/m4369--Looks like we are still whining about old issues. Don't worry. The b-team will figure out that the "main point" to consider-in your opinion- is management's failure to create a schedule. Are you KIDDING me. You lose!

Management is to cease and desist from future violations and document all leave in our leave book as soon as they learn about it. I am not getting the hold down but I think this is pretty good. There is nothing in my local contract that says management must post hold downs but it does say that they will be awarded by seniority.

I am not sure if my local agreement says anything about this. If we are allowed to put this in the contract I can't think of any reason it would not be there. Wouldn't management be included in word of mouth. As soon as I got to the office I started looking for hold downs and asking management about this. They were explaining to me how to do this by looking at the leave book and prime time book. They knew I was looking and did not tell me because they said a ptf had put in for it long before I came to the office. May be true but they did not start it until I was there. I see it says they do not have to post a vacancy but it does not say they can keep from telling a PTF who asks. I talked to my steward and he said he has already filed and thinks I should have been given the chance to hold down the route. He does not know if it is in the local contract but says management knows about vacant routes because they have to document this on certain forms. Good board and thank you for opinions and manual quotes.

Previously I had posted about sitting at home for a number of days due to not being scheduled (in advance) and if I was required to provide management my number. Union Carrier, In post /m4337 you agreed that the "main issue" was not not about the phone but rather about management's lack of scheduling. I just found out yesterday that the manager did not settle on this grievance (my steward asked for me to be reimbursed for the days I was not scheduled). At the same time I found out it was not settled at formal A, I found out that he already sent this grievance to the B-team. I am now concerned about the outcome because I feel it was of extreme importance to explain the remedy requested was due to the abundant evidence (clock rings/management verbally informing certain individuals ahead of time after claiming they could not create a schedule due to unkown service needs) showing management's failure to properly schedule when there was clearly a need for such.

My steward sent all the evidence to show that a schedule should have been made, but I don't think he mentioned that this was the sole reason for the requested remedy. I am pretty sure management's statement included the fact that they did not have a contact number for me and therefore I should not be reimbursed because I was unavailable to work.

With this said, what do you think my chances of being paid for lost time are when the union's position does not specify that the phone issue is irrelevant to the scheduling issue? From past experiences with step-B decisions do you think they will figure this one out or did we make a huge mistake by not highlighting this fact? Thanks.

Edited by author 10-25-2009 12:18 PM
Follow up to /m4365-My grievance on this issue stated, "Did management violate Article 41.2.B.4 by denying PTFs the opportunity to opt by use of seniority, if so, what is the remedy?" Union Carriers post /m4366 was also cited under relevant info. along with Art. 41.2.B.4. In my case I had been looking for an available hold down, and knowing that management did not always document injured/long term sick leave for carriers along with the incidental, I would ask management of such opportunities. I am not sure if you asked management or not, but if you did, and they did not inform you of this "long term hold down," I would think that management would be found at fault because of the fact that hold downs are to be awarded by order of seniority. By denying you this information they are intentionally limiting the opportunities for PTFs to exercise seniority.

As Union Carrier's post /m4366 stated, "In the absence of an LMOU provision or mutually agreed-upon local policy, the bare provisions of Article 41.2.B apply. In that case, there is no requirement that management post a vacancy, and carriers who wish to opt must learn of available assignments by word of mouth or by reviewing scheduling documents." Point is, unless your LMU says otherwise, you have to ask and can't expect management to willingly offer such information.

If your office is not too big you most likely will know of such opportunities in the future. If it is big, I think you should routinely review the leave book and ask management of other possible vacancies that may be occuring. If you do this and someone less senior takes the hold down and you can show management knew about the assignment, yet did not inform you when asked, then I think they will be found wrong for doing so.

egark /m4367--I said "I wholeheartedly believe management should be required to notify all PTFs of available opportunities so as not to deny one the ability to use their seniority." I realize management will always do what suits them best and therefore do not expect them to inform PTFs of opportunities. It would often suit them to have regs. case and pivot than losing a PTF that they can work as needed. I do believe that if there are two PTFs looking (reviewing leave book/asking carriers/management for an opt, and only the junior one gets word of such, then the senior PTFs rights to excercise their seniority would be violated. I agree that it is our (PTFs in this instance) fault if such info. is not addressed in the LMU. Seems hard to beleive it would not be. Have you verified that it is not pastover?

DavidT /m4365 -- let's see, you have the right to put in your LMU procedures for covering hold downs and chose not to exercise it, and you still want management to do it anyway? Things don't work that way.

Union Carrier gave you the answer. It's in the JCAM. The JCAM is on line. You spent time on a long post based on an incorrect premise. How hard would it have been to check?

Edited by author 10-25-2009 08:19 AM
From the JCAM, page 41-12:

"Posting and Opting. The National Agreement does not set forth specific procedures for announcing vacancies available for hold-downs. However, procedures for announcing vacancies and procedures for opting for holddown assignments may be governed by Local Memorandums of Understanding (LMOU) or past practice (Memorandum, February 7, 1983, M-0446). The LMOU or past practice may include: method of making known the availability of assignments for opting, method for submission, a cutoff time for submission, and duration of hold-down. In the absence of an LMOU provision or mutually agreed-upon local policy, the bare provisions of Article 41.2.B apply. In that case, there is no requirement that management post a vacancy, and carriers who wish to opt must learn of available assignments by word of mouth or by reviewing scheduling documents."

