RCA forced to use POV on LLV route.
- Thread starter mail4U
- Start date
uselesshasbeen
Well-known member
My understanding is that an LLV is assigned to a route. No doubt there are situations that management can contractually do what you suggest, but I have no idea when. Obviously if before the fact you should contact a union rep.
mail4U -- "Can management force an RCA to use POV on an LLV route?"
-- From Step 4 ( L-101 ) - in part: In the event a postal-provided vehicle is not available for a route to which on is assigned, a rural carrier MAY BE REQUESTED, BUT NOT REQUIRED, to provide a vehicle. If a carrier provides a vehicle for any portion of the route, normal daily equipment maintenance allowance ( EMA ) is payable.
-- Why is the LLV not available?
-- Also from Step 4 ( L-101 ) -- Vehicles assigned to rural routes MAY be used for other duties, as long as that usage DOES NOT INTERFERE with the rural carrier's completion of the assigned route. This usage should be on an exception or emergency basis and other users MUST return the vehicle with a full tank of gas, since the rural refueling standard only covers the rural route needs.
-- From Step 4 ( L-101 ) - in part: In the event a postal-provided vehicle is not available for a route to which on is assigned, a rural carrier MAY BE REQUESTED, BUT NOT REQUIRED, to provide a vehicle. If a carrier provides a vehicle for any portion of the route, normal daily equipment maintenance allowance ( EMA ) is payable.
-- Why is the LLV not available?
-- Also from Step 4 ( L-101 ) -- Vehicles assigned to rural routes MAY be used for other duties, as long as that usage DOES NOT INTERFERE with the rural carrier's completion of the assigned route. This usage should be on an exception or emergency basis and other users MUST return the vehicle with a full tank of gas, since the rural refueling standard only covers the rural route needs.
Rt2mailman
Well-known member
LLV's should be used on LLV routes, especially if the RCA is working the full day on that route. If an RCA is giving aux help on a route, they may be asked to use a POV, and paid EMA. If a manager requires that an RCA use a POV on an LLV route for the whole day, that RCA should file a grievance asking not only for the EMA, but more $ for the difference a POV route receives for DPS pay compared to an LLV route. The difference is not very much, but asking for an additional $20 helps managers remember not to do the same thing in the future. They usually just pay it, knowing that they were out of line to require the RCA to use their POV in the first place, and don't usually want that type of grievance going to the second step outside of their office.
Charlie Brown
Well-known member
"If a manager requires that an RCA use a POV on an LLV route route for the whole day, that RCA should file a greivance" No greivance! The RCA should stand their ground and refuse. As btdtret has already posted, Mgmt. may request but not require a carrier (regular or RCA) to use their own vehicle.
Rt2mailman
Well-known member
Sorry Charlie, With some managers you may get away with "standing your ground", but refusing a direct order from your manager often is a cause for discipline. Showing your manager the "rules" may help, but not always.
dumbolehickfromms
New member
I tell you what I would do, I would get in my personal vehicle after being ORDERED to use it, and hit a parked car in a parking lot or parked on the roadside. I would say I haven't used my personal vehicle ever on a route, and was not familiar with driving from the passenger seat. Also, my back and neck are hurting and I need an ambulance. It sure is hard to reach brake and gas since before today I've never even spent a second trying the positioning of my body and left leg to manipulate the controls. Sorry charlie, and I'm filing a grievance and getting a lawyer involved because you knew you could not REQUIRE me to drive my own vehicle, but you did so without regard of training and/or unsafe conditions caused by lack of training. On a another note, use of left hand drive, right hand drive, LLV, and or other postal vehicles is supposed to be tested by an DIE and annotated on carrier's OF 346
Rt2mailman
Well-known member
Any carrier is allowed to refuse a direct order if they find such an order to be "unsafe"or "illegal" without being subject to discipline. That might be a better avenue than smashing up yours and other cars.
