Arbitration pursuant to Article I - Section 4 of the
 cmployea p:ocecrive cundiricna developed :n ':w York
 Doc); Ry.-Control-3rooklyn Eastern Dist., 360 I.C.C.
 60 (1979) as provided in ICC Finance Docket ::o. 28905
 (Sub. too. 1) and related proceedines
PARTIES

TO

DISi IIIE


Brotherhood Railway Camea of the
 United Seta= ihd Canada and

 The Saltinore and Ohio Railroad
 Company
 Louisville and Naswille Railroad
 Coopany

 DECISION

 QUESTIONS AT ISSUS:
 Irnat provisions shall be contained in an arbi:raced impla:lenclng agree-meat pursuant to Arcicle I. Seccion 4 of the ::ew York Dock Conditions in order to provide an aparopriace basis for the sele_:ian and assign:'~!cnt of forces and the application of cho New York Dock CoaditiozA with respect to the transaction which vas the subject of the Carrier's Se,^.t=nber 2, 19x2. notice'

 DAC=:C RGC:'`~
 On Sapte=5er 25, 1950, the Interstate Con-merce Cor=ission ;ICQ served its Decision in Finance Docket No. 28905 (Sub. `:s. 1) approving acquisition of control by CSX Corporation of rail carriers suhsidiary to Chessie System, Inc. and Scaboard Coast Lino Industries, Inc. ?he Commission in its Drcislon ie?osed conditions for the ;rococcion of eeployecs sec forth in New York Dock 'Av. - Control - !;oeklvn Easrcra District, 350 I.C.C. 60 (1979) (New York Dock Conditioaa).
 On September 2, 1982, the Baltimore t Olio Railroad Company (B80) and the Louisville b Nashville Railroad Company (UN), two carriers over which CSX Corporation had acquired control by virtue of the Commission Decision is Finance Docket No. 28905 (Sub. No. 1), served notice upon the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United Scates'and Canada (BRC or Organization) pursuant to Article I, Section 4 of the New York Dock Conditions. The notice stated that the Carriers intended to discontinue
 operation of' the B&0 Car Wheel Shop at Glenwood. Pennsylvania and to transfer and coordinate such work with the work perfor-ed on the L&N railroad at its South Louisville shops, Louisville, Kentucky. The notice also stated chat two carmea positions would be abolished at the Clenwood Shop and two ca open positions established at tae South Louisville Shops.

Conditions, the parties met on Sepcecber 14, 1982, for tae purpose of reaching agreement with respect ca the selection and assiga~enc of forces resulting from the coordination and with respect Co the application of the New York Dock Conditions to the coordination. The Carriers submitted a written proposal ac this meeting, but the parties :sere unable to reach agreement. The parties tset again on October 14, 1981. Sue :he dispute remained unresolved.
 Thereafter, the Carriers invoked the arbitration procedures of Article I, Section 4 of the New York Dock Conditions. :he parties did not select a Neutral Referce as provided in Arcicle t, Soccion 4 ,and as further provided therein the Carriers applied to the !:acional Xediatioik board for appointment of a Referee. That agency sppoin:ed the undersiCncJ
 on November 23, 1982. Hearing was held in this matter ,pursuant to Article I, Section 4(a)(1) on December 13, 1982, at which tire the parties presented written submissions and oral, argument.

