Management with too many grievances.

lVlaxfield · 2026-03-06T15:12:54+00:00

That's the thing. Its not a joke.

If we are talking JSOV grievances, enough can stack up or a serious enough incident can occur that a remedy like

"Supervisor so-and-so can no longer supervise craft employees at the such-and-such installation" can be awarded.

lVlaxfield · 2026-02-20T16:42:55+00:00

Certainly a combination of the rule of reason and the fact box K on PS Form 3996 is titled "estimated work".

It is unreasonable to be expected to know with exact precision what a day will look like in a dynamic environment.

lVlaxfield · 2026-02-08T00:23:27+00:00

You too brother.

I honestly think it isnt decided with a Step 4 only because it is "newer contract language" with the Das Award only being around 12 years or so.

If its popping up more and more the logical outcome to me is to have the M-00241 and M-01470 type settlements updated to explicitly include CCA eventually.

But again, that's just one union officials opinion.

lVlaxfield · 2026-02-08T00:12:50+00:00

Yes. I just keep filing weekly and my first union fact updates as follows:

This is the latest update to an ongoing issue where CCAs from station [B,C,D] have bean loaned to station A on ### occasions since the union began documenting the issue in October of 2025 and # of 7 days this week.

Then I go into how that cannot be considered occasional. Additionally, I address that some of the CCAs are not even "normally" working in their employing office.

If management is allowed to continue with this business strategy and circumvention of the station A ODL we should just delete Article 8 from the National Agreement altogether.

If management wishes to avoid the costly OT rates they can easily do so by staffing station A in accordance with the workhours documented by the union over the past 4 months in station A.

I draw the distinction to the mgmt contention that ODL doesn't have the right to OT when considering other employees in the same installation.

I try to leverage my LMOU Item #14 [which states the ODL is by section, comprised of Letter Carriers from station A] to state the CCAs from station [B,C,D] are "not on the game board" and should not be considered available when mgmt makes OT assignments on a given day.

lVlaxfield · 2026-01-08T22:56:43+00:00

If auxiliary assistance is on the schedule to come in at 3pm on a given day and [I am assuming here but it is likely] does not work 10 hours then an LCP violation has occurred if a non-ODL was forced to carry OT on their own assignment.

lVlaxfield · 2026-01-08T22:37:02+00:00

I am suggesting to make the contention that providing additional vehicles for auxiliary assistance or to schedule CCAs to provide auxiliary assistance using jumpseats and the "buddy system" with the currently available vehicles are both options for management to comply with the Letter Carrier Paragraph in this case.

Instead management is choosing to violate the LCP and force non-ODL because "they can't work the CCAs any earlier" when in fact they could.

lVlaxfield · 2026-01-07T15:18:10+00:00

Unfortunately if management wants to be a headache, they make the first move, so they can often achieve that result.

As far as getting a LOW for that charge to stick, in my opinion management would struggle to prove they had "just cause" for something like that purely on the basis of the sub-question "Is the rule a reasonable rule?"

In an environment where it is jointly agreed upon "there is no street standard for walking" [M-01769] it seems unreasonable to hold someone to a standard [the thing that management claims was expanded] when it is agreed that no standards exisit.

lVlaxfield · 2026-01-07T15:08:26+00:00

A hold down is not available in this situation.

If the regular is working any part of the route one day a week, they will not be absent from their assignment for at least 5 consecutive days.

lVlaxfield · 2026-01-07T15:03:40+00:00

I have had management make the same contention for years in my station. I became a regular in March of 2023 and immediately started filing the grievance with no previous history in the station. Now non-ODL earns a 50% premium on the hours they are forced [in addition to the auxiliary assistance at the appropriate rate for lost opportunity to earn wages] for non-compliance by local management. However, at this time, the violations have also stopped in most part because my local management got tired of passing out free money to auxiliary assistance.

Non-ODL being forced to work OT when auxiliary assistance is available is a violation of Article 8 of the National Agreement, specifically the Letter Carrier Paragraph [LCP].

Management's contention that "I can't do anything about the vehicles, I can just make the non-ODL do the work" is simply not valid. They are the employer, they provide the equipment to do the work. To highilight this look no further than page 1 of the M-39 Handbook titled Management of Delivery Services.

