zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
That "should" should be a "must".
Reading that was interesting. Even though the document says PVDs will be worked 8 hours, they are not worked that many hours. Not that I care about them getting work, but the that's not even being followed.
You can file on their behalf.
That "should" should be a "must".
The only reason I have not filed for the two drivers is I am trying to figure out if the PVDs being extended as in more than 90 miles from our center, will have any bearing on the RCPD being able to work.
If the RCPD was offered the work, they would have to drive the 90 miles on their own dime and then return on their own dime. The route covered by the RCPD would be paid of course but because of this variable, I wonder if there is some way the company can get out of working the real drivers. Still researching this whole thing before I try to open a can of worms.
Ours does but my conundrum is if the PVDs are working and the drivers are not, is the company able to use "if work is available" BS to claim not enough work is available to put them to work. The PVDs are starting and finishing their work almost 100 miles away from our center and are only getting very few stops.Our rider has language that no helpers may be utilized if a driver is laid off. I haven't looked but maybe the Central has something like that. @Mugarolla would probably know.
They are not top 90% that's where I'm think the company can get away with it.Were they in the top 90% of seniority? If so that's a easy win also.
Oh and not to be a ass but it's RPCD (regular package car driver)
Our rider has language that no helpers may be utilized if a driver is laid off. I haven't looked but maybe the Central has something like that. @Mugarolla would probably know.
In the Central, no part time employee is allowed to do delivery driving.
How do you explain the PVDs then? We have PVDs delivering in extended areas when two RPCD are laid off. I so want to file a grievance for these guys but I am not sure there is a case.
The only reason I have not filed for the two drivers is I am trying to figure out if the PVDs being extended as in more than 90 miles from our center, will have any bearing on the RPCD being able to work.
If the RPCD was offered the work, they would have to drive the 90 miles on their own dime and then return on their own dime. The route covered by the RPCD would be paid of course but because of this variable, I wonder if there is some way the company can get out of working the real drivers. Still researching this whole thing before I try to open a can of worms.
Were they in the top 90% of seniority? If so that's a easy win also.
Oh and not to be a ass but it's RPCD (regular package car driver)
Actually 2.I smell a grievance.
"100 miles away" would pass 5 center's jurisdiction here.Ours does but my conundrum is if the PVDs are working and the drivers are not, is the company able to use "if work is available" BS to claim not enough work is available to put them to work. The PVDs are starting and finishing their work almost 100 miles away from our center and are only getting very few stops.
Same here but I know that the two who were laid off wanted to work.
"No PT employee is allowed to do delivery driving." PT air drivers delivering ground is the fastest growing segment at UPS. Where have you been the last 10 years?And this clause is only for part time employees driving or moving equipment around the yard, tractors and package cars.
In the Central, no part time employee is allowed to do delivery driving.
"No PT employee is allowed to do delivery driving." PT air drivers delivering ground is the fastest growing segment at UPS. Where have you been the last 10 years?