NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number
21994
- THIRD DIVISION Docket Number
MS-21873
James F. Scearce, Referee
( Phillip B. Dalrymple
PARTIES TO DISPOTE:
( Norfolk and Western Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 1) Norfolk and Western Railway Company, hereinafter
referred to as "the Carrier," violated the
agreement in effect in October of
1975,
between
the Carrier and the AMA which agreement is appli
cable to Mr. Dalrymple's case, in that:
(a) The Carrier refused to reinstate Phillip to his job
as second trick "C" District dispatcher, despite the provisions
of Article
4
(d), (f) and Article
8
(f) of said agreement, and
(b) The Carrier refused to reinstate. Phillip to his former
job of dispatcher despite the fact that the Chief Train Dispatcher,
an officer of the Carrier, by his actions led Phillip to believe that
he would be allowed to do so (detrimental reliance).
(2)
Wherefore, claimant, Phillip B. Dalrymple, respectfully
requests that he be reinstated to his job as dispatcher with back pay
from October
8, 1975.
OPINION OF BOARD: By letter dated July
25, 1975,
the Claimant informed
Chief Train Dispatcher (CTD) B. L. Markijohn of his
desire to change his employment status. (1)
"If accepted by the Signal and Communication Department I wish to transfer
from the Transportation Department
following my tour of duty August 2,
1975."
1 At the time of preparing the letter, the Claimant was second trick
"C" District Dispatcher at the Carrier's Conneaut, Ohio, facility.
Award Number
21994
Page
2
Docket Number
MS-21873
Nothing in the record indicated a response from CTD Markijohn to
the Claimant in regards to his expressed desire or intention.
Effective August
4, 1975,
the Claimant commenced work in the
position of Assistant Signal Maintainer, in the Signal and Communications Department (on a trial bas
work apparently aggravated a lower back condition, which had developed
out of an off-duty rear-end automobile collision involving the Claimant
several months eariler. For this reason, the Claimant asserts, he
found himself unable to meet the physical requirements of the Assistant
Signal Maintainer's position. By letter dated October
6, 1975,
J. M.
Herr, Assistant Division Engineer for Signal and Communications informed
the Claimant that:
"Your application for transfer to the Signal
& Communication Department is hereby declined,
effective
4:30
pm, October
3, 1975.
If, in the future you need any recommendations,
please feel free to call upon me."
Thereafter, the Claimant by letter dated October
8, 1975,
advised
CTD Markijohn the following:
"Please see the attached letter from Mr. J. M.
Herr. As I was not accepted in the Signal
Dept., and my being accepted was a stipulation
in my request for transfer, I request to return
to my regular assignment as second trick "C'
District dispatcher as soon as possible."
By letter of the same date -- October
8, 1975
-- but, according
to the Claimant, actually written about October _12,
1975,
the Claimant
further informed CTD Maxkijohn as follows:
Award Number
21994
Page
3
Docket Number
MS-21873
"Please reply in writing promptly the reason
that I am being held out of service by the
Norfolk and Western Railway Company.
It is essential that I have this information
to secure compensation from
my
insurance holdings."
No response for either letter by him was forthcoming from CTD
Markijohn; however, by letter dated October
27, 1975,
Superintendent
J. P. Watters did reply to the Claimant:
"Chief Train Dispatcher B. L. Markijohn has
forwarded to me your letter dated October
9,
1975
in which you requested return to your
former position as a train dispatcher.
I am not agreeable to restoring you as a dispatcher. After we accepted your request to
transfer to the Signals and Communications
Department, evidently you failed to qualify in
that department.
It does not appear to me that we should be
required to protect rights you may have had
in the C.T. Department prior to your transfer
in order for you to be in a position to fall
back on them."
By use of counsel, the Claimant replied to Superintendent Watters
by letter dated November
12, 1975:
"Please be advised that Philip B. Dalrymple has
retained this office to represent him in regard
to his employment status in addition to any union
assistantce which he might receive. Even though
to the best of our information and belief you have
not complied with the grievance procedure, we are
going to acknowledge your letter of October
27,
1975
as refusing to restore Philip to his job as
dispatcher.
Award Number
21994
Page 4
Docket Number
MS-21873
Be advised further that we intend to assist
Philip in properly perfecting his appeal to
the highest officer designated by the management
to handle such cases."
