Is management-authorized meeting time with a union representative, compensable?

[Dominator]

Today, a 3-chain link of union representatives (NRO DR ADR) has expressed to me that management-authorized meeting time with my union representative is not compensable.

I wholeheartedly disagree (via mainly F-21 §251), but since no source documentation was provided to me from the NRLCA, I have no idea what rules the NRLCA relied upon to come to this conclusion, if not just by unsupported fiat.

The union's argument is that union investigations are not mandatory meetings, therefore management is not required to compensate for it.

It appears (to me) like the chain has confused "meeting time" with "training time", but maybe I'm mistaken.

The union has consecutively withdrawn the past 5 or 6 of my grievances. While I suspect their pattern will continue with this one too, I'm still interested in reading arguments for either side.

 

[Dominator]

Maybe Title 5 of CFR ?

§ 551.424 Time spent adjusting grievances or performing representational functions.

(a) Time spent by an employee adjusting his or her grievance (or any appealable action) with an agency during the time the employee is required to be on the agency’s premises shall be considered hours of work.

Thank you. If the portion of 5 CFR you cited is not applicable, F-21 §251 recognizes it as hours worked. That premise is supported by at least by one source.

 

[Dominator]

Let me play devil’s advocate. I’m a rabble rouser who likes to stir the pot and file on anything I can think of. I frequently get the ire of management and have had way more than most IIs and issuances of discipline. Do I deserve to profit from my offenses?

I don't see how you are connecting initiating a grievance with profit. Work hours are just that. If they are compensable, so be it.

 

[Dominator]

i am a simple country woman...

but.

if management is APPROVING it, why is the union even voicing an opinion? my area would be saying take the money and run.

I'm not interested in and preemptively hope to stifle any surprise LOD that the union accidentally or "accidentally" mishandles. Historically, the union has enjoyed punishing me for being such a bad boy.

 

[Dominator]

Show me one document, decision, arbitration that states in any context that you should be compensated and I will support your point. It does not exist! Sometimes it's the lack of any "source" that is your answer. If it is not spelled out in the contract or a decision then it isn't something you would have any entitlement to.

While I'm interested in your argument, I'm indifferent to your support.

The extent of your argument matches the union's "nuh-uh". it's clear your contribution is circular. Are you certainly confident "it does not exist", or is that just your presumption?

If I could show you the "document, decision, or arbitration" you demand, this "ask a question" thread wouldn't likely exist now, would it?

Consider the origins of decisions; they've got to come from somewhere. They don't just manifest themselves.

 

[Rt2mailman]

I believe ALL of the grievances you listed above are legitimate, and i believe you would have "Just cause" in filing a National Labor charge against the union for failure to properly represented you.
As far as pay for "Metting time" spent with the employees' union rep i don't know of any specific compensation.
However, any time required for the steward to "Interview" the grievant is compensateable and found mentioned in steward Interview times.
I don't see why any "Meeting" couldn't be tied into an interview and all of that time be compensated.
On form 7020 this is found:
The special provisions for compensating PTFs, RCAs and RCRs are as follows:
 Steward time for a relief carrier should be recorded on PS Form 1234, Utility Card, and paid
via PS Form 1314‐A, Auxiliary Rural Carrier Time Certificate.
 Article 8.4 states, "Any employee scheduled to work and who does report for work shall be
guaranteed two (2) hours work or pay." PTFs, RCAs and RCRs serving as Local Steward
should confine time they allocate to steward business to days when they are scheduled to
perform other craft work. If this is not possible because of urgent Union business, then the
steward time should be accumulated and carried forward until a total of two hours or
more can be recorded for a given day.
So i believe that states they get paid for meeting time.

 

[oi veh.]

