Arbitration pursuant to Article I - S CCtiOn 4 of the employee protective conditions developed :n `:rv York Dock Ry.,Concrol-Brooklyn Eastern Dist., 360 I.C.C. 60 (1,979) as provided in ICC Finance Docket No. 28905 (Sigh. ho. !) and related proccedings
PARTIES International Association o! )
 Machinists and Aerospace Workers
 TO
 and ) DECISION
 DISPUTE
 The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad )
 Company )


QLTSTIOIS AT ISSU-:
 Vhat provisions shall be contained in an arbitrated i=ple~enting agreement pursuant to Article I, Section 4 of the New Yerk Dock Conditions is order to provide an appropriate basis for the selection and assignment of forces and the application of the New York Cock Conditions with respect: to the transaction which vas the subject of the Carrier's September 2, 1982, notice9

 BACKC."~OC\D:
 On September 25. 1960. the Interstate Commerce Cowoission (ICC) served its Decision in Finance Docket ?1o. 28905 (Sub. \o. 1) approving acquisition of control b7 CSX Corporation of rail carriers subsidiary to Chessia System. Inc. and Seaboard Coast Line Industries. Inc. The Co=issios in its Dccision imposed conditions for the protection of employees set forth in Kew York Dock Ry. - Control , 9:cc'klyn £,srcrn District, 350 I.C.C. 60 (1979) (New York Dock Conditions).
 On September :, 1982, the Baltimore i Ohio lAilroud Company (Db0) and the Louisville i Nashville Railroad Company (UN), two carriers over which CSX Corporation had acquired control by virtue of the Commission Decision in Finance Docket No. 28905 (Sub. No. 1), served notice upon the International Association of Machial.ts and Aerospace Varkers (ZAM or Organisation) pursuant to Article 1, Section i of the Kew York Dock Conditions. The notice stated that the Carriers intended to discontinue operation of the H&Q Car Wheel Shop at Glenwood. Pennsylvania and to transfer -and coordinate such work with the work perforzed on the L&N railroad at its South Louisville Shops. Louisville, Kentucky. The notice also stated chat positions of 12 machinists and 4 cach:nist helpers would be abolished at the Glenwood Shop and 9 machinists' positions established at the South Louisville Shop.
 Further pursuant to Article I, Section i of the New York Dock Conditions, the parties met an September 15 and 16, October 21 and 22 and November 1, 1982, for the purpose of reaching agreenant with respect to the selection and assigruaent of forces resulting frog the coordination and with respect to the application of the New York Dock Conditions to the coordination. The Carriers submitted a written proposal at the October 21 meeting, however, the parties ware unable to reach agreement, and the dispute remained unresolved.
 Thereafter, thn Carriers invoked the arbitration procedures of Article I, Section 4 of the New York Dock Conditions. The parties did not select a Neutral Referee is provided in Article I, Section 6 and ss further provided therein the Carriers applied to Lhc `rational Mediation Board for. appointment of a Referee. That agency appointed the undcrsigncl
 on November 70, 1982. Hearing was held in this matter pursur.nt to Article I, Section 4(a)(1) on December 20, 1982, at which ti=a the parties presented written submissions and oral argument.

