Who gets to work?

littlesew&sew · Jun 5, 2017

I am an RCA, and I have requested a Saturday off. The regular carrier for my primary route (not on the RDWL) signed my leave slip and is planning on working the day I requested off and taking another day off the following week. There are no other "available" or "qualified" subs to cover my primary.

There is one carrier in our office on the RDWL. The RDWL carrier is upset that her primary sub is not being required to cover for my primary route. It's my understanding that my regular carrier signing my leave slip and agreeing to the switch of days allows management to not use the RDWL carrier.

The "order of consideration" from the knowledge base doesn't seem clear when an RCA has requested the day off. I am trying to find the proper section of the contract, but I must not be looking in the right place. Can someone point me to the right section?

Thanks!

littlesew&sew · Jun 5, 2017

After more searching, I found it. Article 9.2.C.5.j covers the regular carrier working for the RCA, and it states "without recourse to Article 8.5" which refers to the RDWL.

shyflyrebelguy · Jun 5, 2017

Beat me to it.

drpepperme · Jun 5, 2017

Can you explain what 'without recourse' means?

jerrylann · Jun 5, 2017

<blockquote class="spPostEmbedQuote">drpepperme said 
Can you explain what 'without recourse' means? </blockquote>
It means that management does not have to follow the RDWL. In the case above, if there are no subs available to work on the day this RCA wants off, then management does not use the RDWL. The regular carrier can work for the sub.

MiddleOfNowhere · Jun 5, 2017

just to clarify, shyfly wrote, sub gets to work. but that is not the case. sub gets day off requested, regular will work that day, and will take off another day in trade. no other routes are affected, and rdwl does not come into play. without recourse means there is no grievance from other carriers, either sub or regular. regular gets paid normal rate, with no x day or 50% premium pay.

jerrylann · Jun 5, 2017

<blockquote class="spPostEmbedQuote">MiddleOfNowhere said 
just to clarify, shyfly wrote, sub gets to work. but that is not the case. sub gets day off requested, regular will work that day, and will take off another day in trade. no other routes are affected, and rdwl does not come into play. without recourse means there is no grievance from other carriers, either sub or regular. regular gets paid normal rate, with no x day or 50% premium pay. </blockquote>
Without recourse means without using the provisions in Article 8.5, which is the article in the contract which outlines the provisions for the relief day work list. This means that if an RCA wants a day off, and if there are no other RCA's available to work, then the regular carrier can work for the RCA. If another RCA was available, then the regular carrier would not be able to work. The main thing to remember is that any time an RCA is sitting at home, a regular carrier can not work their relief day.

Deer Smearer · Jun 5, 2017

<blockquote class="spPostEmbedQuote">jerrylann said 

Without recourse means without using the provisions in Article 8.5, which is the article in the contract which outlines the provisions for the relief day work list. This means that if an RCA wants a day off, and if there are no other RCA's available to work, then the regular carrier can work for the RCA. If another RCA was available, then the regular carrier would not be able to work. The main thing to remember is that any time an RCA is sitting at home, a regular carrier can not work their relief day. </blockquote>
Yes, unless that RCA has approved leave.

MiddleOfNowhere · Jun 6, 2017

Without recourse to Article 8.5, the Employer may allow a regular rural carrier to work on his or her relief day in order to grant the leave replacement scheduled to serve the regular’s route, the day off, provided:

(1) The leave replacement has submitted a written request to be non-scheduled or to have leave on the regular’s relief day;

(2) The regular rural carrier has signed the request, thereby indicating agreement; and

(3) The regular rural carrier and the Employer have agreed that compensation for working the relief day will only be an X day to be immediately scheduled by mutual agreement

drpepperme · Jun 6, 2017

MiddleofNowhere, does that apply if there is a different sub available? If the primary sub wants the day off, the pm okay's it, the regular signs off on it...but..there is a different sub at home, then can the primary sub and regular still switch? Does that affect the RDWL in any way?

Deer Smearer · Jun 6, 2017

<blockquote class="spPostEmbedQuote">drpepperme said 
MiddleofNowhere, does that apply if there is a different sub available? If the primary sub wants the day off, the pm okay's it, the regular signs off on it...but..there is a different sub at home, then can the primary sub and regular still switch? Does that affect the RDWL in any way? </blockquote>
The new language in Subsection C.5.i provides the opportunity for management to allow a regular rural carrier to work his or her relief day in order to grant a day off to the leave replacement scheduled and available, to work the regular carrier's relief day. With the provisions of the Extension to the Agreement to the 1995-1999 National Agreement that provided for the establishment of a relief day work list, some managers had been reluctant to allow a scheduled leave replacement a day off because of the potential additional cost when a regular carrier serves the route on his/her relief day, This provision is intended to give management the opportunity to grant a leave replacement's request for a day off without incurring the additional costs that would result from usage of the relief day work list. With the provision that if the regular carrier agrees, it allows management to permit a regular rural carrier to work the relief day, regardless of whether or not the carrier is on the relief day work list. This is an option and applicable only after management has used all available leave replacements in accordance with Article 30.2.D.2. and 3.

littlesew&sew · Jun 8, 2017

To add another layer to the situation: a regular carrier has been denied leave due to no subs being available. The carrier with denied leave has a primary sub that is scheduled to cover a different route and no other subs are available. Should the RDWL carrier's sub be trained and utilized on another route so that the regular carrier wasn't denied leave? Technically, the RDWL carrier's sub isn't "available," since it's a K route.