 FINDINGS:
 The parties have complied with the procedural requirement of Article 1. Section 4 of the Near York Dock Conditions, and the question at issue noted above is properly before this Neutral for determination.
 The gravaaea of the disputa in this proceeding is how the two new positions created at the South Louisville Shops should be filled. The Carriers would transfer the two caroen employees who ultimately lose their positions at the Glenwood Shop to the newly creaced carmen positions at the South Louisville Shops. However, the Organization argues chat the two new positions should be offered to the carmen forces ac the South Louisville Shops, uany of whom are on furlough.
 At the outset the Organizatio4 questions the propriety of creating two new carcsen positions at the South Louisville Shops. The Organization contends that the new positions are not cczparable to the positions abolished at Clenuood. The Carriers M31ntaln that a Neutral acting under Article I, Section 4 of the hew York Dock Conditions has no jurisdiction to review a Carrier's decerminacion as co the size of its work force. The Organisation disagrees contending that the creation of the two positions at the South Louisville Shops is at the heart of this proceeding.
 The Carriers' Jurisdictional argument is well founded. Sfiile it is the duty of a Neutral acting under Article I, Section 4 of the
 Hew York Dock Conditions to resolve all questions which the parties could have settled through negotiations but failed to do so, this duty does not extend to matters beyond the Neutral's jurisdiction. ly its Decision in Finance Docket No. 28905 (Sub. No. 1) tha ICC granted the Carriers the authority to engage in the transaction which was the subject of the Carriers' September 2, 1982. notice. Creation of two carme:t positions at the South Louisville Shops is an integral part of that transaction. The authority of a Neutral, acting under Article Y. Section 4 extends to the selection of forces to fill the two positions to be created at the South LouisvilI4 Shops, but it does not extend to review of the Carriers' decision to create such positions.
 The Carriers argue that their proposal to transfer the two carmen ecployees from Glenwood to Louisville is most appropriate under the circumstances of this case. 8y closing the 260'9 Car Wheal Shop at G1enr:ood, Pennsylvania. and transferring that work to the UN South Louisville Shops, all of 860'9 car wheel needs will be :_et by the LS:1 at its Souch Louisville Shops. The two new carmen positions reflect the need for additional employees to perform the work transferred to Louisville from Glenwood. The ca men from Glenwood would simply follow the work of their craft to Louisville. The Carriers propose to dovetail the seniority of the transferees with eaplayees on the carmen's seniority roster for the South Louisville Shops. Vhile the Carriers propose that the transferees be subject to the LSN working agreement with the Organization. the Carriers also propose to allow the cransferces to be bumped from their new positions only by employees presently working in a position at the South LouLsville Shops.
 The Organization contends that the two new positions to be created at the South Louisville Shops, a wheal inspector and a Fork Lift-Pdttibone Crane Operator, are not comparable to the two positions to he abolished at Glenwood Shop. Crane, operation a= the South Louisville Shops is not part of the carmen's craft, and the Carriers have not con firmed that the wheel inspector will primarily inspect wheels. The Organization urges that the new positions rightfully accrue to carmen at the South Louisville Shops rather than the two car--en at Glenwood whom the Carrier proposes to transfer to Louisville.
 The Organization argues that the two Glenwood carmen who actually are unable to hold a position at Glenwood will be dismissed employees within the meaning of Article I, Section 1(c) of the New York Dock Conditions and that as such the Carriers caznoc force them to accept positions in Louisville because to do so would r:quire a change of residence contrary to the protection against such a forced move afforded by Article I, Section 6(d) of the New York Dock Conditions. If, however, the two displaced carmen at Glenwood elect to transfer to Louisville the Organization agrees that dovetailing of seniority would be appropriate and that the L&N working agreement should apply to them. However, the Organization urges that they should receive no special protection from bumping as proposed by the Carriers.

evidence to support a finding as to tha comparability of the two positions to be abolished at the Glenwood Shop and the two positions to be created at the South Louisville Shops, the record clearly substarrtiatcs that work of the carncn's craft at the Glenwood Shop will be transferred to the
 South Louisville Shops. The record supports the conclusion that the two positions to be created in Louisville will result from that transfer of work.
ultimately lose their positions are dismissed employees is without merit. The Organisation's relianze upon Article I, Section 6(d) of the New York Dock Conditions is misplaced. That Section provides,inter alfa,that a dismissed employee may not be compelled to take a position requiring a change of residence as a condition of continuing to receive a dismissal allowance. However, Section 6(d) does not define a disaissed employee. That definition appears :n Article I, Section 1(c), As the Carrier 2oints out, in its decision in Finance Docket No. 28905 the ICC vas requested by labor organizations to expand the definition of a dismissed employee so as to protect eaployees from having to relocate. The ICC specifically refused to modify the definition of a dismissed employee as urged by the

 Organizations. The ICC has spoken authoritatively on the matter, and

 this 'Neutral --ust follow the ICUs pronouncement.
of Article I, Section 1(c) of the :few York Dock Conditions the Carriers may require the two Glenwood Careen who ultimately lose their positions at Glenwood to transfer to the two new positions at the South Louisville Shops. Put another way, as urged by the Carriers, these two employees may not refuse to transfer to Louisville and still come within the

