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The union has consecutively withdrawn the past 5 or 6 of my grievances.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.

 

[gotstamps]

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?

This is a question you are asking the Union. This is not a grievance against mgmt for violating the Nat’l Agreement or any Manuals.

1. 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?

Again, this is a question for mgmt or union and not a grievance against mgmt for a violation.

1. 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?

This is too broad. If there are instructions given or enforced that are confusing, discuss that instruction with mgmt & grieve the instructions if no remedy can be agreed upon.

1. 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involved in a Step 1 discussion permitted to fashion and agree to a remedy of a grievance that is inconsistent with unpublished, Headquarters-level interpretations of Postal rules?

This is not a grievance, either. Sweetheart Deals are frowned upon but what is agreed to at the discussion is between mgmt & carrier. If that decision harms or effects other carriers in any way & is a Contract Violation, that Violation can be grieved by the offended party.

1. 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?

Same answer as above.

1. 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?

This is also not a grievance against mgmt. If the Union has issues with mgmt providing RFI documents or information, the Union can file on that issue alone if necessary and take it to the Labor Board if necessary.

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
...

This section of the National Agreement pertains to complaints against mgmt, not the Union. It is clearly stated their that it needs to be related to wages, hours, or conditions of employment.
A question of clarification of mgmt & the Union’s position on subject matter is not a grievance.