 FINDINGS:
 The parties have complied with the procedural requircmcnts of Article I, Section 4 of the New York Dock Conditions, and the question at issue, noted above is properly before this Neutral for determination.
 The Carriers take the position that their ?ro?osed agreement covering this transaction is fair, equitable and apprc?riate. The Organization holds a contrary view on several points.
 At the outset the Organization contends tha: the question at issue in this proceeding must be resolved against tha background of another coordination which the Organisation urges has sircct and substantial impact upon the coordination here. On Se;=ember 2, 1962, the same date the Carrier served notice triggering this procccdins, the 860 and the Chesapeake 6 Ohio Railway (C60) served n3::ce upon the LAM o! :he Carriers' intent to discontinue all work in co=section with locomotive repair performed. at the 340 Glenwood Backs-:?, Glenwood, Pennsylvania, and to transfer and consolidate such work with work being performed at the C&0 Huntington Locomotive Shop, NuntlnCton, Vest Virginia. The notice stated that 25 machinists' and 4 machinist helper's positions would be abolished at Glenwood Backshop and 13 machini«ls' and machinist helper's positions added to the Nuntinbto3 Locomotive Shop. This notice was furnished pursuant to the M-BSO-Western Maryland coordination agreement (?!aster Transfer ACreement) a~:;a the IAM, itnd
 the effective date vas set for December 6, 1982, the sa=s effective date act for the closure of the Glenwood Car Wheel Shop and the abolition and creation of machinists' and machinist helpers' positions in connection therewith.
 Both notices servod on September 2, 1982, affected the same seniority group, and apparently such of the time spent is the negotiating meetings held pursuant to Article T, Section i of the rcw York Dock Conditions vas spent discussing the notice served under the Master Transfer Agreement and its potential effects. The Carriers implemented the notice concerning the Glenwood lackshop on December 6, 1982, although at that time, as is evidenced by the instant proceeding, no agreement had been reached pursuant to Article I, Section i of the New York Dock Conditions. As a result the Glenwood Backshop was closed, and several employees on the seniority roster transferred to Huntington, West Virgini..
 The Organization contends that the Carriers' a:tion vas unfair and asks this Neutral to right the perceived wrong to the employees by providing in the arbitrated implementing agreement teat any machinist employees holding as assignment at the Clenvood Shop on September 2, 1982, be given thirty days to elect the benefits iloving from the Decision in this proceeding or those under the Master Transfer Agreement.
 The Organization points out that by closing :he Clenvood Ba=k; hop on December 6, 1962, the Carrier forced employees to exercise their seniority, either to transfer to Huntington, West Virginia, which several did, or to displace junior employees working in 014 Glenwood Ccr Wheel Shop. As a consequence. most present members of the machinist craft working in the Clenvood Car Wheel Shop arc very senior employees, while
 junior employees are out of vork and collecting dismissal allowances, all under the Master Transfer Agreement.
 The Carriers argue that under Article t, Section 3 of the New York Dock Conditions, inter alga, employees must elect between the protections of the New York Dock Conditions and thaw offered by any other protective arrangement under which they are entitled to benefits. However, the Organization argues that the Carriers' actions derived employees of a meaningful choice between benefits under the Master Transfer Agreement and benefits under the New York Dock Conditions because o4 December 6, 1982.no agreement had been reached or arbitrated pursuant to Article I, Section 4 of the Now York Dock Conditions.
 The Carriers argue that the Organization seeks to "unscramble the eggs" which would unduly burden the Carriers. The Carriers point out that they attempted to effectuate simultaneously the closure of the Eackshop and the Car Wheel Shop at Clenaood, Pennsylvania, but were unable to do so by December 6, 1982, because the parties failed to reach agree=enc by chat date.