 definition of a dibmissed employee set forth in Article T, Section 1(c).
 This Neutral believes thac the Carriers' proposal for treatment of the two Glenwood carmen who transfer to Louisville is fair and equitable both to the transferees and to the carmen at the South Louisville Shops. The Carrierst proposal would enable the Glenwood careen to follow their work and would afford them a realistic opportunity to retain it. The Organization's proposal on the other hand effectively would deny the Glenvood carmen a realistic opportunity to follow their work. It would treat the work transferred from Glenwood as work accruing to carmea in Louisville without regard for the fact that the work once belonged to careen at Glenwood. The Carriers' proposal balances the equities,and it should be implemented.
 Pointing to the fact that considerable burapina among carmen employees at the Glenwood Shop will occur as a result of this transaction, the Organization urges that each burped employee will be a displaced ezployee within the meaning of Article I, Section 1(b) of the New York Dock Conditions entitled to a displacement allowance as provided in Article 1, Section 5. The Organizacion urges chat the Carriers be required to furnish each Glenwood carman in the bumping chain with figures showing his average monthly compensation. The Carriers would furnish the two Glenwood carmen who ultimately lose their positions with such figures, but with respect to all others the Carriers take the position that it is under no obligation to furnish such information until else employee demonstrates a loss of earnings in the new position.
 The Carriers contend that no Glenwood carmnn in the bumping chain is displaced unless or until the employee cannot pct;iin a position paying
 the same hourly rate as his previous position. The Organization vigoroue disagrees on the ground that the Carriers' position does not consider variations in overtime. The Carriers respond that equalizing overtime in effect at the Glenwood Shop answers the Organization's contention.
 Both the Carriers and the Organization raise issues concerning the displacement allowance which are not properly Justiciable in this proceeding. As provided in the attachment hereto the New York Dock Conditions are made applicable to this transaction. The question of whether the Carriers are obligated to furnish test period earnings as veil as the question of whether a particular employee meets the definition of a displaced employee are dependent upon individual circu=stances. 'These questions are properly justiciable in a proceeding pursuant to Article 1, Section 11 of the New York Dock Conditions rather than this proceeding.
 Finally the Organization requests this Neutral co rule that all carmen employees at the South Louisville Shops who are junior to the two Glenwood carmen who transfer to Louisville are entitled to the protections of the New York Conditions once the transfer has been effectuated. Again, the Conditions are applicable to the transaction and all of the Carriers' employees affected by it. However, the question of whether a particular employee vas affected by the transaction is e matter for an Article I. Section 11 proceeding.

 The attached arbitrated implementing agreement, which is hereby mad* part of this Decision, constitutes the Neutral's determination uiuler Article Section 4 of the rev York Dock Conditions as to the appropriate
 basis for the selection and rearrangement of forces pursuant to the coordination which gave rise to this proceeding. This Decision and the implementing agreement are intended to resolve all oucstanding issues in this procetding as provided in Article 1. Section i of the New York Dock Conditions.

 William E. Fredenberger. Jr.

 Neutral Refexte

 January 11, 1983
 ATTACVME;"r

 ARBITRATED IMPLE4ENTING AGREEMENT

 BETWEEN

 TEX BALM:= AND OHIO ;rILror.D CoM.nrir
L01DIZVILLE AND ?IASHYXLL$ RAILROAD W: fPARY

 IND THEIR EV2LMEES REPP13EIlTED BY THE

 BROTHERHOOD RAILWAY CAM-7.11 OF ThT UNITED SIATFS IND CANADA

~'°ZZ, this transaction is made pursuant to zeterstate Co==rce Commission decisions is Finance Docket.Vo. 26505 (Sub.-':o- 1) and related proceedings, and


=FxAS, The Baltimore and Ohio Railroa3 Company and' Louisville and
 Nashville Railroad Company, hereinarter designat^d respectively as "830" and
 "L&N" save notice in accordance with Article I S?ction 4(a) or the condition:.
 for the protection or exployees enunciated in tl_?w york. nzcy Ry. -- Control
 13rooklvn. Easter-i Dish ?Ed I.C.C. 60(1??9) hereirzftar a·~si~.:l:cd as ""ew York
 Doek,Conditaans'!. or the .-ntent of the nI0 to disc`ntirue operation V. U"4c ~`~L~
 shop at G1anwow d, Pet.nsylvania' and transfer such work :.o the L:N Railroad South
 Louisville Shops,

 h'BER=, tr2 parties have conferred, but have reached no agreement

 NOW, therefore, it is determined:

The Labor Protective Conditions as set :orth in the New York Dock Conditions -which, by reference hereto, are incorporated hercin and made a tart hereof, shall be applicable to this transaction.


2. As a result of this transaction, the n&0 will disccntihue operation or the car %b_el shop located at G1cnwood, Pennsylvania, and tlia D60 c=rr_ n positions assigned at that location will be zholished. Thcrcafter, Bo0·s car, wheel. operations will be performed by LLN at tlssir South Lc,uisville Shops, Louisville, Kentucky. and all u-ark at that location accruing to car:cen under the provisions or the Collective BarraininS Arreeaent between Lit: and Brothorhaed Railsay Carom will .be perforred by cr_ployees en the Care=re's Seniority ltostcr at South Louisville, Kentucky.


Positions tc be extablishcd or LAM at South Louisville Shops, crrcctive with the date of coordirution, will be bulletined at 9lcnwood, Pennsylvania, for a period or ten (10) days and will accrue to elralo7cc3 on L%c Glenwood Carmcn Roster Central Region Seniority Points b, 7, s, 9 and 10.

