NRLCA is corrupt to the core

[neciat]

[This has worked for me, may not work for you, sometimes management is so clueless, Labor Will tell them to kick everything up because they are either loosing easily justified grievances (on technicalities), or settling bad grievances that are costing way more than the ~$600 it takes to settle at step 2, or they have discipline from the Poom and are not allowed to settle..but they'll never tell you that]

During your step1 managment interviews, do you ask (assuming you are a steward if not, get them to) something in the relm of: "¿are you capable of settling this grievance"? "If so, how?" Followed by "¿are you aware of article xx section xxx of the contract...?" (Sections for the violation and article 15)
Followed by "¿is it important for you to follow guidence from your superiors?" ... "¿is the postmaster general your superior?"... "¿are you aware that the Postmaster General personally approves and signs the national agreement aka the national contract for rural carriers?"

[The management interviews should feel like the steward is reprimanding and issuing discipline]

You have to establish that management is willingly (intent) not settling for personal reasons (not operational) to win an article 15 case, and that they are mentally capable of settling (they know the rules/contract they are accused of violating).

Continuous/frivolous kicking things to step 2 cost both parties a lot of money, so escalating monetary penalties are a concise and proportional deterrent.

If that was to / for me , no, I am not and never was a steward. Heck, out of my 30 years at the PO , I was only in the union for about 6 years or so. I did attend several National Conventions on my own dime and time. Attended a couple State conventions as well as 99% of the local meetings. And , no, I was never a Delegate either. Just a gumby member at large interested in the whole process. I witnessed and heard enough. Anyway, I don't think that " You have to establish that management is willingly (intent) not settling for personal reasons (not operational) to win an article 15 case, and that they are mentally capable of settling (they know the rules/contract they are accused of violating)." because in the same Article we have ;

The parties further agree that at any step in the
grievance procedure, the Union representative shall have full
authority to settle or withdraw the grievance in whole or in part.
The Employer representative, likewise, shall have full authority to
grant, settle or deny the grievance in whole or in part.

You could , but not necessarily essential, just show the number and / or percentage of grievances filed vs. the number kicked up to Step 2. I often would wonder just how many times the parties at Step 2 would look at an issue and say , " What in the heck is THIS doing here ? "

Back in the day ( decade actually ) , I saw most grievances settled / resolved at the local office level. Issues like accidents , too. I even saw a couple letters of removal rescinded at the office level. I don't know what the "end" discipline actually was but they did not get fired. The issues weren't anything like cheating or stealing or anything like that. But , this was back when a Postmaster was allowed to actually run his / her office and a Postmaster still is but he / she does not realize it. This was before all of the micromanaging.

 

[Augsburg]

If that was to / for me , no, I am not and never was a steward. Heck, out of my 30 years at the PO , I was only in the union for about 6 years or so. I did attend several National Conventions on my own dime and time. Attended a couple State conventions as well as 99% of the local meetings. And , no, I was never a Delegate either. Just a gumby member at large interested in the whole process. I witnessed and heard enough. Anyway, I don't think that " You have to establish that management is willingly (intent) not settling for personal reasons (not operational) to win an article 15 case, and that they are mentally capable of settling (they know the rules/contract they are accused of violating)." because in the same Article we have ;

The parties further agree that at any step in the
grievance procedure, the Union representative shall have full
authority to settle or withdraw the grievance in whole or in part.
The Employer representative, likewise, shall have full authority to
grant, settle or deny the grievance in whole or in part.

You could , but not necessarily essential, just show the number and / or percentage of grievances filed vs. the number kicked up to Step 2. I often would wonder just how many times the parties at Step 2 would look at an issue and say , " What in the heck is THIS doing here ? "

Back in the day ( decade actually ) , I saw most grievances settled / resolved at the local office level. Issues like accidents , too. I even saw a couple letters of removal rescinded at the office level. I don't know what the "end" discipline actually was but they did not get fired. The issues weren't anything like cheating or stealing or anything like that. But , this was back when a Postmaster was allowed to actually run his / her office and a Postmaster still is but he / she does not realize it. This was before all of the micromanaging.

The percentages is a disturbing trend but I think it's a false correlation. Or at least a unfounded correlation since every grievance is different.

I believe the trend shows less training for in house management and more upper management trying to justify their jobs by controlling in house management.

And sometimes upper stewards like to take responsibilities from local/area stewards for the same reasons, or to make sure local/area stewards can't move up and take the full time ADR/DR positions (gatekeeping)

When the local steward can hold management accountable with that kind of interview, in house management will hopefully grow a backbone and settle things themselves, or upper management will hopefully see the increased fines decrease their bonus check enough to stop that behavior.