Also by letter of the same date, counsel for the Claimant informed
J. R. Neikirk, Vice President - Administration of his claim:
"Please be advised that
Philip
B. Dalrymple has
retained this office to represent him in regard
to his employment status in addition to any union
assistance which he might receive. Even though
to the best of our information and belief you have
not complied with the greivance procedure, we are
going to acknowledge Superintendent Watters letter
of October
27, 1975
as refusing to restore
Philip
to his job as dispatcher.
We respectfully request that you rescind Superintendent
Watters order and reinstate
Philip."
Thereafter, this matter was processed, without resolution, to this
Board.
The Claimant contends that he considered the change from the Transportation Department to the Si
was led to believe, in the summer of
1975,
that his job was to be ablolished.
He further contends that CTD Markijohn was party to and personally involved in drafting the "conditi
25, 1975
letter He
contends that a probationary trial period of sixty days existed in the
Signal and Co=mmications Department during which time he was given the
opportunity to determine if he was suitable for the work. The Claimant
contends further that, as a result of the lower back problem which prevented his performing the duti
with the appropriate Signal and Co=mmications Department officials, it
was determined that his "conditional transfer" would be denied. Accordingly, the Claimant notified C
requested reinstatement to the position he had left. The Carrier's actions,
thereafter, denied the Claimant his rights to return to his position,
the Claimant asserts, and specifically violated several provisions of
the Agreement:
Award Number
21994
Page 5
Docket Number MS-21873
(1) Article
4
(f) - FORFEITURE OF SENIORITY
"Failure to perform service as train dispatcher
during a period of
90
days shall cause forfeiture
of seniority, except when such nonperformance
is due to lack of work, physical disability or
as otherwise provided in this agreement. A train
dispatcher who voluntarily relinquishes his position
and enters other service except as provided in
Article g * hereof or in case of physical
disability shall forfeit his seniority as train
dispatcher.-" (Emphasis added
*4 (g) - OFFICIAL POSITIONS is not applicable to this case.
On this point, the Claimant asserts that he never relinquished
his position, that the tenuous qualification -- "if accepted" -- in his
letter to CTD Markijohn (which he claims Markijohn helped draft), and
Assistant Division Engineer Herr's declination of his application for
transfer are proof that no reassignment was ever consummated. He points
out that
4
(f) contemplates two distant actions: voluntarily relinquishing
his position and entering other service. He asserts that his going to
the Signal Department on a conditional basis -- "if accepted..." and
that Herr's letter affirms such a conditional nature -- "Your application
... is
hereby declined
...."
are clear indications that neither action
took place.
(2) Article
4
(d) - ROSTERS
"A seniority roster showing the names and seniority
standing of all those entitled to hold seniority
as train dispatchers under these rules shall be
issued by the management for each seniority district
and revised and reissued in January of each year.
Rosters shall be kept on file in the respective
dispatching offices open to the inspection of all
concerned and shall be subject to correction upon
proof of error or omission only if protest in
writing is made within 30 days from date of first
posting upon which such entry appears. Copies of
all rosters and protests shall be furnished to
the office chairman and to the general chairman."
Award Number
21994
Page
6
Docket Number
MS-21873
On January
29, 1976
- several months after the Claimant was
taken out of service and after a conference to discuss this matter was
held (without a mutually satisfactory conclusion) a seniority roster
bearing the Claimant's name was posted by CM Markijohn, without protest.
The Claimant points to the provision of
4
(d) which requires any such
protests within thirty days from the date of first posting or such roster
shall be deemed correct. No such objection by the Carrier, the Claimant
asserts " ....constitutes Carrier's recognition of his entitlement to
hold train dispatcher seniority of such date. It is clearly apparent
that no protests were registered to such listing." (Letter of April
6,
1976,
by W. H. Bartle, attorney for the Claimant, to J. R. Neikirk,
Vice President - Administration N&W Railway Company).
