In my rmpo we have a carrier that is fixing ti retire. The postmaster says that the rca's can basically shift around by seniority even letting a senior sub take a position already accupied by another junior sub basically taking him off of a k route that he was originally hired on and making him have to take a j or h route that is left over. this does't sound right to me but i know rules changed some when the rmpo's were first started.
RCA shake up
- Thread starter WES
- Start date
Deer Smearer
Well-known member
No bumping juniors off matrix positions. Get a copy of any relevant form 50s and previous matrix for future reference.
WES -- Search for "matrix" in RI's KNOWLEDGEBASE Section for additional info.
-- Your office has a Matrix doesn't it?
-- AS "Deer Smearer" noted, there is no "bumping" on the Matrix.
-- From the "Matrix Quick Reference Checklist" Q & A on the Matrix:
Q # 2. Can a senior leave replacement carrier bump a junior leave replacement carrier?
A -- There is no "bumping" on the matrix under any circumstances.
-- Maybe your Assistant District Representative could "volunteer" to give your PM a little "one on one" regarding the Matrix.
-- Your office has a Matrix doesn't it?
-- AS "Deer Smearer" noted, there is no "bumping" on the Matrix.
-- From the "Matrix Quick Reference Checklist" Q & A on the Matrix:
Q # 2. Can a senior leave replacement carrier bump a junior leave replacement carrier?
A -- There is no "bumping" on the matrix under any circumstances.
-- Maybe your Assistant District Representative could "volunteer" to give your PM a little "one on one" regarding the Matrix.
faceindawind
New member
I love a good RCA Matrix shake up. My favorite flavor is management phaq up.
There should be a hire date posted next to the working matrix to give you dates of hire giving you a basis of where you stand.
There should be a hire date posted next to the working matrix to give you dates of hire giving you a basis of where you stand.
Also, just to muddy the waters, your office should have 1 matrix.<br /><br />Via the PostPlan MOU (available for perusal in the knowledgebase), seniority and matrices were merged when APO and RMPO(s) were formed. Sometimes management loses their minds and makes a separate matrix for each location. p.s. grieve the poop out of this, @Wes!
faceindawind
New member
This RCA you mention, are they the Primary for this route? If so they are entitled to the hrs. when this carrier takes time off.
The Matrix gets readjusted when this carrier retires and award process is complete. When this process of award is complete all RCA'S have the option again to opt for Primary (if applicable) to second and third option.
I just checked the KNOWLEDGEBASE on this site. Go there and input Matrix you will find info there on how it's supposed to be done.
The Matrix gets readjusted when this carrier retires and award process is complete. When this process of award is complete all RCA'S have the option again to opt for Primary (if applicable) to second and third option.
I just checked the KNOWLEDGEBASE on this site. Go there and input Matrix you will find info there on how it's supposed to be done.
gotstamps
Well-known member
FACE-
Secondary & Tertiary routes on a matrix are adjusted when mgmt feels there are too many holes in the Matrix. Only Primary routes can be adjusted & the route being vacated by a sub moving up, quitting, or when a route without a Primary THAT HAS A REGULAR GOING OUT ON EXTENDED LEAVE of over 30 days can be BID by seniority in the APO/RMPO office(s).
There is NO bumping & no other routes are in the bidding for movement. It's very much like our Route online bidding except it's not online.
I.e. Route 2 sub wins a bid to go Regular. Mgmt must now bid Rt 2 sub position by seniority. If Rt 3 sub moves to Rt 2, then Rt 3 sub position is bid by seniority. If nobody takes the Rt 3 position, bidding ends.
Secondary & Tertiary routes on a matrix are adjusted when mgmt feels there are too many holes in the Matrix. Only Primary routes can be adjusted & the route being vacated by a sub moving up, quitting, or when a route without a Primary THAT HAS A REGULAR GOING OUT ON EXTENDED LEAVE of over 30 days can be BID by seniority in the APO/RMPO office(s).
There is NO bumping & no other routes are in the bidding for movement. It's very much like our Route online bidding except it's not online.