   (Underlining added for emphasis.)

Edited by author 10-24-2009 05:07 AM
pastover /m4360--Your thought is correct in that an available hold down goes to the most senior PTF regardless of who put it in first (unless your LMU specifies something different). So it seems the issue you have is that you feel like management should be required to implement some manner to inform all PTFs of available assignments so that those with the most seniority could exercise their rights. Hence, your statement, "on both occasions ptf with less time have taken the routes and i never had the chance to excercise my seniority".

If management is not required to come up with some uniform way to inform PTFs of available assignments, then those who may not know of the opportunity (as Dana /m4363 said, for possibly "not being in the loop") would essentially be denied their right to exercise their seniority. In going with this thought, I wholeheartedly believe management should be required to notify all PTFs of available opportunities so as not to deny one the ability to use their seniority. Just like annual leave is documented on a board or some book, sick leave (short term or long term) should also be documented. By doing so, I think that this would be a sufficient means to inform PTFs of available opportunities and essentially keep all PTFs "in the loop". Either way, I think it is management's responsibility to implement some way to notify (leave book, verbal, etc) all PTF of available assignments.

This has happened to me before and so far my steward has been able to resolve the issues (I do not think that this would be hard to do). I know someone on this board gave me specific wording that I presented to my steward as to why there should be some kind of a notification process that would serve to allow for one to exercise seniority.

It was something along the lines of if management does not make some tool available for PTFs to identify available assignments (asking individual carriers and eavesdropping in the break room does not count) then they would be in violation of the contract stating hold downs would be awarded on the basis of seniority. I will try and find you some info. you can work with. Sorry I can't point to the specific article at the moment (I am thinking it is in art. 41) but I will look.

Dana /m4362 -- the National Agreement says that the hold downs will be by seniority, not by who put in for it first. If you have nothing in your LMU about timetables for choosing, then there are no timetables.

Dana /m4362-your president can always add it. It does not make any sense to not have this addressed. Management should be notifying all PTF's of available assignments. I believe someone posted on this issue before.

There is nothing im my local that says anything about this. It is a crapshoot in my office as it seems to be in yours. Funny how one local addresses this while another, by lack of addressing, allows management to essentially put who they want on hold downs. Hey Mr. runner and break skipper, you know such and such a route will be becoming available! it is no good for morale and just like regular assignments are made known to all, and the most senior who applys gets it, so it should be for PTF's. It's almost like high school because if you are not in the loop you are crapped on.

/m4360 The posting or not of holddowns should be addressed in your local agreement, talk to your steward. Posting issues aside, a holddown is still vacant until it actually begins. So if a junior PTF has put in for a holddown that hasn't yet begun, and you want it, you should be able to put in for it. However, that also may be addressed in the local: time limits for bidding on holddowns, etc.
In our office anyone eligible may bid on a holddown right up until the moment it starts. If I come back from vacation on a Monday, see a holddown I want bid by someone junior to me, I can put it in for it.
If a route becomes available unexpectedly for holddown (carrier hit by a truck on the way to work) then our local says mgt must offer it to all eligible employees in order of seniority.
Check with your steward and see what's in your local. If its a long term holddown you might still be able to get it if the local supports your position.

I am a ptf with 3 offices that I can work at depending on the needs of management. Recently I have been sent to work at another station for 2 months. Then I am supposed to go back to my regular one that i usually work out of. In my regular station there were ony 13 routes and i knew what hold downs were available and which ones were going to be. In my new station I have missed out on two long term holdowns (carriers are out for surgery) because I did not know they were available. The leave book did not list them as sick leave or anything. On both occasions ptf with less time have taken the routes and i never had the chance to excercise my seniority.
When I asked the manager about this i was told that one of the routes that a less senior ptf got was because he had put in for a hold down a month before the carrier was to leave for surgery. Almost 3 weeks before i got there. But i thought and have read on here that the senior ptf is to be given the route unless another ptf has already clocked onto the hold down. i was never given the opportunity to get the route as it was never listed as being available. So because i am new and do not have the inside scoop I have been missing long term routes that i should have got.
Dosen't management have to post or inform ptfs of available hold downs before just giving it to the ones with lower seniority? the one hold down may have been put in for way before i got there but it started a week after I was already there. I feel like i should have been given a chance to take the hold down but was not. Is management supposed to post or inform ptfs or is everyone supposed to jockey for what they can get. does not seem right that lost out because i am new.

Thanks to all for your responses. It does not help my wallet but it does help me understand.

PTF-question /m4355 That would be like an odl carrier scheduled to come in for overtime on their SDO. But they're sick. So, they turn in a sick slip to get paid. And, at the overtime rate of pay. Not going to happen.

Why would you get SL on a day you're not even working? Hello McFly? Anyone home?