I read that. I don't think anyone lost anything. What it was is a failure to clarify. They kicked the can down the road. They said NRLCA should negotiate it in the contract if they want management to stop "directing" people outside their office. It doesn't say management has the right, either.
Specialized rules prevail over general rules. Management points to the general rule (Article 3) in the immediately previous paragraph. The general rule is the "right" management claims to have. "Article 3" is management's "black and white".
The union allegedly failed to point to a specific contrary rule in their complaint, therefore, the employer pointed to Article 37, and afterward, the union surrendered the argument.
If you don't want to go don't. If you do, work 80 hours a week. I really don't care. It is BS that a lot of RCA's feel like they will get fired for saying NO. They have the right to say NO. Unless someone can show me much stronger language somewhere, I won't budge.
Your steadfastness is acknowledged, but may be in vain.
Lets go back to the definition of a PTF (Designation Code 76) PER the contract:
Article 7 Section 1 B. Part-time Flexible Rural Carriers (Designation Code 76) Part-time flexible rural carriers are those substitutes or rural carrier associates appointed following an assignment posting. These employees provide service on regular and auxiliary routes as directed by management.
It's a general rule with slight modifications from
ELM 432.111(b). Naturally, management schedules employees to work.
Why is this language unique to Designation Code 76 only?
Article 7.1.B generally tailors to the rural agreement without modifying (at least) the ELM section above.
RCA's with Designation Code 78 and 79 need to understand they have some protection. MAYBE THEY WOULDN'T QUIT ALL THE TIME IF THEY DID KNOW!
Fire off an interpretive grievance including all of your arguments and see what happens. More power to you if you can get a rep to land the shot.
Any problem can be fixed. Don't tell me RCA shortages can't be fixed. There needs to be some EFFING transparency to start fixing it.
It's unlikely all routes nationwide will have an assigned leave replacement. Even with the best imaginable transparency, there's the supply and demand issue.
How many people would be/are content in a job where you're not promised a single minute of work (consider H routes) but must be "on call" (see
PUB 181) for an unknown amount of months/years to someday
hopefully land a regular route under a reduced pay table?
The shortage issue
may be fixed, but not under the current system.
If the craft doesn't hold management to their obligations under our "probationary period" mechanism, it's unlikely (if not unreasonable) to ever sincerely expect a full complement of leave replacements in
any office.
The burden is on the union to overcome the presumption in contractual grievances. If the union argues "you can't force" while the employer claims "we've not agreed to a restriction", then the union could have either taken the stalemate to arbitration or conceded to the employers declaration.
It appears the union chose the latter.
This could have gone either way, but it appears we'll never know.
