This post seems to be older than 1 year— so keep that in mind while reading. It might be outdated.
The issue in this grievance is the scheduling of PTF Rural Carriers on their “String” routes. Local management took the position that they could schedule a PTF on any route and bypass the PTF for work on one of their string routes provided the PTF was provided with work equal to the total evaluated hours of the assigned string routes.
The parties agreed to the following settlement:
In 1999, the PTF rural carrier position was established to provide additional flexibility in the work force and replacement coverage for regular rural carriers. The parties agreed that PTF rural carriers could be scheduled as determined by management. The parties further agreed a PTF rural carrier would be entitled to be compensated for the weekly number of hours, based upon the daily evaluation of the assigned routes; regardless of which route assignments or additional duties were worked.
Article 30.2.0 states in part: A part-time flexible rural carrier is only entitled, on a weekly basis, to a combination of leave and evaluated hours equal to the total of one day’s evaluation of each of the assigned primary routes.
A PTF rural carrier should be scheduled on their string assignment, if such assignment would not result in exceeding 40 hours at the end of the work week. (emphasis added) The decision of whether the proposed assignment will exceed 40 hours is made by calculating the following:
- the actual work hours for the week
- the number of hours scheduled to work the remainder of the week
- the number of work hours of the proposed assignment
Click here to view the Step 4 settlement letter.