PTFs fighting over route

[MostlyHarmless]

We have a route coming up for bid in my office and currently the ptfs are fighting over it. So here is the scenario:

We have a PTF who was hired by our office, started as an RCA worked up to ptf we have another sub in the office who transferred in. I don't know if he transferred in as an rca or a ptf or their ptf hire dates. They are both PTFs currently. PM is saying the ptf that transferred into the office has seniority over the ptf who has been in the office the longest.

I was under the impression that the carrier who transferred in lost their seniority. However if they are both PTFs able to bid on a regular route does the transferred ptfs past time get taken into account when bidding on the regular route?

 

[Beanut]

We have a route coming up for bid in my office and currently the ptfs are fighting over it. So here is the scenario:

We have a PTF who was hired by our office, started as an RCA worked up to ptf we have another sub in the office who transferred in. I don't know if he transferred in as an rca or a ptf or their ptf hire dates. They are both PTFs currently. PM is saying the ptf that transferred into the office has seniority over the ptf who has been in the office the longest.

I was under the impression that the carrier who transferred in lost their seniority. However if they are both PTFs able to bid on a regular route does the transferred ptfs past time get taken into account when bidding on the regular route?

Someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but…

I believe the PTF total employment would only be taken in account if it were a district wide bid.

The PTFs seniority in your cluster would be the date they transferred in.

 

[Packager]

Who has been PTF in the office longer? They get the route.

"it shall be awarded to the part-time flexible rural carrier at the office with the longest period of service in the office as a part-time flexible rural carrier"

Only if they share a seniority date do tiebreakers then come into play. The tiebreakers are as follows:

Part-time Flexible Rural Carriers
When two (2) or more part-time flexible rural carriers
are appointed on the same date, a tie shall be broken
by applying the following factors. In each instance,
continuous service shall be considered before non-continuous
service.
a. Length of service as a substitute rural carrier;
b. Length of service as an RCA employee;
c. Length of service as an RCR employee and/or
auxiliary rural carrier;
d. Length of service as an Emergency Hire, either as
a Designation 74 or a Designation 78 (as used
prior to July 21, 1981);
e. Length of total prior postal service;
f. Numerical by the last three (3) or more numbers
(using enough numbers to break the tie but not
fewer than three (3) numbers) of the employee’s
Social Security number, from the lowest to highest,
000 being considered “longest period of
service.”

 

[btdtret]

MostlyHarmless -- "We have a route coming up for bid in my office and currently the ptfs are fighting over it. So here is the scenario:

We have a PTF who was hired by our office, started as an RCA worked up to ptf we have another sub in the office who transferred in. I don't know if he transferred in as an rca or a ptf or their ptf hire dates. They are both PTFs currently. PM is saying the ptf that transferred into the office has seniority over the ptf who has been in the office the longest."

-- None of the regular carriers are interested in the route coming up for bid?

-- Might want to invite the PM to look at the EL-902, Article 12.3.C.2.d.

- If a vacancy still exists, it SHALL be awarded to the part-time flexible rural carrier at the office WITH THE LONGEST PERIOD OF SERVICE IN THE OFFICE as a part-time flexible rural carrier, who will be converted to a regular rural carrier. In no instance will a part-time flexible rural carrier have the right to refuse conversion to regular rural carrier.

-- If that is not good enough for the PM, by all means alert the Assistant District Representative, if you don't have an office steward.

-- I see "Packager" is the faster typist tonight!

 

[Worve]

Why worry about it bid or don’t bid let the system figure it out .

 

[MostlyHarmless]

MostlyHarmless -- "We have a route coming up for bid in my office and currently the ptfs are fighting over it. So here is the scenario:

We have a PTF who was hired by our office, started as an RCA worked up to ptf we have another sub in the office who transferred in. I don't know if he transferred in as an rca or a ptf or their ptf hire dates. They are both PTFs currently. PM is saying the ptf that transferred into the office has seniority over the ptf who has been in the office the longest."

-- None of the regular carriers are interested in the route coming up for bid?

-- Might want to invite the PM to look at the EL-902, Article 12.3.C.2.d.

