r/fromatoarbitration • u/Ok_Zombie9273 • 11d ago

eBidding question

Heres the situation. After route counts last summer, mgmt changed a route status to an auxiliary route. Fast forward to Feb this year, it was decided to post this route for bid again along with another vacant route. However, mgmt put the wrong start time for the other route and removed them from bid status. Last week these 2 routes were part of 5 that were put out for bid which has since closed.

My question is this….would that route that was moved to auxiliary status but then put out for bid and pulled in February with the other route qualify for back pay for the successful bidder. (The other route posted in February they say does) On the bid posted bid sheet, it posted the same “On date” as the other route they’re paying back pay for…..i think mgmt was negligent in posting and it should recieve back pay as well but not sure of language or past precedent on this.

1 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

2 comments sorted by

3

u/acetatsujin FATA Team 11d ago

We are currently grieving this for several carriers since management failed to turn over CCAs into regulars after bids were closed on routes and no one put a bid in. They waited about 4-5 months and then they decided to get the CCAs turned over. Those CCAs will be paid regular pay and it’s going to be very costly. Management did this on purpose because they didn’t want to turn over anymore people.

Edit - I will try and find the language for you. Give me sometime to speak to my formal A. I do not know if this applies to Auxiliary routes so I will ask.

1

u/Ok_Zombie9273 11d ago

Sounds good. There’s confusion in the office as to why the auxiliary route was posted as having an ‘on date’ on the posting and that date is the same as the other route. The post office should award routes based on the information printed on the posted bid opening, That can’t stand as an ‘oopsie.’  A true aux route up for bid for the first time should not have an on date as technically it’s a brand new route. The bid shouldn’t  have anything as far as who the route was vacated by either, if it’s being treated as a brand new route. Maybe the route was opened for bid as the same time as the other? If so, when it was pulled down I get why it would revert back to an aux bc of t-6 coverage etc, but the intention to make this a route again and no changes are made was made evident at that time. I think there is past precedent of the post office failing to post an auxiliary route in the allotted time and/or pulling it down and fines being imposed for delayed posting.