Do i have a grievance?

I am a regular. I am on the rdwl. It is a new fiscal year( not 2080/2240 problem). Tuesday is my relief day.
Today, 10/7/24, I was not scheduled. A fellow regular rural carrier was instructed to case my route, management sorted parcels & " set up" part of my route, & an rca carried it...
Do I have a grievance, & if so, what would the provisions be?..thank you

Sure! file grievance, nothing to loose,

Give this a look ;

A regular carrier cased your route. Yes file it. They should used rca first you next then possibly themselves before ever using another regular . It will probably come back with something like management has the right to schedule and run the office as they see fit. Maybe you will get lucky and they rule the right way for once. I would take the chance. They will also look at if their was anyone scheduled and may of called out today. Either way you should of been given the opportunity to work. Look at that schedule when you can. I wish you luck

They are right. FILE. Hopefully your rep is decent....and not in bed with the pm, like mine was...

Haygrrl said:

I am a regular. I am on the rdwl. It is a new fiscal year( not 2080/2240 problem). Tuesday is my relief day.
Today, 10/7/24, I was not scheduled. A fellow regular rural carrier was instructed to case my route, management sorted parcels & " set up" part of my route, & an rca carried it...
Do I have a grievance, & if so, what would the provisions be?..thank you

Click to expand...

I believe so.



No regular rural carrier will be required to ... serve part of any rural route other than the assigned route. For the purposes of the work outlined in this MOU, regular rural carriers must volunteer to perform these additional duties.

The MOU is violated if the regular who cased your route did not volunteer to perform the additional duty of casing your route.

A regular rural carrier's assigned route must be completed prior to scheduling that volunteer regular rural carrier for service on another route in the office.

The MOU is violated if management scheduled that regular to case your route prior that regular completing their assigned route.

In addition, offices must comply with the provisions of Article 30.2.D, prior to scheduling a volunteer regular rural carrier to provide assistance on another rural route(s) in the office.

Article 30.2.D does not permit management to perform bargaining unit work unless its an emergency situation (i.e, an unforeseen circumstance or a combination of circumstances which calls for immediate action in a situation which is not expected to be of a recurring nature).

Your description suggests that Management performed (by sorting parcels & "setting up" part of your route), as though an emergency situation existed (Article 30.2.D.6), however, emergency situations are not legitimate "emergencies" when management fails to first exhaust the RDWL prior execution of Article 30.2.D.6 emergency provisions.



I'd file, but do contact your rep though and see what they think.

Good luck.

I'd file. Did mgmt fail to correctly schedule?

You want it a bit vague

neciat said:

Give this a look ;

https://www.ruralinfo.net/shared-files/131317/order-of-consideration-06.pdf

Click to expand...

Thanks that helped..appreciate you all

Gotrope said:

I'd file. Did mgmt fail to correctly schedule?

You want it a bit vague

Click to expand...

So, what I think it should read is , did management fail to follow order of consideration..ie, used another Regular rural carrier to case my route, there's no matrix, no assigned sub..etc

Haygrrl said:

So, what I think it should read is , did management fail to follow order of consideration..ie, used another Regular rural carrier to case my route, there's no matrix, no assigned sub..etc

Click to expand...

Mgmt can split routes “on occasion”. There is a Step 4 still in abeyance, I believe, on when mgmt can choose to split routes.
Your grievance here is the MOU violation. Mgmt is not allowed IMO to use Regs to split routes before exhausting the RDWL.

Haygrrl said:

So, what I think it should read is , did management fail to follow order of consideration..ie, used another Regular rural carrier to case my route, there's no matrix, no assigned sub..etc

Click to expand...

Leaving it vague allows for multiple defense arguments.

Hold on, you left out a mega essential piece of information. What is your weekly standard hour evaluation, and are you a 48k. Did you go over 2080/2240 and or did you take any leave to avoid it?

This is what makes our craft insane. Some of us want art. 9.2.c.8 totally enforced, and a majority don't.

Haygrrl said:

So, what I think it should read is , did management fail to follow order of consideration..ie, used another Regular rural carrier to case my route, there's no matrix, no assigned sub..etc

Click to expand...

Lol..we're on the same page..got it!!! Thanks!!

Morty said:

Hold on, you left out a mega essential piece of information. What is your weekly standard hour evaluation, and are you a 48k. Did you go over 2080/2240 and or did you take any leave to avoid it?

This is what makes our craft insane. Some of us want art. 9.2.c.8 totally enforced, and a majority don't.

Click to expand...

None of that matters at this time. MOU seems clear that a Regular cannot assist splits if a RDWL is available to cover their route.