Are rural craft employees not permitted access to the grievance procedure in relation to complaints involving interpretation of the National Agreement

[Dominator]

Are rural craft employees not permitted access to the grievance procedure in relation to complaints involving interpretation of the National Agreement?

I have a live grievance on this at step 1, but the grievance is getting dusty (it may have gone to grievance heaven). Meanwhile, the union refuses to give me anything in writing pointing to either direction.

This grievance was prompted by the union's ongoing pattern of withdrawing my interpretive grievances at Step 1.

If "lack of access" is the missing link, then it would be nice to know whether I'm wasting my time trying to understand the terms and conditions of my employment.

 

[justacarrier]

Simple basic answer is no you are not. Disagreements of the "interpretation" of contractual issues are between the parties! The parties being the USPS and the NRLCA, not the individual employee.

 

[RollinRural]

You filed a step 1 grievance, therefore you were “permitted to access the grievance procedure”
What happens afterwards is another story.

 

[Dominator]

Simple basic answer is no you are not. Disagreements of the "interpretation" of contractual issues are between the parties! The parties being the USPS and the NRLCA, not the individual employee.

Make sense of this then.

 

[Dominator]

You filed a step 1 grievance, therefore you were “permitted to access the grievance procedure”
What happens afterwards is another story.

Yes, permitted to access the grievance procedure, but, of the three major categories of grievances (interpretation; application; compliance), are all three accessible by rural carriers via grievance initiation?

If interpretation-type grievances are invalid when filed by rural carriers, I find nothing that specifically overrides the general rule within the contractual definition of grievance.

Do you know of any invalidating source? Maybe you've seen something. I've found nothing (yet) in writing.

 

[U caught my attention]

This grievance was prompted by the union's ongoing pattern of withdrawing my interpretive grievances at Step 1.

What was the reason it was withdrawn?
Might whatever you submitted as the interpretive grievance already have an interpretation. I could see that as a reason your grievance was withdrawn.

 

[justacarrier]

View attachment 16756

Make sense of this then.

It is clear that you seem to not see that this clearly states "or of the Union........". Anyhow, your "grievance" is asking a question to elicit an answer on interpretation, not stating a dispute, difference, or disagreement or complaint. You are fishing for some answer from either the union or management that is not appropriate for the grievance process. Seems to me you are doing the same thing here you did with all of the many appeals you filed, trying to stir up issues to appease you ego.

 

[justacarrier]

Yes, permitted to access the grievance procedure, but, of the three major categories of grievances (interpretation; application; compliance), are all three accessible by rural carriers via grievance initiation?

If interpretation-type grievances are invalid when filed by rural carriers, I find nothing that specifically overrides the general rule within the contractual definition of grievance.

Do you know of any invalidating source? Maybe you've seen something. I've found nothing (yet) in writing.

It is clearly in writing, you are misreading the "general rule"!

 

[Dominator]

It is clear that you seem to not see that this clearly states "or of the Union........".

This is a common union cop-out. The union will use words like "clearly" or "obviously" as though it adds gravitas to a position, while simultaneously failing to support that same position. They believe using "clearly" and "obviously" serves as a viable substitute for evidence. The pattern cracks me up each time. Thanks for the reminder and the chuckle.

Moving on, your translation pointing to "or of the union" as clarity is logically absurd.

The word "or" can serve as a conjunct (i.e., both A and B) or a disjunct (i.e., either A or B but not both). You have somehow reasoned that this particular "or" is both a conjunct and a disjunct... simultaneously.

A grievance shall include, but is not limited to, [a] complaint ... which involves the interpretation, application of, or compliance with the provisions of this Agreement.

As a conjunct, both A (the employee) in addition to B (the union) are the entities who can formally complain.

As a disjunct, either A (the employee) or B (the union) are the entities who can formally complain, but not both. Excluding either would be specifically contradictory to Article 15.3. Step 1 (a) or (b), depending on which you're excluding. In this case, you're specifically excluding "the employee".

The NRLCA opposes the steward's contractual right to initiate a non-disciplinary grievance independent of a class, which leaves the union only able to initiate class grievances, following the formal complaint of multiple employees. Under your disjunct presentation, employees could not "complain", thus no class grievance could exist for lack of a class of complaining employees.

This leaves the union as the only entity who can grieve, but due to lack of the necessary permissions to form a class, they simultaneously cannot grieve.

Anyhow, your "grievance" is asking a question to elicit an answer on interpretation, not stating a dispute, difference, or disagreement or complaint.

• If both sides share the same interpretation, then there is not "disagreement".
• If both sides do not share the same interpretation, then there is "disagreement"

Shared interpretations get matching contentions, agreement on a meaning as the remedy, and the grievance is sustained. Not many moving parts in this one.

