"(a) CSX Transportation, Inc. ("Carrier") violated the January 9, 1988 implementing agreement between the parties when it failed to transfer and coordinate a portion of the train dispatching functions formerly performed in the Dayton, OH office (responsibility for movements between Middletown and Middletown ict.) to the Jacksonville Centralized Train Dispatching Office and instead transferred th 1989.
(b) Because of said violation, the Carrier shall now compensate each Train Dispatcher in the Cincinnati office who is required to perform any duties in connection with the Middletown-Middletown Jct. territory, one (1) days pay at the rate applicable to Trick Train Dispatchers in the Jacksonville Centralized Train Dispatching office for each such occurrence, in addition to any other compensation received for such claim dates.
On September 1, 1987, the carrier served notice on the Organization that pursuant to Section 4(a) of the conditions for the protection of employees enunciated in New York Dock, it intended to transfer and coordinate train dispatching functions throughout the system into a single centralized operation headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. On parties entered into an implementing agreement. This claim was
filed on March 17, 1989, asserting the Carrier violated the January 9, 1988 agreement. Subsequently, the organization relied upon Section 4(d) of the Protective Agreement included in its agreement claiming that it is the only agreement covering the transfer of work.
The organization argues the Carrier's September 1, 1987, notice clearly indicates the Carrier intended to transfer all train dispatching functions to the Jacksonville office with no exceptions. This contention overlooks the provisions of item 8 of the agreement reached on January 9, 1988.
Notwithstanding, this Board is initially faced with the question of whether it has jurisdiction in this matter. Clearly, analysis of the January 9, 1988, implementing agreement discloses the parties specifically intended to incorporate by reference the protective conditions of New York Dock. Third Division Award 29317 involving the same parties and a like question of jurisdiction states in pertinent part that:
This Board concurs with the findings in Award 29317 and, likewise, holds that we lack jurisdiction to resolve disputes which are governed by New York Dock. See also Award No. 1, Special Board of Adjustment No. 157 involving the same parties. The above findings require this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.