Upon expiration of the ten-day bulletin, d^tcrmiratioa will be rude of the erployces who have bid and ,_no have vac:! aw.,r dad a pcoition 1t South Loui3ville Shops. In the event any pooition .advcrtizcd at So»th Loui nvillc Shops is not filled . in accordance with the foreroing, Glenwood tarr::cn ray excrcize seniority purncent W E&0 Rule 24(h) and the unrillcd positions will accrue to employees on the South Louisville Carran IosLcr.


S. (a) Employees accepting positio.1s at South Louisville on-the L!.N will have their seniority date, as it; appears on the Glcnuood Carmen's 1-Rvattr, dovetailed on the appropriate raster to which trancrerred upon reporting to work, and their na=e will be rer.oved from the Glen:ruod Carren foster. Whcre, following this procedure results in two (2) or more emaloyec3 having the. same seniority date ca t'he dovetailed roster, their respective positt:ns o:1 the roster will be deter:nined by continuous sarvias atandird and then by Act.


(b) $aiployeca transferring to South Louisville will be assigned positions is accordance with the builetirs advertising, positions; thereafter, changes In tee coordinated operation in the filling of vacancies, abolishing or creating positicns aid reduction or restoration of forts will be governed by application of the Wa Scheduled Agreement. '


(o) 8&0 carmen who are awarded positions in the coordinated South Louisville operation. will become L&4 eMployees subject to the rules of the Agreement between ' L .-juisv ills and 'Nashville Railroad Coepany and Brotherhood Railway Careen of the United States and Canada.


6. In order trit the prow isicnz. a: `..,`.c ::: s' proviso set forth in Article I, Section 3 of t%e :;eN York Dock conditions ray ··e' properly adMi nistcred . such ecployee daterrjned to be a displaced or di;missee eraloyc_ as a result or this Ag:·sement, w1io al" >s otherwise oli&ible for prot:etvc bcnefita and conditions under some other job security or other protective conditions or arranpcMcnts shall, within ten (10,) days after notification of his monetary protective entitletent under the New York Dock Conditions, elect between the bc:-c:"its thereunder and similar benefits under such other -irranr'cment. In the evcnt an employee does foot cake an election within the ;.en (10) day period specified herein, he shall be considered to have elected to retain the protective t~rncfits ho is presently eligible to receive. Thin election ehall r_ct serve to nltcr or affect any application of the substantive provisions of Article I, Section 3.


7. (a) Each dismissed corlolyee shall provide cithcr 1.i-0 or LMN with the following in:ormation for tee prcccdinG month in which he ;.: cntitlcd to. I)cncfits no later than the tenth (10th) day of cach subsequent north on a 5t; ndurd form provided by the Carrier:

 The days) claimed by such oroploycc
 unetplolment insurance act.

4:dcr any
 gross earnings made by t.`.e di~a~cd crp:oyce in such other c=ployr:ant.

(b) In the event an c.-aloyce referred to in this Section 7 is cntitl,:d to unet?loyrcit bcnetits under app11cable law but !'orf,~it: such une:.~aloyr-.c,·s: benefits under xny unerployccnt insurance laW tccause of Ms or h:r failure to file for such une.-ployzent benefits (unless prtvcnted from ding to by oickne_i or other unavoidably= c2use3) f:r purpozes of the npplication of Sub-section (c) of Section 6, Article I of the :;ew York Dock Conditions, trey shall be considered the sate as if they had filed for, and received, c;;ch unerplcyc%eat benefits.


(c) It the e7loyce referred to in this Section 7 has nothin; to rcpo·t under this Section 7 account of their not being entitled to berIefits urrdc· any unsCp1oy-ent insurance law and havi-a no carninss frog a.-.y othdr ~unplo; WcnL, such e--;loyee shall Ubsit, within the time period provided for in Sub-sec ti_a (a) of this Section 7, on the appropriate form annotated `:ot`ir.,; to Report".



vide the infor-ation required in this Section 7 shall result is the uithhold:ns
 of all protective ben:fits dsrin; the aonth cove. -ad by such inforuticn pending
 Carrier's receipt of su=n information from the employee.

S. Nothing in this i-ple mentins asr*ce:~rt 3:1311 re interpreted to prow id·. protective benefits :mss thin those provided in the New York cock Conditions or exclude coverage to those covered by ?dew York Dock ConditiG:.3 i~aosed by th^. I.C.C. and ia=crpora :ed herein by parrtraph 1 .


9. The provisions of this Agreement shall become effecti:·e upon ten (10) days advance written notice by the B60 and LM to their respective General Chairman.