

I found this but the carrier was in off-duty status (that shouldn't matter)
The parties agree when management requires a rural carrier to attend a pre-disciplinary interview and the rural carrier asks to talk to a steward before the interview, reasonable time spent in such discussion is included in the compensable time referenced in the Step 4 agreement in case 195R-41-C98069816.
from 12-3-2015

 

[ABCya]

I seem to remember that a rural carrier initiating a grievance is compensated for that time. Im also pretty sure that an II by mgmt is compensated. Not sure on others, but Im leaning towards any mandatory meeting outside of normal work duties and meetings "built in", are compensated.

 

[ABCya]

Wow. How much my brain willingly dismisses work related issues from memory now that Im retired.

 

[Rt2mailman]

Everyone above may be mistakenly believing that we are all talking about compen̈nation for a local steward, when the union was inferring that any steward above the local steward is not compensated by the Usps, which is correct.
My interest is in what 5-6 grievances are being "Withdrawn" against a carrier's wishes? That should have a Nation labor board charge made against the union if the carrier doesn't feel they were properly represented.

 

[justacarrier]

There is a step 4 that does clearly state that "If management is requiring the rural carrier to attend the pre-disciplinary interview, the rural carrier is entitled to be compensated for the time involved." Now this is very specific and is tied to a PDI not just time spent talking to union representative. As far as compensation for time spent speaking to rep whether officially authorized or not I think it's a stretch.

 

[justacarrier]

Everyone above may be mistakenly believing that we are all talking about compen̈nation for a local steward, when the union was inferring that any steward above the local steward is not compensated by the Usps, which is correct.
My interest is in what 5-6 grievances are being "Withdrawn" against a carrier's wishes? That should have a Nation labor board charge made against the union if the carrier doesn't feel they were properly represented.

Many grievances get withdrawn. Mainly because they lack "merit" or basically, there is no actual violation of the contract or manuals. Any carrier has a right to file any grievance they want, you could file that you want the sky to be purple, but the union will withdraw a grievance that lack an actual violation of some sort. On occasions, a frivolous grievance can cause more harm than good!

 

[Shannonboy]

Wow. How much my brain willingly dismisses work related issues from memory now that Im retired.

I wanna try it......

 

[neciat]

Maybe Title 5 of CFR ?

§ 551.424 Time spent adjusting grievances or performing representational functions.

(a) Time spent by an employee adjusting his or her grievance (or any appealable action) with an agency during the time the employee is required to be on the agency’s premises shall be considered hours of work.

 

[RammerJammer]

Let me play devil’s advocate. I’m a rabble rouser who likes to stir the pot and file on anything I can think of. I frequently get the ire of management and have had way more than most IIs and issuances of discipline. Do I deserve to profit from my offenses?

 

[Dominator]

I found this but the carrier was in off-duty status (that shouldn't matter)
The parties agree when management requires a rural carrier to attend a pre-disciplinary interview and the rural carrier asks to talk to a steward before the interview, reasonable time spent in such discussion is included in the compensable time referenced in the Step 4 agreement in case 195R-41-C98069816.
from 12-3-2015

In my case, it doesn't involve any disciplinary pretext. Thank you for this info though, I might try arguing this by analogy.

 

[Dominator]

Everyone above may be mistakenly believing that we are all talking about compen̈nation for a local steward, when the union was inferring that any steward above the local steward is not compensated by the Usps, which is correct.

Agreed.

My interest is in what 5-6 grievances are being "Withdrawn" against a carrier's wishes? That should have a Nation labor board charge made against the union if the carrier doesn't feel they were properly represented.

Here are my grievances the union withdrew.

