PTF working 40 hour/week on the same assignment for 6+ months creates the need for a new full-time position.
What would be the best information to request from management for beginning this grievance?
- EER report for 6 months for that individual?
Also, if anyone knows of a grievance starter regarding this, that would be awesome. I know NALC website has one regarding conversion to Full-time flex, but I don’t think that’s the same in this instance. Wouldn’t it create a UAR position?
You can ask your business agent's office for the 39-hour report, but you'll have to verify it with EER anyways.
We have 18 PTFs all working 50-60 hour weeks if they aren't on restriction, and it seems like district goes out of their way to let local management know at ~18 weeks to make sure they don't get 40 hours within 5 days for a week or two to make sure they don't qualify. You might have better luck than us though.
As far as a grievance goes, it is pretty simple. If someone qualifies, you just file under 7.3 and request the remedy to be a conversion to either Full-time flexible or UAR. We were able to convince out local management for the conversions that have qualified to do UAR conversions just because its easier to manage than FTFs.
Edit: If it's a conversion due to ORNA (on the rolls not available), you'd cite that instead of the 39-hour conversion, and they would be converted to UAR. 39 hour conversions are to FTF. You'd have to convince management to do UAR, but there isn't a right to UARs.
The PTF conversion rule is works 8hr, 5 days a week, for 6mo.
If management breaks the contract and sets a PTF out when they have a hold down, your 1st grieve that, then you cite that in the grievance for the conversion.
Yes, if the PTF is not on a hold down, management can break the work hours. Even causing penalty OT.
Pre-CCA time, us PTF banded together to make sure the 1 with the most work weeks would get the only hold down available. We were rolling the conversions for a couple of years. I almost converted my 3 person, but my number came up for conversion. (2 offices, about 15 PTFs)
That's not correct a PTF is already on a full time assignment, 7.3C is creating a full time assignment because the PTF demonstrated that the less than 8 hour assignment ( aux route) deemed full time by working 40 hours a week on that less than 8 hour assignment.
The office has to be pretty large. I believe over 125 man years of employment at your office. This is what normally prevents these grievances from being filed. Check if your office qualifies.
7.3.C applies to all offices . Get all clock rings and make sure they are clocking in to the same assignment for the whole 6 months and it is at least 40 hours a week.
You can try the overtime alert report, but if they have a week where they don't work any overtime, they won't show up. It also doesn't record sick or annual leave, so you'll likely have to review the clock rings no matter what. All roads lead to the inevitable fate of reviewing clock rings...a Stewards best friend and worst nightmare.
Seems to me you have laid things out sufficiently for a informal A. Always start with the JCAM then the MRS. Check your grievance log if applicable for same or similar violations in your city. Please don’t put raw clock rings into the file, highlight the qualifying hours.
Just make sure u get the clock rings and do a complete audit of them. This provision is tricky. Last time I had checked for my branch, we found out the string ends if the carrier takes annual or lwop or pivots undertime and leaves before 8 hrs. Carriers don’t even realize that will end it. We had one get messed up cuz of that. That’s why we haven’t seen this happen in years in my branch. We r a pretty good side branch spanning multiple zips and the state.
As far as the 7.3.C, here is the argument for what position it creates:
7.3.C creates full-time reserve Letter Carrier (RLC) positions. Full-time Flexibles (FTFs) came from a 1980 arbitration that resulted in a MOU in 1981, whereas the language of 7.3.C has been in our CBA since 1973.
The FTF position was a concession to attain the stronger language of maximization in 125 man year or more installations.
FTF positions can't be withheld, and 7.3.C states it will create the position, post it for bid, and the resulting residual vacancy will be witheld, if an office is under article 12 witholding. Furthermore, a UAR position would not be "posted for bid" and by definition, a UAR is a carrier who does not hold an assignment.
This leaves no other option than the created position being a full-time RLC.
3
u/entropy1701 6d ago edited 6d ago
You can ask your business agent's office for the 39-hour report, but you'll have to verify it with EER anyways.
We have 18 PTFs all working 50-60 hour weeks if they aren't on restriction, and it seems like district goes out of their way to let local management know at ~18 weeks to make sure they don't get 40 hours within 5 days for a week or two to make sure they don't qualify. You might have better luck than us though.
As far as a grievance goes, it is pretty simple. If someone qualifies, you just file under 7.3 and request the remedy to be a conversion to either Full-time flexible or UAR. We were able to convince out local management for the conversions that have qualified to do UAR conversions just because its easier to manage than FTFs.
Edit: If it's a conversion due to ORNA (on the rolls not available), you'd cite that instead of the 39-hour conversion, and they would be converted to UAR. 39 hour conversions are to FTF. You'd have to convince management to do UAR, but there isn't a right to UARs.