(3)
Article
8
(f) - CLAIMS
"A train dispatcher who considers himself unjustly
treated shall present his claim in writing direct
or through representative of his choice. to the chief
train dispatcher within
30
days from date of occurrence
on which it is based, otherwise claim is barred. The
decision of the chief train dispatcher shall be rendered
within
30
days from date claim is received or from
date of conference, if one is had thereon. If the
train dispatcher is not satisfied with the decision
rendered, appeals may be made subject to the order of
progression, time limits, etc., provided in Article
8
(c). If decision on appeals is not rendered within
30
days, claim will be considered sustained, but
this shall not be considered as a precedent or waiver
of the contentions of the carrier as to other similar
claims or grievances."
The Claimant contends that, since the Chief Train Dispatcher
did not render a decision to his claim as stated in his October
8,
1975
letter as required in
8
(f) the claim stands as sustained per this
provision.
Award Number
21994
Page
7
Docket Number MS-218'71
Finally, the Claimant claims he was led to believe that his
job would be abolished through discussions with CTD Markijohn and
that it was this potential and his concern for his family that led
him to look elsewhere for a secure income with the Carrier. He claims
to have asked for a physical examination so as to assess his ability
to perform the work of the Signal and Communications Department, a
request which he said was refused. He contends that his uncertai.nity
on this and other points were factors in approaching the change on a
tentative basis -- a condition understood and agreed to by CTD Markijohn and the Signal. and Comm
prepared his letter to CTD Markijohn, concerning his conditional interest
in the Signal. and Communications Department, he was depending upon what
he felt was guidance from CTD Markijohn, as well as understandings with
Signal and Communications official Herr.
* ~r
The Carrier, on the other hand, contends that the Claimant ccmmunications to CTD Markijohn on Oc
8, 1975,
never constituted a claim
for handling in the "usual manner" on the property, and thus, should be
dismissed on the basis of procedural deficiency alone. The Carrier also
contends that the Claimant's assumption of the position of Assistant
§ignal Maintainer and his participation in that post for two months is
clear evidence that he voluntarily forfeited his seniority as a train
dispatcher as defined under Article
4
(f). The Carrier disputes the
assertion that, because the Claimant's name appeared on the seniority
roster after the Carrier refused to reinstate him as a dispatcher does
not in and of itself establish seniority rights; rather, it was an oversight or error on the Carrier
points to the lack of a role by the ATDA in this case as confirmation
by that organization that the Carrier was correct in its decision to deny
the Claimant a return to the dispatcher craft. The Carrier raises an
objection to the introduction by the Claimant of correspondence between
his attorney and the ATDA, as well as various other documents and affidavits as new evidence not int
they should be excised and not considered.
Award
NZ=11,er
21994
Page
8
Docket ?tamer MS-21873
On the matter of the Claimant's name having appeared on the
January 29,
1976,
roster of dispatchers, it is well. a
t;.:' ~..:
^aed that
the mere presence of an employee's name on a seniority roster does not
dispense seniority to the employee. It was obviously an oversight and
that particular claim is disposed of by this Board without further
discussion.
Insofar as the Carrier's objection to the introduction of new
evidence is concerned, it is clear that the record of this case has
been developed and supplemented in other than the normal manner, not
necessarily exclusively because of the Claimant's actions. A review
of the record supports the Carrier's contention that new evidence and
unsupported assertions were interjected throughout the handling of this
dispute. Such actions were not limited to the Claimant, however; the
Carrier was equally unrestricted in enhancing its record by new evidence,
for example:
"Based on his personal physician's opinion
relative to his ability to perform work in
the S&C Department due to an off-duty injury
and the fact his furlough from service in that
department was imminent, he induced the assistant
division engineer to decline his application
for employment in the S&C Department effective
October
3
1975... Carrier's Ex Parte Submission Emphasis added).
Neither of the aforementioned assertions by the Carrier can be
found in earlier correspondence and in the opinion of this Board are
unsupported by the record of handling on the property. Such examples
of "new evidence" by both parties are interspersed throughout the
record. For this reason, this case will be considered on the basis
of the record as a whole.
Award Number
21994
Page 9
Docket Number MS-21873
The Claimant contends that the Carrier is obliged to effect
his request to return to the dispatcher craft because of the failure
of CTD Markijohn to respond to him as required under Article 8(f),
(hereinbefore cited). This provision
(8
(f)) assumes some action
by the Carrier which a Claimant would consider as "unjust treatment".