You are fishing for some answer from either the union or management that is not appropriate for the grievance process. Seems to me you are doing the same thing here you did with all of the many appeals you filed, trying to stir up issues to appease you ego.

Super sleuthing, gumshoe! Nothing boosts my ego more than sifting through the union's unrepresentative word salad, inconsistencies, and inability to support their positions in writing.

 

[Dominator]

What was the reason it was withdrawn?
Might whatever you submitted as the interpretive grievance already have an interpretation. I could see that as a reason your grievance was withdrawn.

They're saying that the grievance was withdrawn because there was no violation. I never asserted there was a violation though.

Of the three major categories of grievances (interpretation; application; compliance) they build on each other in that hierarchical order.


You can't reach the higher levels without completing the layers beneath.

1. Interpretation identifies what X is.
2. Application identifies how X is properly utilized/executed
3. Compliance identifies whether X was properly utilized/executed in/at a specific moment in time.

That stated:

1.  You can't make a good faith compliance claim if interpretation and application are not established.
2. You can't make a good faith application claim if interpretation is not established.

A grievance involving interpretation seeks to resolve inconsistent meanings between the parties. It cannot be "won" or "lost", as it only sets foundations.

In short, it doesn't make sense to me to accuse management (or be accused by management) of wrongdoing without being able to articulate the wrong. Without a jointly agreed upon interpretation, the accusation sounds a lot like, "You're wrong about... stuff... because... you just are!"

 

[Rt2mailman]

Again, what interpretation are you seeking?

 

[U caught my attention]

In short, it doesn't make sense to me to accuse management (or be accused by management) of wrongdoing without being able to articulate the wrong. Without a jointly agreed upon interpretation,

What exactly lacks interpretation?

Obviously I am not privy to details, but why did a discussion escilate to a grievance over interpretation?
To file the grievance in ref #4, wouldn't you have had to have a disagreement concerning the interpretation from local management and then questioned the validity of that interpretation in #4. Wouldn't the union then either agree or disagree with managements interpretation?

 

[RollinRural]

Yes, permitted to access the grievance procedure, but, of the three major categories of grievances (interpretation; application; compliance), are all three accessible by rural carriers via grievance initiation?

If interpretation-type grievances are invalid when filed by rural carriers, I find nothing that specifically overrides the general rule within the contractual definition of grievance.

Do you know of any invalidating source? Maybe you've seen something. I've found nothing (yet) in writing.

A grievance is meant to be a complaint which involves the interpretation of the agreement, not a complaint about how you disagree with the interpretation of something.
Re-read what you highlighted and underlined.

 

[damifiknow]

its a scam they have been informed to surrender, i was told this by one of your highest representatives.

 

[U caught my attention]

Are rural craft employees not permitted access to the grievance procedure in relation to complaints involving interpretation of the National Agreement?

Complaint against both parties or just management?
If its both parties, then no, one would just ask the union their position and compare to managements interpretation. Is the union not giving their interpretation of something within the National Agreement?
If so, I dont think a grievance will make them spill the beans. Figure out a different way to make the parties give an interpretation about something. You dont keep doing the same thing over and over to get the same wrong/insufficient answer. If there is no interpretation then how could there be wrongdoing?

they have been informed to surrender,

Every employer wants the union to surrender.
What's the scam exactly?

 

[Rt2mailman]

They're saying that the grievance was withdrawn because there was no violation. I never asserted there was a violation though.

Of the three major categories of grievances (interpretation; application; compliance) they build on each other in that hierarchical order.

View attachment 16759
You can't reach the higher levels without completing the layers beneath.

1. Interpretation identifies what X is.
2. Application identifies how X is properly utilized/executed
3. Compliance identifies whether X was properly utilized/executed in/at a specific moment in time.

That stated:

1.  You can't make a good faith compliance claim if interpretation and application are not established.
2. You can't make a good faith application claim if interpretation is not established.

A grievance involving interpretation seeks to resolve inconsistent meanings between the parties. It cannot be "won" or "lost", as it only sets foundations.

In short, it doesn't make sense to me to accuse management (or be accused by management) of wrongdoing without being able to articulate the wrong. Without a jointly agreed upon interpretation, the accusation sounds a lot like, "You're wrong about... stuff... because... you just are!"

Again, to discipline any employee, the Usps must establish that
1) There is a rule
2 The offending employee knew or was trained on that rule
3) The offending employee didn't follow the rule without any mitigating circumstances.
Ìf there is any disagreements about any of these things a grievance would move up through the higher-ups of the union and the USPS until an impasse. Then onto an arbitrator fir a final and binding opinion.
If you have a disagreement about the union withdrawing your grievance (upon you filing of the original grievance or at any point of the process) you have an opportunity to file a National Labor charge against the union for improper representation.
Now what is it that you disagree about or don't know how to interpret a contractual agreement between the Usps and the NRLCA?
You have had much and somewhat eloquent posting above, but no real specific question about a real life rural carrier subject that any of us have been able to address. What IS the specific complaint (written in a question like all grievances are supposed to start) that you have?