1. In cases where the employer repeats a violation of the CBA, is it within the scope of the Agreement to resolve the grievance by settlement or award that includes a progressive monetary remedy for the instant case in addition to future or similarly related problems, and, if so, are there any limitations to the progression multiplier or monetary amount?
2. When an employee identifies a Postal rule as linguistically confusing, vague, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear, what must that employee do to aquire an interpretation of that rule which the Employer and Union agree upon as correct and proper?
3. Given that vagueness, ambiguity, or otherwise linguistically confusing language in a postal rule creates uncertainty and risks arbitrary enforcement and loss of contractual rights, may such uncertainty be treated as a grievable harm entitling the grievant to seek a binding interpretive ruling to remedy that uncertainty?
4. Are the parties involved in a Step 1 discussion permitted to fashion and agree to a remedy of a grievance that is inconsistent with unpublished, Headquarters-level interpretations of Postal rules?
5. Are the parties involved in a Step 1 discussion restricted from fashioning and agreeing to a remedy of a grievance that is inconsistent with unpublished, Headquarters-level interpretations of Postal rules?
6. Does Article 31.2 allow for the union’s request and retrieval of the employer's interpretive position over any general or specific rule covered under the scope of the National Agreement?

There may be others withdrawn in addition to this, but I'm not near my paperwork right now.

The union seems intentionally avoidant with interpretation grievances, and limit their pursuits to application and compliance issues, i.e., after the damage is done and while the grievant is trying to recover their losses.

Many current and former union officials fall for the false belief that a "contract violation" is a prerequisite for a grievance. Not only is a violation not a condition under the definition of grievance...


...but if it were the case, interpretive disputes would be impossible to pursue. To illustrate:

• Accusing the employer of a violation preemptively requires an interpretive act of the allegedly violated rule.
• If the rule is not premptively interpreted, there lacks a rational connection between the rule, the accusation, and the violation. You may as well say, "you broke the rule by breaking the rule". The accusation has no substance.
• For those still in doubt, consider a rule that includes an amphiboly. The rule, having multiple potential meanings, must first resolve the interpretive conflict before proper application or compliance issues can be tackled.
• In cases where the union relies on an interpretation, makes an accusation against the Employer's application or compliance, but the Employer disputes the interpretation, the application/compliance issues cannot be resolved until the interpretation is determined, else the parties will just argue past each other.

 

[Dominator]

There is a step 4 that does clearly state that "If management is requiring the rural carrier to attend the pre-disciplinary interview, the rural carrier is entitled to be compensated for the time involved." Now this is very specific and is tied to a PDI not just time spent talking to union representative. As far as compensation for time spent speaking to rep whether officially authorized or not I think it's a stretch.

Is there any source(s) that cause you to think employee compensation for participation in steward interviews is a stretch? Maybe your documents/theory would shed some light for me on the NRO/DR/ADR rationale.

 

[Shannonboy]

Let me play devil’s advocate. I’m a rabble rouser who likes to stir the pot and file on anything I can think of. I frequently get the ire of management and have had way more than most IIs and issuances of discipline. Do I deserve to profit from my offenses?

ABSOLUTELY.....Considering you probably are breaking the rules to keep po mgmt from getting all up in your chili, plus po mgmt just LLLOOOVVVEEESSSS to discipline us when do the job the way it should be done. I've never seen a group of people so eager to fire other people that actually keep them employed....they are all IDIOTS.....so yeah, PAY ME.
ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE GONNA TRY TO FIRE ME OVER STUPID STUFF....WHICH IT USUALLY IS....

 

[oi veh.]

Today, a 3-chain link of union representatives (NRO DR ADR) has expressed to me that management-authorized meeting time with my union representative is not compensable.

I wholeheartedly disagree (via mainly F-21 §251), but since no source documentation was provided to me from the NRLCA, I have no idea what rules the NRLCA relied upon to come to this conclusion, if not just by unsupported fiat.

The union's argument is that union investigations are not mandatory meetings, therefore management is not required to compensate for it.

It appears (to me) like the chain has confused "meeting time" with "training time", but maybe I'm mistaken.

The union has consecutively withdrawn the past 5 or 6 of my grievances. While I suspect their pattern will continue with this one too, I'm still interested in reading arguments for either side.

i am a simple country woman...

but.

if management is APPROVING it, why is the union even voicing an opinion? my area would be saying take the money and run.

 

[justacarrier]

Is there any source(s) that cause you to think employee compensation for participation in steward interviews is a stretch? Maybe your documents/theory would shed some light for me on the NRO/DR/ADR rationale.

Show me one document, decision, arbitration that states in any context that you should be compensated and I will support your point. It does not exist! Sometimes it's the lack of any "source" that is your answer. If it is not spelled out in the contract or a decision then it isn't something you would have any entitlement to.