I personally believe trying to do something is always better than giving up,

but it seems you missed an opportunity to be a steward, since you seem good at making a decent argument and could have held management accountable because you know what management should be doing. But it is easier to yell at the ref from the stands, than putting on the stripes and officiating. I get it.

 

[Gotrope]

It's been a trend to escalate things up the chain. It's a numbers game by mgmt. Once you get to step 2, they can usually settle for less than full due amount carrier to expedite the gats payment. Once it gets to step 3, the arbitration process has a number precedent. To allow a fast track for a removal without cause mgmt must agree with union to settle or discard lesser grievance that has an earlier time occurrence. At step 4, the risks and returns get even better for mgmt by delaying cases and potentially outlasting a carriers employment. Thereby, not losing a penny to restitution.

It's always a numbers game. Stewards at higher levels must make decisions which cases have a higher likelihood of success and which to withdraw or agree to follow contract verbage for a BS settlement to advance another more immediate financial risk for a carrier or their family.

And some stewards are burned out, some simply don't communicate well and lots of carriers don't listen to what a steward does explain.

 

[EthelAnne]

. . . or upper management will hopefully see the increased fines decrease their bonus check enough to stop that behavior.

Do we know that grievance pay outs affect any management bonuses/pay increases? I don't know, but my experience has been that a lot of local managers don't GAF so I suspect they do not. The pay for performance metrics are arbitrary AFAIK (and I don't know much, just what I've learned from casual conversation with PMs/Supervisors, who probably are lying anyway).

There are plenty of ways to pay carriers money they are owed within the local office rather than through GATS, so if I'm a local manager, and I've got a grievance on my desk that I could resolve by paying a carrier through some quasi-official way in TACS (for example, paying them 4 hours of OT for skipping them on the RDWL, or giving them an O day or something) rather than through GATS, I'd do that if it meant more bonus money for me.

I have to think if grievances affected pay, union reps would see a lot more cooperation from management, and that has generally not been my experience.

 

[justacarrier]

If that was to / for me , no, I am not and never was a steward. Heck, out of my 30 years at the PO , I was only in the union for about 6 years or so. I did attend several National Conventions on my own dime and time. Attended a couple State conventions as well as 99% of the local meetings. And , no, I was never a Delegate either. Just a gumby member at large interested in the whole process. I witnessed and heard enough. Anyway, I don't think that " You have to establish that management is willingly (intent) not settling for personal reasons (not operational) to win an article 15 case, and that they are mentally capable of settling (they know the rules/contract they are accused of violating)." because in the same Article we have ;

The parties further agree that at any step in the
grievance procedure, the Union representative shall have full
authority to settle or withdraw the grievance in whole or in part.
The Employer representative, likewise, shall have full authority to
grant, settle or deny the grievance in whole or in part.

You could , but not necessarily essential, just show the number and / or percentage of grievances filed vs. the number kicked up to Step 2. I often would wonder just how many times the parties at Step 2 would look at an issue and say , " What in the heck is THIS doing here ? "

Back in the day ( decade actually ) , I saw most grievances settled / resolved at the local office level. Issues like accidents , too. I even saw a couple letters of removal rescinded at the office level. I don't know what the "end" discipline actually was but they did not get fired. The issues weren't anything like cheating or stealing or anything like that. But , this was back when a Postmaster was allowed to actually run his / her office and a Postmaster still is but he / she does not realize it. This was before all of the micromanaging.

It's because you had a good local steward!

 

[Rt2mailman]

After reading everything above, there are many discrepancies in who files what in a grievance. I will try to explain how I believe grievances should be handled.
1) Grievances are filed by the grievant (within 2 weeks of the incident/discipline) unless it involves more than one carrier, then and ONLY then a steward may file it.
2) Managers or the grievant may fill out the form during the 1st step discussion (When management will initial and date 3-b if they can't appease the carrier), the original grievance form 8191 is then given to the steward, when it then becomes the union's property.
3) The steward then has 10 days to meet, request information, conduct interviews, research, and write the grievance while formally meeting with the management designee.
4) If they can't come to a resolution(denied), agree to resolutions (sustaining) the steward's resolution, or making an agreed settlement the grievance form should be so annotated.
5) Denied grievances then give the steward 7 days to appeal that grievance to the second step.
6) The second step designees then meet and finalize the grievance or send it up to 3rd step or arbitration. Sometimes the other steps "Remand" the grievance back down a step to finalize payments.
If i remember more I'll add to this later.

 

[psd181]

NRLCA corruption??? Really?? Hell to the naw naw naw.