 The unfairness of the Carriers' actions, emphasized so stronsly by the Organization, is more apparent than real. What the Organization actually seeks is the option for the most senior employees, and thus the least likrly ca lose their positions, to transfer to Louisville or Huncin&ton. While the choice between transferring cc Louisville or Huntington understandably is a highly desirable one, there is nothing fundamenta:ly unfair about the ab.senee of that choice under the circumstances of this case.
 Closure of the Glenwood Backshop and the resulting effects on employees flowed from a transaction under the Master Transfer Agreement and not the New York Dock Conditions. Once employees exercised their seniority pursuant to the Master Transfer Agreement only those remaining at Clenvood actually would be affected by the transfer pursuant to New York Dock. With respect to Article I, Section 3 of the New York Dock Conditions, there simply is no election remaining for the machinist employees who transferred to Huntington, because by transferring they elected to take jobs at Huntington rather than tp burp into the Car Wheel Shop at Glenwood which they knew would be closed within a short time and all machinists' positions abolished there.
 It is true that the difficulties here were to some extent created by the Carriers. Furthermore, tho fact that the Carrie=s served both notices on the sa=e day i.rould support the inferences that they were attenpting to exert pressure on the OrSanizatlon to reach agreement under Article T, Section 4 o! the hew York Dock Conditions by creating the potential situatiou which actually resulted. Nevertheless. the Carrier apparently tried to effectuate both transactions sioultaneously, and if they had been successful the employees would have had the choice the Organisation seeks here. Only the parties' failure to reach agreement precluded that choice. Under these circunstances the Carriers did not Violate their obliCations under the Now York Dock Conditions.
 It must bo borne in mind that the function of the New York Dock Condition: as well as most protective arranCcments is to preserve
 employment for those capable of holding it through the exercise of seniority and to make whole those employees who must taRe positions producing less compensation or who lose their Positions altogether. In the final analysis the Organization's request for la:.;uage is not necessary, to a fair and equitable arrangement for the selection of forces, and accordingly it will not be included in the arbitrated ;tplementine agreement.
 The Organization disputes the need :or the creation of nine new machinists' positions at the South Louisville Shops and argues that the work to be performed by employees in those positions should accrue to UN employees, many of whom are on furlough. The Carriers argue that inasmuch as substantial work is beinG transferred from the Glenwood Car Wheel Shop to the South Louisville Shops, the posirlons are justified and that they should accrue to the Glenwood Shop cachinists to --hose craft the work originally belonged.
 By its Decision in Finance Docket yo. 28965 (Sub. `lo. 1) the ICC granted the Carriers authority to engage in the t:ansaction which vas the sub;ect of the Carriers' September 2, 1962, notice. Creation of the machinists' positions at tho South Louisville Shops is an integral part of that transaction. The authority of s Neutral a;tin; under Article I, Section 4 extends to the selection of forces to fill close positions, but it does not extend to review of the Carriers' decision to create such positions.
 The Carriers' proposal recoqnices tho equitable interest of the CLQwood Shop machinists in the work which Vas part o.° their craf t. It permits those employees to follow their work. It allows the UN machinists
 the opportunity for the work in the event ehe Clenvood Shop machinists do not follow their work. This appczra to be a more appropriate basis for the assigrunent of forces than that urged by the Or;anixation.
 The Organszatioa contends that the Glenwood Shop machinists cannot be forced to transfer to Louisville ac the peril of losing protects, under the New York Dock Conditions because such a move requires a change of residence. Tho Carriers urge that they cannot refuse such transfer and continue to be dismissed employees within toe meaning of Article t, Section 1(c) of the New York Dock Conditions.
 In support of its contention the Organisation analyzes the trea=ment of the terms "dismissed coployee" and "change of residence" in various protective agreements and arrangements. ?he Organization argues that it is the intent of those conditions and arrangezents that employees not be forced to nave against their wishes if such move involves a change of residence. The Organization seeks specific language in the arbitrated implementing agreement which it contands would apply this protection to the coordination in this case.
 The basic defect irk the Organization's argaeat, as the Carrier notes, is that it ignores the history of this issue before the ICC. In its Decision in Finance Docket No. 28905 the Coaission was requested by labor organizations to expand the definition under Article I, Section 1(c) of the New York Dock Conditions of a dismissed c-?loyee so as to protect employees from having to relocate. The ICC specifically rejected the organizations' request. The ICC has spoken authoritatively on the mattcr,and this Neutral must follow the ICUs pronouncement.
proceeding,issued after the ICUs Decision in Finance Docket No. 28905, involving the CSX Corporation and the Brotherhood of railway Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freighc Handlers. Express and Station employees-Inri Lieberman. Neutral. That Award contains language which appears contrary to the thrust of the ICUs Decision. However, that Award dealt with a displacement allowance and not a dismissal allowance. Furthermore, the Award does not assess the ICUs Decision. Accordingly this Neutral does not find the Award persuasive.
 Thus,it is concluded that the Glenwood Shop machinists nay not refuse to transfer to Louisville and still cone within the definition of a dismissed employee set forth in Article I, Section 1(c).
 The Organization urges that seniority be observed in the transfer of employees f:om the Glenwood Car keel Shop to the South Louisville Sheps, and the Carriers do not disagree. In fact the Carriers' proposed agreement recognizes that proposition. However, the Organization seeks a provision in the arbitrated icple:aencing agreement allowing ecployees who do transfer a reasonable time to report. This Neutral does not believe that specification of a time or period for reporting is necessary. It 19 contemplated that the parties will follow the rule of reason in this regard.
 Both the Carriers and the Organization sprat chat any transferees to Louisville should have their seniority dovetailed into the Louisville roster. The only apparent difference between the Carriers' proposal and the Organization's proposal on chis matter concerns the situAcion where
 two cmployccs may have the same seniority date and the same service
 date. The Carriers would resolve the ranking by lot, but the OrGanixation
 proposes that the oldest employee in chronological a;e be ranked ahead
 of the younger employee. The Organi:acion's proposal sees core
 consistent vich the principle of seniority. and it will be included
 in the arbitrated implementing agreement.
 The Carriers and the Organization failed to teach agreement on
 whether the Lb;J working agreement should apply to Glenvaod machinists
 who transfer ca the South Louisville Shops or whether =he 860 working
 agreement should apply. The Organitation challenges the Jurisdiction
 of this Neutral to resolve the issue-on the basis of Section 2 of the
 New York Dock Conditions which provides:

 The rates of pay, rules, working conditio=s and all collective bargaining and ocher rights, privileges and benefits (including concinuac=on of pension rights and benefits) of the railr:ad's employees under applicable laws and/or existing collective bargaining agreencnts or otherwise shall be preserved unless changed by future collective barCaining agreerents or applicable statutes. The Carriers argue that such jurisdiction exists and that the L6Y agreement should apply because that agreement will be a2plicable to all other aachinists Working at the South Louisville Shops. In suppurt of their jurisdictional argument the Carriers rely upon a Decision under Article I, Section 4 of the New York Dock Conditions by Neutral Robo=t Peterson involving the Southern Rail::iy Co.-Norfolk 6 G'ettCrn Railway Co. and Railroad Yard:13sters of Acmerica. In that Decision Neutral Peterson applied to transferees Cho agrecraent in effect on the property -to trhieh they transferred as a result of a coordination. The
 Organization relics upon a Decision by the undersigned in an Article I, Section 4 proceeding between the Southern Railway Co. and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen which the Organization contends supports its position.
 As the Carriers note,this Neutral's Decision is the Southern Railway case involved a situation where to grant the Carrier's request would have extinguished a collective bargaining agree=enc, a factor not present in the case decided by Neutral Peterson and so noted by him. Nevertheless, this Neutral's review of the Peterson Decision and his Decision in the Southern Railway proceeding forces the conclusion chat no jurisdiction. exists in this case to grant the Carriers the relief they request.

 It is true as the Carriers contend that in :re instant case the B&O agreement will continue in effect at the Clenwood Shop and thus application of the L6:1 sgreemant would not result in tie destruction of the Clenwood Shop agreement. In this Neutral's opinion chat distinction does not vest jurisdiction in hire to apply the LZN contract.
 The rationale of this Neutral's jurisdictional ruling in the Southern Railway cash, and the awards upon which it was based, is that a Neutral under Article I, Section 4 has no authority to alter races of pay, rules or other benefits preserved by Section 2 of the New York Dock Conditions. Accordingly, such Neutral has no authericy to modify a collective bargaining agreement where the parties have not agreed to confer that authority upon aim. In the instant proceeding the Organixstion has not agreed to thz Carriers' proposal or to submit the issue volunlnrily to arbitration.
 This Neutral is sensitive cc the fact that his Decision of January lZ, 1983, in as Article I, Section 4 proceeding between these Carriers and the Brotherhood Railway carmen of the f=ited States and Canada involving the transfer of carmen to the South Louisville Shops provided for application of the UN ·rorking agreement to the transferees. However, is that case the Carriers and the Organization agreed that the L&N agreement would have such application.
 Accordingly, no provision will be contain*d is the arbitrated implementing agreement applying the LLN agrccment to cachinists who transfer to the South Louisville Shops.
 The attached arbitrated implementing agreenenc, which is hereby made a pare of this Decision, constitutes the Scucral's determinatioa under Article z, Section 4 of the Near York Dock Conditions as, to the appropriate basis for the selection and rearran;anent of forces pursuant to the coordination which gave rise to this proceeding. This Decision and the implementing agreement are intended :o resolve all outstanding issues in this proceeding as provided to :rcicle 1, Section 4 of the Ncw York Dock Conditions.