- If a vacancy still exists, it SHALL be awarded to the part-time flexible rural carrier at the office WITH THE LONGEST PERIOD OF SERVICE IN THE OFFICE as a part-time flexible rural carrier, who will be converted to a regular rural carrier. In no instance will a part-time flexible rural carrier have the right to refuse conversion to regular rural carrier.

-- If that is not good enough for the PM, by all means alert the Assistant District Representative, if you don't have an office steward.

-- I see "Packager" is the faster typist

Ty to you and Packer. I thought so. PM said it so matter of factly that the ptf who has been in the office longest is in a full blown panic. Sounds like they should file a grievance now before the route gets posted to cover themselves.

 

[Worve]

Ty to you and Packer. I thought so. PM said it so matter of factly that the ptf who has been in the office longest is in a full blown panic. Sounds like they should file a grievance now before the route gets posted to cover themselves.

They don’t need to file they can just bid and let the system work. I would still have them call local rep and inform them if situation so they can monitor it.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

Because the PM told the two ptfs that matrix said that the carrier who transferred in has the most seniority out of all the subs and the carrier that has been here the longest is in a panic.

 

[Worve]

Because the PM told the two ptfs that matrix said that the carrier who transferred in has the most seniority out of all the subs and the carrier that has been here the longest is in a panic.

Have them call local rep so they can explain it to the PTF in question. Heck have them call EAP on the clock one day and get paid for it.

 

[psd181]

Ty to you and Packer. I thought so. PM said it so matter of factly that the ptf who has been in the office longest is in a full blown panic. Sounds like they should file a grievance now before the route gets posted to cover themselves.

do you think a pm actually knows how to read a contract?

 

[gotstamps]

Ty to you and Packer. I thought so. PM said it so matter of factly that the ptf who has been in the office longest is in a full blown panic. Sounds like they should file a grievance now before the route gets posted to cover themselves.

Until the bidding is done & comes back as awarded incorrectly, no grievance can be filed at this time. So far there has been no harm done aside from the bit of hostility that seems to have been caused by false information.

 

[OnePiece]

We had something similar happened here before too. This RCA had the highest seniority but when a few of them got converted to PTF(together). I don’t know why they got converted. We never had RCA converted to PTF when I was a RCA. Anyway as a result of them turning PTF together, now 2 of them got higher seniority than the highest RCA. I think because they worked for the Post Office before this RCA. When route went up for bit, the highest seniority guy lost both time. He finally became regular after a 3rd route went up. Not sure if this answer your question but PTF has different rules than RCA.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

Until the bidding is done & comes back as awarded incorrectly, no grievance can be filed at this time. So far there has been no harm done aside from the bit of hostility that seems to have been caused by false information.

Lame but w/e not my rodeo. We got word today the route won't be going up for bid anytime soon. Nuts our resident idiotic supervisor "did not receive the paperwork" that the carrier quit, PM claims they need the carrier to come back to fill out some paperwork so that he is off the rolls. That part will not happen, he already stated he isn't coming back.

I know for a fact Nuts received the paperwork because 1. I saw the "I quit" forms he filled out he showed them to me 2. I was in the office when he handed them to Nuts and watched the convo from a distance.

The pm we have rn is a temp my actual pm is out on medical leave. I'm beginning to think Nuts has not accurately given this new PM information and lied to them and that's where a lot of the strife and confusion is coming from. To further complicate things Nuts is on vacation. On a more positive note this new PM has actually been quite nice and surprisingly helpful and has pretty much come through like a tornado and undid everything my actual PM and Nuts has done which has been hilarious for the carriers to watch from afar. It's going to be fun when Nuts gets back. Temp PM seems to have caught on that Nuts is a liar and manipulator and doesn't seem to have a tolerance for it.

I was more asking because this ptf was really upset over the ordeal, they've had a lot going on in their personal life and wanted to try to ease their mind a little bit. They're one of the good ones and don't need the added stress.

 

[stillfirstclass]

Someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but…

I believe the PTF total employment would only be taken in account if it were a district wide bid.

The PTFs seniority in your cluster would be the date they transferred in.

u r 100% correct