Certainly, the fact that the Claimant found himself physically unable
to perform the duties of the Assistant Signal Maintainer cannot be
construed as the grounds for a claim of "unjust treatment." His request
to Markijohn of October 8, 1975, was precisel that -- a request. By
means of another letter with the same date of October 8, 1975, the
Claimant was obviousl seeking information relative to his being held
out of service. By his own statement in that letter it would appear
that the purpose of that letter was to attend to the problem he had
encountered doing his work at an Assistant Signal Maintainer -- his
lower back. Thus, the Claimant cannot be said to have expressed a claim,
as such, in his letter to Markijohn. There was, of course, little
need to do so at that point, since he had no particular reason to
assume unjust treatment. The Carrier, on the other hand, contends that
the Claimant's failure to enunciate a set of particulars establishing
unjust treatment by his October 8 letters to CTD Markijohn should negate
any subsequent consideration in 'this regard. We find neither party
is correct. The Claimant did not submit a claim in the strictest sense
of the word to CTD Markijohn as defined under Article 8 (f), although
his letters clearly expressed what he was requesting -- a return to the
dispatcher craft as soon as possible. It was not until he received
the response to the October 8, 1975, letters by the October 27, 1975,
repl by Superintendent Watters that he had any substantive cause to
believe he had been unjustl treated. The record does not indicate why
Superintendent Watters responded in lieu of Yarkijohn, but having done
so, no reason thereafter existed for the Claimant to return to a subordinate officer(CTD Markijohn)
Article 8 (f) -- another procedural error according to the Carrier which
it contends makes this claim moot. We do not concur with the Carrier's
contention here; thus, the Claimant, through his attorney, moved his
claim to the appeal process as defined by Article 9 (c) by his attorney's
letters to Watters and Vice President J. R. Neikirk -- both dated November
18, 1975 (2). While the establishment of a claim by the Claimant cannot
2 The Carrier has pointed out without prejudice to its position, that
the letter to Neikirk arguably might be regarded as the statement of
claim, but if so, no claim for back pay was made.
. Award Number 21994 Page 10
Docket Number MS-21873
be said to have adhered in precision to the usual manner of doing
so, this Board is satisfied that a "claim" was made. We find no
merit, however, to the Claimant's assertion that the lack of a response specifically by Markijohn co
made.
Having determined a "claim" was made, we look to the document
which constitutes the first communication in the sequence of events
which could have been represented as a claim -- the November 18, 1975,
letters to Superintendent Watters and Vice President Meikirk. Both
letters are recitations of the Claimant's version of events leading
up to this request to return to the dispatcher post he left and Watters
rejection of this request on October 27, 1975. Both letters end with
the requested action of the Carrier as follows:
"Therefore, please reinstate Phillip without delay."
We look now to the effect of the Claimant's actions and their
relationship to Article
4
(f). A reading of the record as a whole would
indicate that the Claimant's decision to seek an opportunity in the
Signal and Communications Department was not so much predicated upon
his concern for loss of his job as a dispatcher, as a desire to improve
his advancement opportunities. The record is less clear as to whether
he had any reason to doubt his physical or other capabilities to meet
the requirements of his new position. It is reasonable to conclude,
however, that the Claimant was satisfied that he was not foreclosing
the protection of his rights by the change. Such assumption on the
Claimant's part, standing alone, would be self serving and understandably
so. But this claim is buttressed by the exchange of correspondence
with two members of management -- Markijohn and Herr -- the result of
which would lead to a reasonable conclusion that the occupational change
was undertaken with the expectation of recourse back, if necessary.
While this Board finds limited merit in the Claimant's rationale
relative to Article
4
(f), it cannot ignore the Carrier's acquiescance
or, as a minimum, silence on the exchange of correspondence between
the Claimant and CTD Markijohn on July 25, 1975, and Assistant Division
Award Number 21994 Page 11
Docket Number MS-21873
Engineer Herr on October
6,
1975. It is not enough to say that the
Claimant's submission of a request in this case constituted a complete
action. For whatever reason, it was predicated upon a condition -- 'IF
ACCEPTED." When this tentative request is considered in the context
of the subsequent denial of such a request for transfer by Herr, without some intervening affirmatio
approved -- a factor not present -- it cannot be dismissed by asserting
that such a transfer request is "self executing" or that the grievant
induced Herr to decline his application for employment. Both Markijohn
and Herr occupied positions of authority and as such are held accountable
for representations on behalf of the Carrier. On the basis of this
specific factor, this Board finds that the Claimant is entitled to be
returned to his former position or a dispatcher position of similar status
with his seniority intact. No back pay is awarded, it being noted that
the initial claim was devoid of this condition. This order will be put
into effect ten (10) days after it is signed.
