Like many other regulars, I am without an RCA. The last one I had was fired a couple months ago for being a no-show several times among other things...It's been years since I had a reliable one. Our office has hired 5 or 6 in the last 2.5 years. I filed a 120 day letter today and when I returned from route, PM tells me the district person who handles these issues called and 'explained' a few things. The things he claimed were:* We'd have to change over to a formula office.
* (I'm the senior K in our cluster) I would lose my Saturday relief day.
*He claims 120 days is a union "lie"-that it's actually 180 days...
*He said there's a new hire "in the pipeline" but this is the first we've (PM and I)
have heard this, after trying to contact him repeatedly to find out if job will be reposted or if we had any applicants THIS time (it's been posted a couple times since last RCA. He responded by phone immediately upon receiving 120 day letter today)
I'm not sure if contacting my steward to fill her in and get some input is a good idea, or if I should just wait it out.....
If you really want to cause some discomfort, immediately file an Article 2 grievance on creed discrimination, charging the union with "lying" to both you and management about the 120-day letter.
(Mechanically, this argument would be a train wreck if article 2 didn't include a responsibility placed on the union. It's still a bit weird to argue, but, if you present that your manager is just "looking out for you", then this is a way to stop that mean ol' union rep!)
Really play it up if you want.
I'm really upset that the union would lie to me, but to also lie to management?! Wow! How ignorant. I mean, it's not like management doesn't also have a copy of the work rules in their pocket. I'm sure glad I can count on your honesty. We don't have time for lies in this office.
Mr. Malicious Gossip may have to eat some humble pie if your steward investigates the claim.
I'd keep notes on this guy. Dates, times, who said what to whom. Just make sure your notes will make sense to you if you read/listened to them later.
If you want to take it a step further, and maybe make a point, once his lie is "discovered", file another article 2 grievance against management for creed discrimination.
This time, also throw in some ELM 665 provisions on the
Postal Service Standards of Conduct.
Cite sections 665.13, 665.15, and (the kicker) 665.16.
665.16 Behavior and Personal Habits
Employees are expected to conduct themselves during and outside of working hours in a manner that reflects favorably upon the Postal Service. Although it is not the policy of the Postal Service to interfere with the private lives of employees, it does require that postal employees be honest, reliable, trustworthy, courteous, and of good character and reputation. The Federal Standards of Ethical Conduct referenced in 662.1 also contain regulations governing the off–duty behavior of postal employees. Employees must not engage in criminal, dishonest, notoriously disgraceful, immoral, or other conduct prejudicial to the Postal Service.
Dishonest management is an environmental "condition of employment" that could affect your employment future and history (if you ever choose to leave the PO).
You could try the "hostility in the workplace" argument, but your steward would have to understand the connection between a lying manager and its effects on any potential future disciplinary action.
