What I presume that you're running up against is a semantic interpretation of the language in the RCAM, Article 17 of the contract, and §251(?) of the F-21(? I'm at the lake without my myriad documents and only a phone, so a multi-document deep dive would murder my fingers).
What's at question is an interpretation of what constitutes an official meeting/interview et al., vs an informal operational meeting. Whilst I generally agree from a "moral" standpoint that meeting a steward under a management approved request ought to be compensable to both parties, available documentation that I have at hand does not specifically call this out, as it is not an interview during official grievance proceeding, nor is it related to the immediate workload in filling out and filing a grievance, and is therefore technically not time eligible for compensation, as it falls under the auspices of an informal meeting. Essentially, it's an issue with the order of operations. File then discuss, compensated. Discuss prior to filing, not compensated.
That being said, should management wish to pay this time out under 8127, I would never disabuse them of this notion; however, the regulations as written, from a purely technical standpoint, do not expressly provide for compensation for speaking to a steward about general contractual questions prior to filing a grievance, and I suspect that, given the NRLCA's preponderance for settling at the lowest possible level, your local representation does not find a compelling enough case that they feel they would be successful to move the issue to binding arbitration.
Here's the relevant section of the RCAM.
If a rural carrier is being interviewed by a steward pursuant to Article 17.3, the time involved in the interview is compensable. Rural Carriers (71 & 72) will be paid for such time on PS Form 8127 or equivalent auxiliary assistance at
the option of the supervisor. Leave replacements will be paid for such time on PS Form 1314-A or equivalent auxiliary assistance at the option of the supervisor.
Since 17.3 includes permission requests to leave/enter a work area both to:
- [to] adjust [existing] grievances or
- to investigate a specific problem to determine whether to file a grievance
it covers the scope of pre- and post filing. Therefore, based strictly on the argument you've presented (thus far) on meeting time pre-filing, I'm not convinced that approved meeting time pre-filing is not compensable, but the contrary.
I agree with the notion that if a carrier decides to use any part of their 30-minute lunch break to discuss matters with the union, then it is not compensable, but only because the carrier is choosing to use their lunch that way. Lunch breaks don't require management pre-approval, nor unforseen interruption of the work flow, nor management scheduling modifications for the meeting time between carrier and steward.
If the interpretive issue of the RCAM excerpt is an "unclear referant" i.e.,
who is the target under consideration for compensation, recall that rural carriers (71) who perform as local/chief steward functions accumulate time towards a DACA Z. They do
not recieve 8127 time, as a rural carrier (71), and non-local/chief stewards are compensated by the NRLCA under the NSS.
The peculiar issue in this case is that
management agrees that rural carriers are compensated for the meeting time; its the
union ADR, DR, and NRO (according to the ADR over my office) that disagrees. Since I'm not going to try to directly deal with management, I filed so that everyone is on the same page, and I don't get smacked with an LOD in the future from a different management crew that decides to take advantage of the union's perfunctory position.
As to any degree of compulsion to take it to binding arbitration, being a step-4 settlement from 2002, it seems unnecessary, as it's already been resolved.
While I always appreicate your input, I trust enjoying
lake time is
way more interesting than disputing
meeting time. I hope you're having a blast!