I.e. Route 2 sub wins a bid to go Regular. Mgmt must now bid Rt 2 sub position by seniority. If Rt 3 sub moves to Rt 2, then Rt 3 sub position is bid by seniority. If nobody takes the Rt 3 position, bidding ends.
faceindawind
New member
There is to much ship involved when it comes to anything these days regarding any process with the Machine. I shoot from the hip at first on site from past experiences. Some of it good some not so much. A main reason I'm here is to learn and show up in house REP which I have done. Have a mega thumb drive with info form here I use when an issue pertains to me.
donegoingalong
New member
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I despise hearing leave replacements and union stewards say, "<em>there's no bumping on the matrix</em>!" I'm not sure why we think the matrix is set in stone, no matter what. Yes, there are definitely rules to follow with the matrix -- both in creating it and utilizing it -- however, if rules are broken to fill in the matrix in the first place ... eff that matrix, and back it up to the point it was effed.For example, the senior RCA is out of the office for whatever reason when the matrix is updated, let's theorize because of a new vacancy. The senior RCA isn't notified about the vacancy on the matrix (Art. 30.2.E.1), but the matrix is changed anyway. When the senior RCA gets back, points this out, and wants the matrix reverted back to the point the "mistake" was made, they're told, "<em>there's no bumping on the matrix!</em>"The word "bumping" isn't in the National Agreement. I believe it was first used in the Combined Analysis and later in matrix guidelines documents (with no <span>discernible</span> authors or dates of release). The term "bumping" isn't even truly defined. The <span style="text-decoration: underline">only</span> definition of bumping is a single example -- when an 6/0 AUX carrier opts to leave the AUX to take a matrix vacancy. Other examples should've been provided. Otherwise, an extremely powerful blockade is left wide open to interpretation.I don't hear this mentioned very often, but not even your primary assignment on the matrix is completely safe. Check pages 116-119 of the <a href="https://www.knowledgebase.ruralinfo.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Combined-Analysis-1995-2010.pdf" target="true">Combined Analysis 1995-2010</a> to see a clear example of some RCA's worst nightmare, and also the following:<blockquote>There are occasions when it may be necessary to change the primary assignment of a substitute, RCA, or RCR because of the relief day of the route. Management may reassign substitutes, RCAs, or RCRs to another primary assignment with a different relief day to provide an additional assignment for a PTF. When it is necessary to change the primary assignments, those substitutes, RCAs and RCRs assigned to routes with the relief day needed, in the order of the longest period of continuous service in the office, without regard to classification, will have the option of changing assignments. Management will then reassign by juniority if the number of assignments needed has not been reached.</blockquote>So, if a leave replacement's primary route isn't sacrosanct, why are second and third calls etched in stone? Certainly there are times when "bumping" should be allowed? <em>Especially</em> when contract provisions were previously broken to arrive at the current matrix.
gotstamps
Well-known member
Done-
You're citing a PTF issue that rarely ever happens as in it is rare for there toNOT be only 2 unmanned routes on the same K-day.
The senior primary in your first example would have a grievance for not being called as he/she would have bidding rights & mgmt should have been forced to honor them. If they didn't grieve it, then that's their own fault. If they did grieve, then the Steward should have sent it to Step 2 if mgmt wasn't going to follow contract.
2nds & 3rds are not sacred & a PTF can be placed on those routes when mgmt sees fit without recourse. It's in the O-6. Mgmt can also bump a 2nd or 3rd IF that Sub will definitely go over 40 hours as in remove a 2nd with 38 hours in from schedule for Friday & allow the 3rd to work. A Primary can only be removed from the same situation if the EVALUATION has been met by that scheduled day.
You're citing a PTF issue that rarely ever happens as in it is rare for there toNOT be only 2 unmanned routes on the same K-day.
The senior primary in your first example would have a grievance for not being called as he/she would have bidding rights & mgmt should have been forced to honor them. If they didn't grieve it, then that's their own fault. If they did grieve, then the Steward should have sent it to Step 2 if mgmt wasn't going to follow contract.