I believe ALL of the grievances you listed above are legitimate, and i believe you would have "Just cause" in filing a National Labor charge against the union for failure to properly represented you.
As far as pay for "Metting time" spent with the employees' union rep i don't know of any specific compensation.
However, any time required for the steward to "Interview" the grievant is compensateable and found mentioned in steward Interview times.
I don't see why any "Meeting" couldn't be tied into an interview and all of that time be compensated.
On form 7020 this is found:
The special provisions for compensating PTFs, RCAs and RCRs are as follows:
 Steward time for a relief carrier should be recorded on PS Form 1234, Utility Card, and paid
via PS Form 1314‐A, Auxiliary Rural Carrier Time Certificate.
 Article 8.4 states, "Any employee scheduled to work and who does report for work shall be
guaranteed two (2) hours work or pay." PTFs, RCAs and RCRs serving as Local Steward
should confine time they allocate to steward business to days when they are scheduled to
perform other craft work. If this is not possible because of urgent Union business, then the
steward time should be accumulated and carried forward until a total of two hours or
more can be recorded for a given day.
So i believe that states they get paid for meeting time.

he's not a steward anymore.

he's asking as a grievant.

 

[justacarrier]

I'm not interested in and preemptively hope to stifle any surprise LOD that the union accidentally or "accidentally" mishandles. Historically, the union has enjoyed punishing me for being such a bad boy.

If you remember it was the membership that "punished" you in the end. I was there, it was an overwhelming vote to suspend your membership.

 

[justacarrier]

While I'm interested in your argument, I'm indifferent to your support.

The extent of your argument matches the union's "nuh-uh". it's clear your contribution is circular. Are you certainly confident "it does not exist", or is that just your presumption?

If I could show you the "document, decision, or arbitration" you demand, this "ask a question" thread wouldn't likely exist now, would it?

Consider the origins of decisions; they've got to come from somewhere. They don't just manifest themselves.

It's because at some point you have to show that there is a violation of some contract provision or manual. If you what something not in one of those it becomes a negotiated item for contract negotiations. Can you show me ANY violation?

 

[blue_goose1348]

Agreed.



Here are my grievances the union withdrew.

1. In cases where the employer repeats a violation of the CBA, is it within the scope of the Agreement to resolve the grievance by settlement or award that includes a progressive monetary remedy for the instant case in addition to future or similarly related problems, and, if so, are there any limitations to the progression multiplier or monetary amount?
2. When an employee identifies a Postal rule as linguistically confusing, vague, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear, what must that employee do to aquire an interpretation of that rule which the Employer and Union agree upon as correct and proper?
3. Given that vagueness, ambiguity, or otherwise linguistically confusing language in a postal rule creates uncertainty and risks arbitrary enforcement and loss of contractual rights, may such uncertainty be treated as a grievable harm entitling the grievant to seek a binding interpretive ruling to remedy that uncertainty?
4. Are the parties involved in a Step 1 discussion permitted to fashion and agree to a remedy of a grievance that is inconsistent with unpublished, Headquarters-level interpretations of Postal rules?
5. Are the parties involved in a Step 1 discussion restricted from fashioning and agreeing to a remedy of a grievance that is inconsistent with unpublished, Headquarters-level interpretations of Postal rules?
6. Does Article 31.2 allow for the union’s request and retrieval of the employer's interpretive position over any general or specific rule covered under the scope of the National Agreement?

There may be others withdrawn in addition to this, but I'm not near my paperwork right now.

The union seems intentionally avoidant with interpretation grievances, and limit their pursuits to application and compliance issues, i.e., after the damage is done and while the grievant is trying to recover their losses.

Many current and former union officials fall for the false belief that a "contract violation" is a prerequisite for a grievance. Not only is a violation not a condition under the definition of grievance...

View attachment 16398
...but if it were the case, interpretive disputes would be impossible to pursue. To illustrate:

• Accusing the employer of a violation preemptively requires an interpretive act of the allegedly violated rule.
• If the rule is not premptively interpreted, there lacks a rational connection between the rule, the accusation, and the violation. You may as well say, "you broke the rule by breaking the rule". The accusation has no substance.
• For those still in doubt, consider a rule that includes an amphiboly. The rule, having multiple potential meanings, must first resolve the interpretive conflict before proper application or compliance issues can be tackled.
• In cases where the union relies on an interpretation, makes an accusation against the Employer's application or compliance, but the Employer disputes the interpretation, the application/compliance issues cannot be resolved until the interpretation is determined, else the parties will just argue past each other.

The issue is the lack of any grieve-able issue listed in any of the items you listed.