The RDWL carrier and local union rep believe there is a winnable grievance since a non-RDWL carrier will be working and another regular carrier was denied leave. But from what I find in the contract, I don't think so. As above, the contract allows for the non-RDWL carrier to work (Article 9.2.C.5.j) and no other subs are available. RDWL carrier's sub is not "available" (K route, schedule already posted) but has been trained on the route being covered by the primary sub of denied leave regular carrier.

D.B.Cooper · Jun 8, 2017

My opinion is that more, not less, grievances should be filed... winnable or not winnable should not be the main consideration in filing a grievance, again imo...

The contract says "...Rural carriers should be granted annual leave in accordance with their personal wishes..."

So, imo, whenever that doesn't happen, that's grounds for a grievance...

Not enuf subs?? That's mgt's job to hire subs... another grounds for grievance, imo...

If more people would get out of the go along to get along mode, maybe we wouldn't have to put up with quite so much BS...

Again, all jmho... <img title="Surprised" alt="Surprised" src="https://www.ruralmailtalk.ruralinfo.net/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-smileys/sf-surprised.gif" />

D.B.Cooper · Jun 9, 2017

Sew & Sew said: "...Should the RDWL carrier’s sub be trained and utilized on another route so that the regular carrier wasn’t denied leave? Technically, the RDWL carrier’s sub isn’t “available,” since it’s a K route..

That's a good question... I guess there is nothing that says they can't have a RDWL Regular work to free up a sub so that somebody can have leave... actually that seems like a nice thing to do, especially if the office is short of subs... maybe like a way for mgt to say they are sorry (which we already know they ARE) for not doing their jobs in hiring enuf subs... <img title="Surprised" alt="Surprised" src="https://www.ruralmailtalk.ruralinfo.net/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-smileys/sf-surprised.gif" />

jmho... <img title="Confused" alt="Confused" src="https://www.ruralmailtalk.ruralinfo.net/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-smileys/sf-confused.gif" />

littlesew&sew · Jun 21, 2017

Just an update: The carrier on the RDWL filed a grievance today for not being allowed to work.

It is my understanding, based on the contract language (Article 9.2.C.5.j), that the RDWL carrier doesn't have a winning grievance. I will update again when I find out the outcome of the grievance.

According to our union rep, the RDWL carrier's sub should have been considered available and utilized on another route (despite contract language noted above).

D.B.Cooper · Jun 21, 2017

I'm surprised the carrier denied leave, didn't grieve the leave denial... I believe I would have...

I mean, if I was denied leave, and I have a sub assigned to my route, yet the Mgt bozo's are approving leave for subs, while denying mine... yeah, it sounds like there's a grievance in there somewhere...

Just one more sign of how effed up things have become...

Grieve, grieve, grieve... the more the better...

Jmho... <img title="Confused" alt="Confused" src="https://www.ruralmailtalk.ruralinfo.net/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-smileys/sf-confused.gif" />

littlesew&sew · Jun 21, 2017

I’m surprised the carrier denied leave, didn’t grieve the leave denial… I believe I would have… The carrier denied leave put in the leave request last, so it was denied. But I would think he would be the only carrier with a grievance. But he wasn't upset with the situation. His sub should have covered his route. The RDWL carrier's sub should have carried the other K route. But management doesn't think the RDWL carrier's sub is capable of carrying any other route.

approving leave for subs, while denying mine… yeah, it sounds like there’s a grievance in there somewhere… I am one of the two subs that had leave on this particular day. My son was getting married, and I put in my leave slip in January (as soon as I knew the wedding date). The other sub that had leave was out of town on vacation and had put their slip at least 30-days in advance.

We have 6 subs for 8 routes. The routes without subs are an H route and a J route. The H route carrier was the one denied leave. He is more of the "go along to get along" type I think.

We were understaffed for several years, 2 subs for 8 routes, so there was plenty of DACA 5 previously for any carrier on the RDWL. We've had 6 subs for 8 routes for about 10 months now, and the regulars that had gotten used to the DACA 5 time aren't happy with not being able to get it now. They would rather have the extra pay than the day off.

littlesew&sew · Jul 18, 2017

Thought I would come back and update. The carrier on the RDWL grieved not being allowed to work, and the grievance was denied (as expected since management actually followed the contract). The carrier that was denied leave did not file a grievance.

An additional question has come up in our investigation of this situation. I work in a APO office with 3 RMPOs under it. If I understand correctly, seniority for subs is merged across all the offices as well as seniority for regulars. Is the RDWL separate for each office? The matrix for all of the subs is also merged across all the offices. Is this correct?

Also, in the order of consideration is the "delivery unit" the APO and all the RMPOs?

oi veh. · Jul 18, 2017

RDWLs are separate in each office.

Seniority and matrices are merged...as far as I know, the order of consideration is "merged" also.

Please go to the knowledgebase and look up the PostPlan MOU. It's helpful to have it posted on the union bulletin board.