 

[Dominator]

Again, what interpretation are you seeking?

There have been various ones, but the union withdrew those claiming no violation. For example:

In emergencies, when the services of a substitute, rural carrier associate, or rural carrier relief employee are not available, another qualified employee may be designated by the Employer.

What do the parties agree as to the determiner for "qualified employee"? I've only seen two identifiers (management employees and leave replacements who have already worked 12 hours), but the union hasn't given an "official" position (to me at least).

The focus here is the process necessary to get an interpretive answer. The process to get an interpretive answer wouldn't vary based on the question, but they won't give anything in writing regardless.

If interpretive grievances are not accessible to rural carriers, it's nothing more than them stating so in writing.

 

[Dominator]

Again, to discipline any employee, the Usps must establish that
1) There is a rule
2 The offending employee knew or was trained on that rule
3) The offending employee didn't follow the rule without any mitigating circumstances.
Ìf there is any disagreements about any of these things a grievance would move up through the higher-ups of the union and the USPS until an impasse. Then onto an arbitrator fir a final and binding opinion.
If you have a disagreement about the union withdrawing your grievance (upon you filing of the original grievance or at any point of the process) you have an opportunity to file a National Labor charge against the union for improper representation.
Now what is it that you disagree about or don't know how to interpret a contractual agreement between the Usps and the NRLCA?
You have had much and somewhat eloquent posting above, but no real specific question about a real life rural carrier subject that any of us have been able to address. What IS the specific complaint (written in a question like all grievances are supposed to start) that you have?

While I see where you were going there, this one isn't a just cause/disciplinary issue/question.

If I have an interpretive issue, what process must I follow to get an answer to an interpretive question before a violation arises. For example, the 30.2.D.6 question I mentioned earlier... how can management and craft be on the same page before the fact through a joint declaratory position, rather than waiting until the situation arises and pointing fingers on woulda/shoulda/coulda?

The issue template should be the same, regardless of what specific wording needs interpretation. I'm trying to get that base for consistency purposes. Again, if it's inaccessible, that settles the foundational presumption that it's accessible to craft employees in the first place. If not accessible to craft employees, then craft employees filing interpretive grievance would be pointless.

The wording indicates (to me) that it is accessible. As such, the union's responses seem like nonsense. Hence why I'm reeling back, trying to verify necessary base presumptions.

 

[Dominator]

A grievance is meant to be a complaint which involves the interpretation of the agreement, not a complaint about how you disagree with the interpretation of something.
Re-read what you highlighted and underlined.

"Complaint" used in the second sentence is a generic term covering the four identifiers from the first sentence (dispute/difference/disagreement/complaint). If not, the other three identifiers (dispute/difference/disagreement) would be ineligible.

Mine isn't a disagreement with whatever an interpretation is, as what that "is" is whatever the parties agreed to. My disagreement (if any) with a joint interpretation without inconsistencies, is irrelevant.

My issue is unveiling the interpretation, discovering whether there is a difference between the parties positions, and resolving that difference so all are on the same page before the fact.

I'd have to dig, but I recall there being an admission of differences between the parties on the "order of consideration" when covering a route when a regular takes off. I don't know whether that has yet been resolved.

 

[Rt2mailman]

There have been various ones, but the union withdrew those claiming no violation. For example:

In emergencies, when the services of a substitute, rural carrier associate, or rural carrier relief employee are not available, another qualified employee may be designated by the Employer.

What do the parties agree as to the determiner for "qualified employee"? I've only seen two identifiers (management employees and leave replacements who have already worked 12 hours), but the union hasn't given an "official" position (to me at least).

The focus here is the process necessary to get an interpretive answer. The process to get an interpretive answer wouldn't vary based on the question, but they won't give anything in writing regardless.

If interpretive grievances are not accessible to rural carriers, it's nothing more than them stating so in writing.

Qualified employees have been defined as ANY employee. I've seen janitors, HCR carriers, and pm's (The least Qualified to actually work). At no time has there been an agreement to allow Rca's to work over 12 (evaluation) hours. Although I have seen rcas that happily did "volunteer" to do so, for all of the extra overtime. During Covid times I knew an Rca that worked 92 hours in one week.
Now if you, as a regular, are grieving about an Rca working excessive hours, yes, there is "No violation", because it didn't happen to you. You can't file a grievance in their behalf unless you are the steward and there is certain criteria that would allow it. Just because there is actual language in our contract the Usps can't be required to follow it, if no employee claims any "Damage" from them NOT following it. Like in the Covid example above, sometimes, there is a benefit to an employee from the Usps NOT following our contract.