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

[blue_goose1348]

Again, what interpretation are you seeking?

They are seeking an interpretation that supports their position no matter what their position is. Keep in mind that this is the resident "legal beagle" seeking this information.

 

[Dominator]

Qualified employees have been defined as ANY employee. I've seen janitors, HCR carriers, and pm's (The least Qualified to actually work).

Can you point to a source that supports this claim?

At no time has there been an agreement to allow Rca's to work over 12 (evaluation) hours.

In G95R-4G-C00170298, the parties agreed to an exception to the general rule, permitting management to utilize leave replacements beyond 12 evaluated hours, but only in emergency situations.

[E]xcept in emergency situations, management must not schedule a leave replacement to serve on two full assignments or one full assignment and one or more partial assignments in a single day, if the evaluations of these assignments total twelve hours or more.



The only other employees specifically permitted to perform bargaining unit work under the rural contract are supervisors.

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.

• The target of the "dispute, difference, disagreement, or complaint" in 15.2 are the "provisions of the national agreement", not any specific individual, including the one filing.
• The "includes, but is not limited to" clause of Article 15.2 gives wide latitude on what constitutes a grievance. Without specific limitations on which entities can object to a violation (such as those found in Articles 12.1 and 27.1) the entity is not barred from filing.
• If the only entity that could grieve were those in the office directly affected by the subject matter, then those who directly witnessed improper application (which affects workplace environment) would have no platform to object to (mis)application or (non-)compliance to "the provisions of the National Agreement "
• Even if management's action didn't "happen to me", management's actions are the result of applying an interpretation. Funnelling which applications and interpretations any employee may disagree with (despite no specifically expressed limitation) inserts an implied restriction, yet all grievance procedure restrictions (such as those found in Articles 12.1 and 27.1) are unequivocally expressed.
• I've heard similar claims to yours by a few union reps that employee X cannot file over a violation of employee Y, but never have they supported the claim to me in writing. It was always "just what they were told". If you've got support for it in writing, I'd be grateful if you'd cite it. If it exists, I've never seen it.

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.

EL-902 is a directive manual. Postal employees are required to follow official instructions found within directive manuals. ELM 665.15 requires reliability from employees. Management employees who do not follow official instructions harm a carrier's reliance on that manager.

• A steward can file on the union's behalf (15.3 Step 1 b.)
• An employee's discrimination grievance isn't limited to themselves. Just as one employee can grieve opposing a special benefit between management and another employee, that same employee can grieve opposing a special detriment between management and another employee.

Like in the Covid example above, sometimes, there is a benefit to an employee from the Usps NOT following our contract.

At what point though does it become a sweetheart deal or harmful discrimination?

Regardless, the original question is whether rural craft employees are permitted or denied access to the grievance procedure in relation to complaints involving interpretation of the National Agreement. The merits of each interpretive grievance will vary. If rural craft employees have no access to initiate interpretive grievances in the first place though, the merits really don't matter for lack of jurisdiction. It looks permitted to me, but I can't get an "official" answer in writing leaning either way. Thus, I brought the question here.

 

[Dominator]

Complaint against both parties or just management?

"Difference" would probably be the best of the four terms. Difference as to the interpretation of a rule.

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?

The union refuses to give me their interpretive positions in writing. It's difficult to accuse management of wrongdoing when the union refuses to provide me with what they constitute as a "wrong". Also, if the union's interpretation is controlling over mine, then arguing my interpretation is a waste of time if theirs is readily available. I don't want to spend time compiling a position just to get a "nuh-uh" when all the union needs to do is declare a position and hold itself to it.

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.

I figure their light will turn on eventually. Asking them for a written interpretation hasn't worked. I am convinced they just don't know from the bottom to the top, but they all have to play along and act like they know without questioning each other and risk revealing their ignorance.

I haven't found another way (yet), though I keep walking back implied presumptions within my grievances hoping to find the root of the union's confusion or "confusion".

If there is no interpretation then how could there be wrongdoing?

My point exactly.