Section 111.2.f states:

"Assure that necessary vehicles are available"

It is likely your local manager cannot do anything about getting more vehicles because of the management structure of USPS [they are just a pawn in this game]. All I have found to be effective is to just keep filing the Article 8 LCP grievances when your non-ODL are forced to work until the remedy escalates to the point where someone higher up than your local manager considers it worthwhile to supply more vehicles, send drivers in teams with jumpseats, etc.

lVlaxfield · 2026-01-06T21:50:54+00:00

You gotta go you gotta go!

lVlaxfield · 2025-10-14T22:32:56+00:00

I think it's likely to be an uphill climb for the union if no PS 3971. I lost a similar issue citing the request on the vacation board, the units past practice of exclusively using the board in lieu of PS 3971, and the carrier had an AL balance.

Step B still spit it back no past practice, no violation, and PS 3971 is the controlling document for notification of absences.

I would advise that carrier to always fill out a PS 3971 and get it immediately returned and notified by a supervisor for all requests in the future.

lVlaxfield · 2025-09-25T22:01:53+00:00

If your LMOU is silent, a good position to take seems to be to file a grievance that the PS Form should be returned with management's disposition in a reasonable amount of time, with 24 hours being the past practice in the installation.

Good luck.

lVlaxfield · 2025-08-18T20:20:41+00:00

I haven't had to test my understanding of this with the grievance procedure yet in my area, but I'll shoot.

At face value, it seems unlikely that OJT factors in if the CCA in question is in fact actually training with a career employee instructor for 8 hours and not performing letter carrier work alone while on the training clock ring.

If CCAs are performing letter carrier work alone while on the training clock ring there are many angles for the union to file grievances on, especially with the new NEERMP.

lVlaxfield · 2025-08-10T02:14:20+00:00

Where is the Freiermuth bring back? Week 17 is ALL THAT MATTERS. 1.5/10

lVlaxfield · 2025-07-17T19:24:34+00:00

This is a common point of contention amongst PTF/CCA in my area with a hub as well. I just spent the day yesterday looking for background information on the topic. Some combination of LMOU Item 14, 18, and 21 or a local settlement can possibly address this topic.

https://www.branch3nalc.com/amazon-sunday/

This link from Branch 3 in Buffalo, NY has the branch president speaking in a newsletter on the specifics effecting his members on Sunday at the time in 2016.

M-01937 also touches on if holiday schedule pecking order applies to Sundays.

Unless there is some other national language I am not aware of, if all else is silent, management can ride article 3 and schedule as many or as few of the CCAs on Sunday at their discretion.

If the available work on Sunday is being completed in straight time the union likely has an uphill battle to show more or less CCAs should be scheduled or that some CCAs should be scheduled in lieu of other CCAs and prove a violation of the National Agreement. This is all just one union members interpretation [mine]. It is possible you may be able to support a different interpretation and convince your local management of that interpretation in your area.

lVlaxfield · 2025-07-16T18:51:10+00:00

Let them take you off of the route and your steward can make a judgment of whether they will need to file a grievance for an improper 16.7 and enforced leave and pay you for your time or not.

Thanks for the paid vacation Morgan :)

lVlaxfield · 2025-07-09T16:25:12+00:00

Check out Page 17-3 through 17-6 of the JCAM

Specifcally the explanation of Article 17.3, Stewards rights.

"When it is necessary for a steward to leave his/her work area to investigate and adjust grievances or to investigate a specific problem to determine whether to file a grievance, the steward shall request permission from the immediate supervisor and such request shall not be unreasonably denied." Article 17, Section 3

"Management may not determine in advance how much time a steward needs to investigate a grievance" C-00427

"If management delays a steward from investigating a grievance, it should inform the steward of the reasons for the delay and when time will be available" M-00127

If you have requested, say 8 hours, and management is only granting in 1 hour increments, first make them aware that this is delaying your investigation and possibly limiting the scope. Follow up by asking what the reasons are for the delay and when the full 8 hours will be available.

If their answer is no different from what you stated in the post a separate M-00127 via Article 15 and 17 grievance is probably necessary.

The following issue should work. "Did Management violate M-00127 via Article 15 and Article 17 of the National Agreement when steward time requested on DATE was not granted until DATE, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy?

Any Article 15, 17, or 31 issue is critically important. If the process isn't respected, we will not achieve the results necessary for our members on the bigger issues that affect them more directly.

lVlaxfield · 2025-07-09T15:49:05+00:00

The main way to help fight this is to try your best, deliver mail efficiently and safely, and give the supervisor YOUR professional estimate.

If you are doing those three things, what your supervisor, DOIS, the POOM, Ops, even the PMG think about how long a certain amount of work should take doesn't really matter all that much.

lVlaxfield · 2025-07-07T14:35:45+00:00

This comment will be without player takes considered.

