Situation; I’m a RCA who was available to run a route 7 in my PO but my supervisor pulled the RCA who has an auxiliary route off his route to run route7. I was placed on his auxiliary route. I filed grievance on the supervisor bc I was told by my peers I had that right. I was also advised I would get paid for both routes. I won the grievance but they only willing to give me the difference between the two routes on green card...3 hours. Is this correct? Please help. Thank you!
Grievance
- Thread starter Sabrat24
- Start date
A remedy in a grievance is supposed to make the complaining party "whole", not more than that. So if your settlement gave you the equivalent of working the route 7 you did not actually work that day you were treated fairly, weren't you? Paying you for both 7 and the aux would be giving you a greater amount than you would have been enititled to.
w2e2w2e
Well-known member
Good job getting paid correctly. If your primary is 7 then you hsould have ran it, good job getting them to see that.
But, sorry, unless it is a repeated error, it is hard to get more than you would have earned...or as stated.. you were "made whole for lost wages and benefits"
But, sorry, unless it is a repeated error, it is hard to get more than you would have earned...or as stated.. you were "made whole for lost wages and benefits"
w2e2w2e
Well-known member
again..it shoudl be made whole for ALL lost wages and benefits....but it can be claimed that since you did not drive those miles you did not incur the actual cost to receive the EMA....i would give you 50/50 on winning that one.
as a former steward I would not argue it and would take the extra 3 hours free pay as a settlement
as a former steward I would not argue it and would take the extra 3 hours free pay as a settlement
I may have to backtrack my previous remark as mischaracterizing the primary Aux runner...could just be a "direct order" follower.
After all, money doesn't actually talk, and carriers never engage in a rousing game of "Stump the Chump" while on the clock.
I grieved because I was available to work and the supervisor skipped over me and went straight to the RCA who has an auxiliary Route first. Yes, he got a big EMA.
gotstamps
Well-known member
Actually, the Aux sub would not have a grievance. If an RCA is available to work then the Auxiliary sub has NO right to work another route. Their job is that Auxiliary first (unless a 5/1 setup) so ALL available subs must be working prior to doubling up except in an emergency.
Windindaface
Well-known member
If AUX runner is on 6 day option. Most senior RCA not covering another route will be used to cover AUX. AUX who opted for 6 day will be utilized to cover another run before RDWL. Then the splitting of routes begin. If not possible to split all routes needing coverage the RDWL comes into play.
Something my regular told me before assuming hold down on the route for many months to come due to her upcoming surgeries and recovery. She said do not let them put you on any other route except on N/S day because it constitutes a "break in service", starting the 90-day process to restart.
Wonder if this applies to Aux route as well? Read ELM 510 Leave, but it gets a little fuzzy with inferences. Thought you may know.
BeatsAll-IEverSeen
Well-known member
No, it doesn't constitute a break in service. Only the regular coming back and running the route would start the 90 day over.
Ah, ok, thanks.
gotstamps
Well-known member
Wrong. The Order of Consideration is to be followed. RCA whose primary is an Auxiliary will only run that Auxiliary when 6-day is chosen. If they choose 5/1, then it’s only those 2 they are assigned to. They are NOT on the Matrix for any other routes. They may ASSIST other routes AFTER serving their Auxiliary.
If ALL RCAs are assigned to routes, Then the RDWL is to be utilized, then non-RDWL. An Aux is only allowed to run an Aux & Reg route when both evaluations do not add to 12 hours & only when necessary.
