• Everyone, please help make our jobs easier and choose the correct category. Thank you

mandatory hats!??

We're not letter carriers? News to me. Regardless, that section of the ELM states uniform headgear is at the option of that list of employees.

However, the next section, ELM 934.12, states: Wearing of the cap is mandatory for (a) casual employees, (b) new employees who are not required to wear a uniform during the first 90 days of their employment, and (c) all other employees who are authorized only a cap as a means of identifying them with the Postal Service. No substitute headgear may be worn by these employees.
Above that in the ELM it states

934.11​


For the following employees, the wearing of uniform headgear is at the option of the employee:

  1. Area maintenance technician/specialist.
  2. Letterbox mechanic.
  3. Letter carrier.
  4. Motor vehicle operator, tractor trailer operator, driving instructor.
  5. Ramp clerk and transfer clerk, AMF.
  6. Clerk/special delivery messenger.
On the plus side, free hat.
 
I was talking with my carrier today and he said they had a stand up this AM. reference these hats. Summarizing the PM:
- Management and union have come to an agreement (wondering what now).
- PM will pass out hats with USPS logo after talk.
- Doesn't have to be worn.
- USPS wanted to make it such that if a hat is worn then it needed a USPS logo or was blank. Union said no and no it is agreed to.
- PM concluded by telling a carrier "so yes, you can wear your Notre Dame hat".

That's what I'm told anyway.
 
update win settlement on not mandatory
I'd grieve again arguing for management's failure to compensate during the period which wearing the hat was mandatory.

While local management was notified that carriers have discretionary authority over that directive (through the settlement) , if a ding to the pocketbook staves management from shooting future illegitimate orders from the hip, so be it.

The union may resist or play down this grievance or claim it's "untimely", but the settlement is a "new understanding", else, local management knew the rule the whole time when they issued the order and were feigning good faith, both in issuing the bad instruction and refusing to "resolve the issue at the lowest possible step" - another grievance. 🤷‍♂️
 
Back
Top