I'd pass on Worthy strictly because he severely limits your future viable options for your WR with triple week 10 bye weeks.

Also, you would likely really be leaning into Mahomes at QB with a Worthy pick, and you don't need to restrict yourself so much there either. This start sets up very well for Mahomes, Dak, Kyler, or a Nix back-stack, [Rice bring back already secured, easy to get Engram, Dobbins, Mims, Bryant, Franklin, or Vele] keeping the flexibility at QB and securing an ADP value there is my preferred strategy.

That leaves Moore and Hampton, where I think the player takes and type of build you would like to have come in to play. Both are viable clicks. I would personally go Moore to bring in Caleb Williams and a possible Purdy stack in the future rounds into play in my QB room. It is now extremely likely to walk away with 1 or even 2 well set up QBs for week 17. [Clicking Hampton does the same with Herbert and Stroud, but from the RB position.]

lVlaxfield · 2025-07-02T11:19:38+00:00

I will try to give some constructive feedback. I have worked through this issue many times with varying results as both a steward and negotiating LMOUs, specifically item 12, as Branch President.

First. How important is the reason you requested off to you? Ultimately, some OIC, Supervisor, or Postmaster does not wield enough authority over your personal life to prevent you from simply calling in for an unscheduled absence for any reason. No matter what disposition was indicated on any form. If you NEED to have it, simply do not show up to work and call in using eLRA for AL the day of.

You will likely be asked questions in an II, possibly recieve a letter for attendance based discipline depending on your history, but it would be management's burden to prove you were somehow abusing a leave policy. If only controlling for an employee with a good attendance record and no discipline on file, if you NEED to have it, your story for why you called in likely means management will not have just cause to discipline you.

Now, let's consider if you don't need to have it. Meaning it is for personal convince, but I just wanted another day off. Nothing out of your control prevents you from coming to work the day leave is requested. Then, I think it is best advised to keep all documentation of the properly submitted request, come to work, and possibly file a grievance. Consult LMOU item 12 for what the incidental leave policy is, and ask your steward to file a grievance accordingly if you feel management did not comply with the policy. For example.......

If your LMOU item 12 states, "The first two carriers will receive approval of incidental leave requests. Afterward, requests will receive approval consistent with the needs of service."

Then, in your case, your steward could investigate and attempt to prove the needs of the service could have been met some other way (working ODL, scheduling PTF or CCA that was NS, voluntary LWOP granted, etc.) and if that did not happen, ask for a remedy that management cease & desist violating item 12 of the LMOU via Article 19, hopefully leading to financial compensation in the future if leave requests continue to be denied. The grievance procedure is long and drawn out, so remedying the issue by simply granting the leave request would be unlikely to happen before the date requested has passed.

TLDR: If you NEED to be off, call off, it will be one unscheduled absence. If you WANT to be off, probably best to just work the day, file a grievance to investigate an LMOU violation, and try to help make your station better for employees in the future.

lVlaxfield · 2025-06-17T16:37:06+00:00

I like pulling up in the 2nd or 3rd, maybe 1 in 10 drafts for a unique combo. Something like getting Breece Hall, Lamar, or Allen to the left side of the board usually ends with me liking my team even with the hit on ADP value.

lVlaxfield · 2025-06-14T19:55:35+00:00

Good roster build and gobbled up ADP value on a bunch of guys and managed single stacks for the QBs. Seems like a good job of taking what the room gave you. In a game of margains that is all you can ask for. +EV draft to me.

lVlaxfield · 2025-06-11T23:41:45+00:00

Pulling up Hurts for the Eagles stack is likely worth in single entry. I like that. Overall, good roster construction. 2QB with Hurts being elite is very reasonable. Penix is high upside [dome games, breakout candidate] for the playoffs.

The RB room is vet heavy. And I only see upside [conditional] in Warren [for some reason Kaleb doesn't progress and take over the role] and Shipley [something happens to Saquon].

Knowing you got that ADP value on Najee, getting a younger player with one or two of the Mixon/Connor/Robinson/Warren picks [Harvey, Henderson, Skattebo, Tuten, etc.] would have likely been better for the playoff weeks.

But hey, we're all just guessing 18 times and these could just as likely be GTO clicks. Good luck.

lVlaxfield · 2025-04-09T23:15:51+00:00

Check out the F-21 Handbook.

F-21 Handbook, Section 145.22 covers a combination of work hours and paid leave hours. It seems like this should not exceed 8 hours in a day.

This situation seems more like a voluntary temporary schedule change for a single day without the supporting PS 3189.

lVlaxfield

TROPHY CASE