When the RRECS was finalized in the contract and then the NRLCA started signing MOU's to wait a year because X, Y, and Z wasn't finished, well, I filed charges with the NRLB about how they got us to vote yes and then changed everything almost to the day of counting the votes after publishing and spreading the new rules for 2 months to get a YES vote. NRLB said charges weren't valid as the NRLCA is the exclusive bargaining for rural carriers and they have to a right to screw us over since the membership gave them that right. And a bad union who changes every word in a tentative contract that was approved by membership can do so if the C & BL give them that right. Those were the comments from the NRLB investigator!!!!!

My comments are who is corrupt, the membership who allows this to go down or the NRLCA Board?

But my main points of contention in another NRLB charge was almost to the T about everything the NRLCA Board filed step 4's on over the verification of data for RRECS? NRLCA said carriers would be able to access it for over 7 years, and then after the tentative contract claimed it was unobtainable!

 

[Forcedout]

Wrong again,

The EEO wasn't filed until AFTER the NRLCA denied my arbitration, expending the worthless grievance process. It was filed approximately 8 months after the misposted route grievance. The only delay in the grievance process was in USPS doing another backdoor deal with the NRLCA to cover this up and make it go away, hopefully delaying long enough that I couldn't file complaints with the NRLB, EEOC and DOL.

I was denied any and all information regarding this grievance, they filed a settlement which they still ignored for months until filing an EEO. Now they are ignoring splitting the route as they agreed to months ago, instead taking 2 of my days off a month, because they don't have enough carriers and RCA's. It took over 9 months from the misposted route re-evaluation to finally inform me of the actual route size.

No, they cannot make UNILATERAL decisions, otherwise it would make the grievance process more worthless than it is already and make the NRLCA and USPS judge, jury and executioner. Yes, they already believe they are, due to no accountability and help from people spreading this false narrative of us carriers having no say. This, abusing our labor and stealing our pay through programs like RRECS and Mail Count Manipulation is why no one wants to work here anymore.

Our own union has no backbone and can't strike, plus they work against you and is proven by the RRECS backdoor deal. Grievances do absolutely nothing, aren't even filed correctly and just waste time with the intention of you giving up on your complaint.

The unilateral actions by USPS and NRLCA—such as settling grievances, withholding route splits, and delaying backpay without carrier input—violate the National Agreement and established MOUs.

Key contractual violations include:

• Article 5 and 34.2: Require fair work standards and union involvement before changes affecting pay. The unilateral implementation of RRECS evaluation methods violates this.
• Article 32.2: Mandates prior notice to the union for major operational changes—often ignored with emergency CDS routes.
• Article 15.1: While the union has authority to settle grievances, doing so without transparency or carrier consent, especially while denying arbitration appeals, undermines due process and good faith representation.

Carriers have a right to representation, timely information, and recourse. When settlements are made unilaterally—especially without implementing agreed route splits or full backpay—it constitutes a breach of contractual obligations and duty of fair representation.

 

[Shannonboy]

"Our own union has no backbone and can't strike, plus they work against you and is proven by the RRECS backdoor deal. Grievances do absolutely nothing, aren't even filed correctly and just waste time with the intention of you giving up on your complaint."
I couldnt say it better Forcedout....although I have said it many, many times in a very similar matter. It is a horrific situation the usps tries to put us in, and there is no doubt in my mind that they are one of the most dishonest, lying, immoral, and EVIL companies out there....second only to the usps...

 

[Forcedout]

I am retired now but was a higher level steward and VERY much know the grievance process. I don't understand the "backdated grievance" because you filed the grievance not the steward, how was anything backdated? And the denying arbitration, that clearly shows you have no understanding of how things work. Sometime it does take a while at step 2 but it is usually in order to get all the correct info so a proper settlement can be obtained. And you stated that the grievance was filed without carrier approval!!!! I would like to see just what happened there! In the end, it seems to be you that does not actually understand how the grievance process works.

No I did not file the grievance, nor do any carriers in this office. We are only allowed to fill out our personal information and say what the issue is. The union steward fills out the complaint details and submits it. Yes, we should be able to see what the grievance says and sign it after, but we don't as so many simply don't follow the proper grievance process.

This grievance for the misposted route, I never even saw the paper it was written on until almost 10 months later. When the NRLCA execs errand boy sent it to me with his egotistical denial of arbitration. Selectively choosing only parts of articles from the contract. Using only certain phrases to justify your narcicism does not make it true B-man, it simply uses it out of context to show you're on a power trip and think you can do anything you want. That's your NRLCA for you, full of narcisists that think they run the USPS and can do whatever they want.