FINDINGS: The. Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the 'Employes involved in this dispute
are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
The agreement was violated to the extent indicated in the
Opinion.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST~
Exe tive Secretary
`
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1978.
Serial
No.
"k
0
NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number 21994
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MS-21873
James F. Scearce, Referee
(Phillip B. Dalrymple
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Norfolk and Western Railway Company
ON REMAND FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. EASTERN DIVISION
INTERPRETATION TO AWARD 21994. DOCKET MS-21873
We are called upon to render an interpretation to Award 21994,
particularly and principally as it relates to the question of back pay.
At the outset, we reiterate that which was stated in the Opinion:
let there be no doubt that the Majority c3acluded that the Claimant took
the actions sun syonte that would eventuate in his departure from his employ.
The record clearly indicates that the decision to abandon his rights as a
train dispatcher was not forced upon him, nor was it a result of any
disciplinary measure taken against him. As such, the circumsstances of his
eventual departure from the Carrier ranks were not subject to the provisions
of Article 8, Paragraph (e), even if this contractual right had been timely
raised, which it was not. In point of fact, the Majority embraced the
Carrier's position that Article 4(f) - Forfeiture of Seniority was selfexecuting and dispositive of
"A train dispatcher who voluntarily relinquishes his position and enters
other service ...ahall forfeit his seniority as train dispatcher." It was
not out of repudiation of the Carrier that this Board ordered the Claimant
be offered an opportunity to return to the ranks of train dispatcher, but
rather to afford the Claimant a special, extra-contractual opportunity to
return to work even though he had taken the original action voluntarily.
We were also mindful of the effort of one of the Claimant's former supervisors to assist him in this
exceeded its authority by directing such a work opportunity, but enlightened
labor-management relations sometimes calls for exceptions where doing
so does not compromise one or the other parties' positions in the long run.
It would ill-serve relationships to misconstrue such flexibility as anything
otherwise. If this Board erred in raising the matter of compensation in
its Opinion and Award, it must now stand on such record. Nonetheless any
Award Number 21994 Page 2
Docket Number MS-21873
such claim, raised under any provision of the Agreement, would not be with
merit, primarily due to the fact that the claim of rights to reinstatement
was considered without merit and was not the basis upon which the Claimant's
return to service was ordered.
In sum, even if the Claimant had intended to raise the matter
of compensation timely, Article 8(e) would not have been considered
appropriate because this provision deals with disciplinary actions -which does not exist here. Artic
circumstance. This Board's decision to order reinstatement was arguably
beyond its statutory authority, but such action was neither novel or unique.
To construe such decision as an affirmation of the basic claim is an error
and militates for retreat to an unbending, dogmatic approach to labormanagement relations. This Boar
compensation, while possibly gratuitous in nature, was intended to dispel
any uncertainty as to its position on this matter.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: ~
Executive Becreta~
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of
,Iszgary 1981.
LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT
TO
SERIAL N0. 304
INTERPRETATION TO
AWARD 21994
DOCKET MS-21873
The Majority in Serial No. 304 (which was supposed to be an
Interpretation to Award 21994 Docket MS-21873) failed to answer the
question asked by the United States District Court, Northern District
of Ohio, Eastern Division, when that Court concluded "that this case
should be remanded to the Board for a clarification of the contractual
basis for its conclusion that plaintiff was required to submit a separate
claim for back pay", admitted that the Board's jurisdiction was probably
exceeded and changed an award or decision of the Board in an
interpretation of an award.
In adjudicating Docket MS-21873 the' Majority, in Award 21994,
denied back pay by stating
"No
back pay is awarded, it being noted
that the initial claim was devoid of this condition" (Emphasis supplied).
However, in Serial
No.
304 the Majority attempts to establish another
separate basis for denying the back pay which had been requested in
the Statement of Claim to the Board.
