Step 4 – RCAs working over 12 hours

[justacarrier]

I think your thoughts on this could very well be correct. Would still like to see the actual reason for grievance just to clear my doubts. Back then things were VERY different when it came to using leave. Many times management wasn't even involved/knowledgable about when a carrier was taking leave. As long as the substitute showed up everyone was happy. Many very seldom if ever even filled out a leave request. Doesn't make it right, but was the actuality in many cases. I would be pretty sure that since that step 4 was back when we were under a CBA and not the current "stand alone" contract it wouldn't be citable today anyhow. But it is good historical information none the less.

Also, I forgot: In my mind I would have to think that the main reason this was a step 4 is that the argument could be made that D above did not apply to rural carriers. AB&C for sure never applied to rural carriers and they may have determined that D didn't either since the rural carrier leave was addressed separately in E. Just a thought.

 

[Charlie Brown]

Isn't this horse dead yet???

 

[Voglio-il mio]

Isn't this horse dead yet???

neigh!

 

[Dominator]

I think your thoughts on this could very well be correct. Would still like to see the actual reason for grievance just to clear my doubts. Back then things were VERY different when it came to using leave. Many times management wasn't even involved/knowledgable about when a carrier was taking leave. As long as the substitute showed up everyone was happy. Many very seldom if ever even filled out a leave request. Doesn't make it right, but was the actuality in many cases.

I've heard of some offices even today that don't always require a 3971... a "Hey, I'm gonna be out of town on X through Y. Are we good?" Sometimes serves as the equivalent. It saves paper I guess, but I agree that it's contractually incorrect.

I suspect the reason for the grievance was:

1. The regular carrier requested leave for a period when the substitute of record was available and was approved for that leave.
2. Something came up which resulted in enough unscheduled absences that management identified the situation as an "emergency".
3. Management then disapproved the grievant's leave under the qualifying condition of "emergency situation".
4. The grievant had non-refundable deposits relying on that approved leave.
5. The only way for the grievant to justifiably recover those losses was for the union to establish that management took unnecessary action during a non-emergency.
6. Hence, management's denial conclusion opposed the justification necessary for the grievant to recover those losses.

"Due to the number of unscheduled absences [A], an emergency situation arose requiring the presence of the grievant to serve his route [C]. In view of these circumstances, the grievant's request for annual leave was disapproved. [D] We find no justification for reimbursing the grievant for any cost incurred in making annual leave plans. Therefore, the grievance is denied."

I would be pretty sure that since that step 4 was back when we were under a CBA and not the current "stand alone" contract it wouldn't be citable today anyhow. But it is good historical information none the less.

Perhaps so, though I'm not convinced that's the case.

Without digging for a more highly technical answer, I'd point to the authority in Postal Bulletins. The contain the current instruction on a matter until overwritten by a new instruction or tossed in the obsolete abyss. If no change is/was made, then the instruction stands. Additionaly, there are still usable items in the Directives and Forms Catalog from years prior 1978, when the NRLCA jointly negotiated with the (then) seven other postal unions, as you touched on.

I'd love to dig in the union's archives to resolve this curiosity, but I don't think that's ever going to be an option for the random bargaining unit member.

 

[Dominator]

Looks like I didn't switch back from bold. Whoops!

 

[Dominator]

Also, I forgot: In my mind I would have to think that the main reason this was a step 4 is that the argument could be made that D above did not apply to rural carriers. AB&C for sure never applied to rural carriers and they may have determined that D didn't either since the rural carrier leave was addressed separately in E. Just a thought.

Perhaps you hit the nail on the head, but if so, I don't (currently) have the evidence to be convinced.

Article X.3 of the 75-78 agreement was the vacation planning program; a program which applied to all of the crafts.

• [Article X] Section 3. Vacation Planning - The following general rules shall be observed in implementing tbe vacation planning program:

The method of planning for the rural craft was different though than the other crafts, as has been for decades. Rather than planning with "choice" vacation periods and to plan around, NRLCA had, "It shall be the responsibility of each rural carrier to plan his vacation at times when a substitute of record is available."

In both cases (rural and non-rural), leave was requested by employees, and if approved, management's commitment to honor that leave approved in advance was established, except in "serious emergency situations."

The language of Article 10.2.C of the 1978-81 CBA is identical to the current:

• Approved Leave - All previously approved annual leave requests must be honored except in serious emergency situations.

When compared to the 1975-78 CBA's X.3.D, I view it as conceptually equivalent:

• All advance commitments for granting annual leave must be honored except in serious emergency situations.

If X.3.D didn't apply to the rural craft, I could see the mechanism going two ways, but neither of them are convincing to me. (If there are additional potentials, I haven't considered them):

1. Management wouldn't have an avenue to disapprove rural annual leave previously approved for lack of access to the emergency exception (I can't see USPS agreeing to this high risk mechanism, and, if this were the case, the step-4's disapproval rational related to an emergency would be easily defeated as an irrelevant premise)
2. Management wasn't ever obligated to commit to previously approved annual leave for rural carriers, regardless of emergency situations. (I don't think this is the case because, if it were, mentioning emergency in the step 4 would be irrelevant; management wouldn't need an emergency to disapprove previously approved leave. Rurals would be unable to rely on approved leave any more than the whims of a petulant supervisor.)

I don't think I'm going to run into a situation where a lack of staffing will be recognized as an emergency situation, but I'm convinced that staffing issues could be used as a bridge to an "emergency situation".

I suppose that's an issue the union would have to resolve if it ever came to it. Perhaps the recent step 4 that focused on the 12 hour rule is enough to keep this question at bay.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it, even while there are points we don't agree or don't see eye-to-eye.