Don’t Leave any Money on the Table

By Francisco Cabrera, Second Vice President

Recently I have successfully gotten back some of the largest payouts for bid posting violations. For example, one employee was paid $4066.48 for management not placing them on their assignment within 49 days of the date of the vacancy. Another letter carrier was paid $4765.20. Why this result?

JCAM Article 41.1.A.1 A vacant or newly established duty assignment not under consideration for reversion shall be posted within fourteen calendar days from the day it becomes vacant or is established unless a longer period of time is negotiated locally. If management wants to delay posting by declaring the position under consideration for reversion, they would have to have current route inspection data. Or in our time the issue should be referred to the TIAREAP team, the joint route adjustment agreement process we are unfortunately under. They can’t place it under consideration for reversion because a “runner” does it under 8.

JCAM 41.1.B.3 3. - The notice shall remain posted for 10 days unless a different length for the posting period is established by local negotiations. 24 days so far.

41.1.C.2 2 - Within ten days after the closing date of the posting, the Employer shall post a notice indicating the successful bidder, seniority date and number. The successful bidder must be placed in the new assignment within 15 days except in the month of December. So that’s 49 days (14 + 10 +10 +15 = 49. (Unless you have a longer period negotiated locally)

That’s the drop-dead date for that carrier who is being assigned or successful bidder must start working the new assignment with its schedule. If it’s off even by a day guess what? That’s right. Take em to Grievance town! You’re going to document the case file with the following:

1) Evidence of when the assignment became a residual vacancy. This could include:

*Ps Form 50 of the retiring/resigning carrier.

*The bid posting itself – Looks like this with the job ID who vacated it, when, but this date may be wrong. That will come out in your investigation.

*The bid award posting from the carrier vacating the route showing effective date of new assignment which obviously means the prior assignment is now vacant.

If this fails, maybe your union local/Branch President will have documentation noting the separation date of a retiring employee for example. Of course you're not going to let management's refusal to provide information stop you in this endeavor and you will file a companion grievance for denying the information.

2) The clock rings showing the carrier is not working his bid assignment as posted from the 49th day until they are placed on it.

What will your remedy be? A cease and desist, and to pay the carrier who should have been placed on the assignment an additional 50% times the straight time rate, for all hours worked off the bid assignment. As well as the schedule they should have worked from the 49th day until they are placed on the assignment. For example SDO not worked when guaranteed 8 or work on SDO of new assignment which was paid as a regular day in the system. Both of these remedies should be requested and paid. It’s really that simple.

If you are not filing this, you are leaving money on the table!

Another situation I have run across is that even experienced Union representatives including some RAA’s and NBAs are not enforcing Article 8.5F.

Excluding December, no full-time regular employee will be required to work overtime on more than four of the employee’s five scheduled days in a service week or work over ten hours on a regularly scheduled day, over eight hours on a non-scheduled day, or over six days in a service week.

Article 8.5.F applies to both full-time regular and full-time flexible employees. The only two exceptions to the work hour limits provided for in this section are for all full-time employees during the penalty overtime exclusion period (December) and for full-time employees on the ODL during any month of the year (Article 8.5.G). Both work and paid leave hours are considered “work” for the purposes of the administration of Article 8.5.F and Article 8.5.G.

It says what it means and it means what it says.

Non ODL which means employees on 8 hours only as a preference, as in they didn’t sign up for the ODL or the WAL, cannot be worked overtime on more than 4 of 5 days, over 10 hours on a regularly scheduled day, over 8 hours on a nonscheduled day, or over 6 days in a service week.

JCAM Page 8-21

For purposes of overtime on a non-scheduled day or on other than their own assignment, carriers on the Work Assignment List are treated exactly the same as any other fulltime carriers not on the ODL They may only be required to work overtime under the provisions of Article 8.5.D

Therefore, WAL carriers mandated on their SDO are also limited to 8 hours. PERIOD!

What's the remedy for this? Start with an additional 50% for all hours worked in violation of these workhour limits just like the other ones. I have been getting them paid at Formal A, Step B, and Pre-arbitration.

How many of you are filing this Article 8.5F? If not, ask yourself why not?

They are being upheld by the B team and at pre-arbitration at this time. Step B is precedential in the installation from which it arose. So, guess what. I will be filing on this eternally, to infinity and beyond.

Until next time brothers and sisters, don’t let them get away with anything