The record of this dispute on the property (i.e. before being
submitted to the Board) shows that the claim, ab initio, was a request
that the Carrier return Claimant to service as a train dispatcher, or
a request for the Claimant's reinstatement as a train dispatcher.
While Article 8(e) of the Agreement is captioned REINSTATEMENTS
and this rule should be controlling as the Claimant was "taken out
of service" according to the Board, as shown on page 6 of Award 21994,
(1)
the Carrier also acknowledged, on the property, that back pay was
being requested or claimed. The Carrier in its letter of February 13,
1976
stated in part:
"For the reasons set forth in conference on January 16, 1976, and
in our letters of December 17, 1975, and January 9, 1976, we are not
agreeable to reinstating Mr. Dairymple(sic) to his position as train
dispatcher and your request for reinstatement with back pay is again
denied".
And the Carrier in its letter of May
5, 1976
stated in part:
"Your request that Mr. Dalrymple be reinstated to his train dispatcher
position with compensation for time lost is, therefore, denied".
The Carrier did not claim in either of its submissions to the Board
that a claim for back pay was not present in this dispute. The Carrier
claimed that there was no proper claim presented to the Chief Train
Dispatcher in its attempt to avoid a finding that the initial handling
of the claim by the Carrier was in default because the Chief Train
Dispatcher failed to render a decision on the claim within thirty (30)
days from the date the claim was received. The record shows the Chief
Train Dispatcher never rendered a decision on the claim and, instead,
turned it over the next higher offier to whom the decision of the Chief
Train Dispatcher would normally have been appealed. The Majority
in Award
21994
accepted the specious position of the Carrier in part
though the initial claim or request stated in part "I request to return
to my regular assignment as second trick 'C' District dispatcher as
soon as possible".
Despite the language in Award
21994
stating "No back pay is
awarded, it being noted that the initial claim was devoid of this
condition", the initial letter was a request that the Claimant be returned
(2)
to service as a train dispatcher and a claim for back pay was presented
and progressed on the property.
In Serial No. 304 the author stated "It may be argued that this
Board exceeded it authority by directing such a work opportunity, but
enlightened labor-management relations sometimes calls for exceptions
where doing so does not compromise one or the other parties' positions
in the long run" and "This Board's decision to order reinstatement was
arguably beyond its statutory authority, but such action was neither
novel or unique". The Railway Labor Act limits the jursidiction of
the National Railroad Adjustment Board to disputes "growing out of
grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements
governing rates of pay, rules, or working conditions". If a decision
is not based on the interpretation or application of the Agreement, the
Board has, indeed, exceeded its jurisdiction.
There have been numerous interpretations or serials issued which
say that a new award should not and cannot be made by the Board
in an interpretation of an award. For example; in Serial No. 301,
which is Interpretation No. 1 to Award 9193, the Board stated in part:
"Initially, we are constrained to remind the parties that the purpose
of an Interpretation is to clarify an Award. It is not a means to
provide an avenue to reargue the original claim. Also, this Board
has no authority to alter, change or modify the extent of an Award
under the cloak of an interpretation. Rather, the Board is limited
to interpreting an Award in the light of the circumstances which existed
when the Award was rendered".
In Serial No. 304 the, "neutral referee" failed to answer the
question raised by the Court on remand, admitted that the Board's
jurisdiction was probably exceeded and changed the basis for denial
of back pay as set forth in Award 21994.
r~
The Majority subscribed to the errors made by the author of Serial
No. 304. However, I cannot endorse such errors and-, therefore, I must
dissent. .
ee.~r~
J. P. Erickson
Labor '.Member
Pn
._
.'''a:,
v
A
f'1C~
~., ~ ~r t . ~ ~~ / 1
.
hic
VIZ
pCO
O
qT iC
CARRIER MENOERS' RESPONSE TO
LABOR MS'S DISSENT TO SERIAL
N0. 304 - INTERPRETATION TO
AWARD 21994, DOCKET N0. MS-21873
.. .
"He draveth out the thread of his verbosity finer than
the staple of his argument." (Shakespeare, Love's
Labour's Lost: Act V Scene 1, Line 18).
. E. MASON
t _
W. F. EMHI.R''
P. E. LACOSSE
R.il 0' COMIELL
P. V. VARGA