2nds & 3rds are not sacred & a PTF can be placed on those routes when mgmt sees fit without recourse. It's in the O-6. Mgmt can also bump a 2nd or 3rd IF that Sub will definitely go over 40 hours as in remove a 2nd with 38 hours in from schedule for Friday & allow the 3rd to work. A Primary can only be removed from the same situation if the EVALUATION has been met by that scheduled day.
donegoingalong
New member
<blockquote><div class="wpforo-post-quote-author"><strong>Posted by: gotstamps</strong></div>You're citing a PTF issue that rarely ever happens as in it is rare for there toNOT be only 2 unmanned routes on the same K-day.</blockquote>It may be rare, but it's possible.<blockquote><strong>Posted by: gotstamps</strong>The senior primary in your first example would have a grievance for not being called as he/she would have bidding rights & mgmt should have been forced to honor them. If they didn't grieve it, then that's their own fault. If they did grieve, then the Steward should have sent it to Step 2 if mgmt wasn't going to follow contract.</blockquote>I was that senior RCA in my first example, did grieve it, and the local union steward conferred with the DR ... who decided to kill the grievance because (<em>I'm assuming</em>) I was supposed to be moving to an AUX route soon. The local, or DR, didn't actually cite that as the reason. They stated they didn't foresee a "reasonable likelihood of success at any further step of the grievance."This DR somehow decided that Art. 12.3.B.5 also applies to matrix updates and refused to represent my issue based on the fact that I couldn't offer proof that I'd requested in writing to be notified of matrix vacancies, even though that provision is clearly only applicable to posted bids.Oh well ... my stewards either don't like me, they're malicious, or they're not bright (could also be something else, or some combination of all that). Not a single person has been able to show me that they're right to my satisfaction, though. Not yet anyway.It's funny when you run into a situation where management says they agree with you, but your union fights against you.... There wasn't a lot I could do in my situation, other than file an NLRB case. I'll try that next time.<blockquote><strong>Posted by: gotstamps</strong>2nds & 3rds are not sacred & a PTF can be placed on those routes when mgmt sees fit without recourse. It's in the O-6. Mgmt can also bump a 2nd or 3rd IF that Sub will definitely go over 40 hours as in remove a 2nd with 38 hours in from schedule for Friday & allow the 3rd to work. A Primary can only be removed from the same situation if the EVALUATION has been met by that scheduled day.</blockquote>I'm not talking about being bumped off the schedule. I'm talking about being bumped on the matrix assignments. There's an example of how a poorly defined word can have too many meanings.I believe there should be situations where matrix "bumping" should be possible. The main one being if a previous mistake was made in making or updating the matrix. Another one might be if there are certain changes in the matrix. I'm not up to brainstorming what those changes might be at the moment. I'm currently winding down from a long work week.I've always been of the opinion that the matrix is supposed to be a scheduling tool with a heavy benefit to seniority. I've never believed that the matrix is supposed to keep leave replacements locked in and secure on certain routes. When scenarios arise that leave the senior leave replacement(s) in the worst possible position(s) on the matrix -- usually due to the other leave replacements working the system (nepotism / cronyism / bias) -- I see a system being used in that way as a broken system, and one that could use some tweaking.
Deer Smearer
Well-known member
Search the knowledgebase. There is one article about the number 1 grievance is not following the matrix for various reasons.There is a statement to the effect of if the matrix was incorrectly filled out then fixing it could create another grievance, but a corrected matrix trumps the secondary grievance. If I get time later I'll look for it.
donegoingalong
New member
<blockquote><div class="wpforo-post-quote-author"><strong>Posted by: Deer Smearer</strong></div>Search the knowledgebase. There is one article about the number 1 grievance is not following the matrix for various reasons.</blockquote>I'd like to see that article. It would seem to be proof that the matrix rules should be changed or refined.Of course, that would most likely do away with a huge amount of steward time, so what are the odds of that happening? Union stewards actually delivering mail most of the time!?!? ?