Step 2 should be done in a month, not 10. But when you have a steward that is tight with the NRLCA and all of management. You know FAVORITISM that keeps the Post Office running so wonderfully, full of secrets and hidden corruption that's never investigated.

This is most of the problem, they do waste money on purpose. How much could they have saved by just fixing the misposted route immediately as it says in the contract. No instead it turns into a huge coverup, with forged signatures and backdated grievance, while the carrier is being forced out of work and the only one suffering.

Where's the interest on my money for 10 months+? Why don't they pay penalties when they made the mistake and withheld pay? Why won't they still admit to a misposted route, when they proved it and admitted to it themselves after the fact? Why did the union bail on me and completely back USPS trying to silence me and cover up this mistake? Why do they ignore settlements they did themselves behind my back? Why do I have 3 different signatures from the same personal on numerous forms? Why was my grievance backdated to cover this up? Why do they complain about not having enough workers, but treat us all like their personal slaves, while trying to force out those of us whom won't bow to their corruption? Why does the NRLCA support USPS, but despise all carriers? Look up Nepotism, Favoritism and Narcissism, that's what runs USPS and the NRLCA.

Yes I do completely understand the grievance process, studied it and all the rules, MOU"S etc...for what oh yeah 10 months now. The problem is others that think they know, but they've been told wrong and won't look up what it actually says. Just like believing they can make any and all decisions without any input from the carrier. That's a LIE they want you to believe, but they've been allowed to get away with their own rules and ignoring the actual contract for so long that it just gets worse and worse.

Theirs no point working here then if their is no one on your side, while supervisors, management and the NRLCA is against you. You said they can make all decisions and simply close your grievance if you sneeze wrong. That's completely false, but if y'all believe it, it must be true.

Too many chiefs and not enough indians, same problem in all corporations and they never learn. I've been asked to be supervisor 5 times and told them I'd rather quit than join their cult.

 

[Rt2mailman]

True that management would want you to switch to the dark side and be a supervisor, that way nobody willing to check into the contract would work in your office. If you want to see all information in a grievance become the steward in your office. No only will you have access to everything you would learn how to file a grievance properly.

No manager is able to "back date" a grievanc unless the carrier didn't KEEP THE GRIEVANCE FORM that the manager INICIALS AND DATES at the 3b section of the grievance (first step discussion) . If you didn't do that, YOU were the one that filed the grievance improperly. Not management, not the union, but only YOU, can initiate a grievance unless it's a class action, which this wasn't.
If you've studied this for 10 months I'm not sure how you missed that part.
Stewards have the right to reword the question in your grievance usually with explanation to the grievant as to why. Missing a question, not inferring a contract violation etc. You have the right to be informed at every step of the process, but some busy stewards are lacking in that requirement to properly inform carriers.
10 months to fix a mis posted, mis evaluated route is actually pretty good, I've seen a lot longer.
Read my post above on how to file a grievance, go onto the NRLCA website and look for sample grievances, and see if they look like any of the process you went through. I believe they will all show the initial date of the incident, and a manager's initials/date at 3b, the spot to show a first step discussion was conducted. If YOU missed these important parts of YOUR GRIEVANCE, YOU filed it improperly. Now you know, and maybe you've helped others on this site by demonstrating how this mistake can be made.
Management is NOT YOUR FRIEND, don't let them fill out the grievance for you. That's the reason it is known as YOUR grievance and not theirs. You file it, you fill it out, you send/give it to your steward, then the steward takes care of it from there. You may have to ask the steward to keep you informed, they're not always good at that.
No manager or steward can back date a properly filed grievance that the grievant has a copy of, because that copy will show different dates and expose the discrepancies. That is also the reason the steward is to be sent/given the original and everyone else gets a copy.

 

[Forcedout]

Wow, I had no idea they weren't supposed to backdate grievances and it's all my fault too? Thank you for that insight. I'll file that in my fund of worthless knowledge.

I should probably tell the EEO that they were wrong to agree with me then after their investigation and my pile of evidence. Maybe they should contact you so you can tell them how this all works?

I'm so sorry for bidding on a route that was posted wrong. I'm so sorry that after 10 years I thought I may actually get a better route, but thank you so much for giving me even more work, so I have NO personal life!

Do I need to explain what corruption, narcissism and absolute power means?

I already explained all grievances in our office have been submitted fraudulently for 10 years now, but you can't comprehend that someone would do something they aren't supposed to do?

You simply posted the exact response I would expect from the narcissistic management and supervisors I know!

Reading comprehension is your friend but most can't even do math anymore, so this is expected.