 /U /..~6c.C~G~7/L~i~/C(7~G~ / i lu 11am E. Fredenberger. Jr. J'
 Neutral Referee
 DATED: January 19, 1983
 ATTACH."1CNT

 ARBITRATED IHPLZrtENTING AGREL4GNT

 BETWEEN

THE UALTIMO11C AND 01110 RAILMAD CO:: AMY

LOUSIYILLE AVD HLSIIYILLC PAILROAD CO:-Z1 L1:Y

AND THEIR CKPL01TES REPIZt,SENTED t1T


1JITERNATIONAL ILSSOCILTION OF MACHINIST At.D h1'il0;:r:.w I:GPI'G]tJ

fITCPE.1S, this transaction is mado pursuant to 1nterctate Coy.-..-crec Com.-fission decisions in Finance Docket h'o. 2a905 (Sub.-':o. 1) and relatcd proceed inCs, and


1fri~h~AS, The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Cor:;,enF and Louisville and Nashville Railroad rnr-,iany, hereinafter desirnat.=d respe:-vely as "3 L0" cr.d "LAN" Cave notice in accordance with Article I S-?ct,ion 4(_) or the cord itic':in for the protection of er-ployees enunciated in Mete Yo!.'- 11c,C R_,·. _.. Centre' Brooklvn E,st.cmn ni·;_,i60 I C.C_. 6oLtr?79) h^_reir,aft=r c:.. _ -.;.c4 .-.: "~isu !'ortc Dock Conuiticr,s" of rhu intent oi' the LUO to discnntin;ie o:.=:~'io~ of vie u:irel shop at Clcnvood, Pennsylvania and transfer such -:ork to ~.:-.a L.&A railroad South Louisville SPops,


h'H£R1rP.S, tr- parties have conferred, but have reached no agreernenc,

 NOW, thereford, it is determined:

'1. The Labor Protective Conditions as set forth is the 'lea York Dock Conditions which, by reference hcrato, are incorporated ha: ain arid matte a r2.-t hereof, sha11 bra applicable to this transaction.


2. As a result or this transaction, the t1%'&0 will dizc-itinsrc oacration of the car vareel Shop located at Glenwood, Pennsylvania, and ;::~ AGO machini ut and rcachxnist helper positions assigned at Lhat location ::ill be nholi:hcd. Thcrcaf tcr, 90's car uhcel operations will be perforncd ~: Ldt! at their South Louisville Shops, Louisville. Kentucky, and all work at to:: location accruins to machinists under the provisions o:' the Collective ',:-Czinint; .1Crcc;.'cnt beturen LIN and the International Association of M- ehinist .--.-.g Aerocpsce ':orkcrs uIll be pcrrer:ncd by cmplo_vecz on the M-3C11iniSt'S Scnic-r-::r Roster at South Louisville, Kentucky.


3. Positions to be establizhcd on L6tl at South Louis.;:lc Shops, ctfcctivc with the date of cpordirution, will be bulletined at Clem:a:.i, Pcunsylvania. for

i period of L:n (10) days and will accrue to cmployccs holdlno aaaienmcnt opt Lhr? Glenwood fachiniat noatcr, Ccntral ReCion 'eniority Point 6.


11. (a) Upon eipiration of the ten-day bull'ctin, deterciration will be made of the ec.ployccz who have bid and wha have bccn a,.ar.Jcd a position at South Louisville Shops.. At the same tune, dcLernination will also be made of thoac employees whozc jobs are beinr, aboliahcd as a rczult of this coordination and who, rather than bid on a position in the coordinated ca2ration at South Louisville Shop:;, have elected to excrcice displacement ri-htz over junior regularly s-sirrcd crralcyees whose po:.itions are not being abolished. S-rch enployoes will dc.-.=Cnate the positions en which they intend to exercise seniority riChts, and junior employees to be affected th=rely shall make the sass dctcrmination.


(b) In Lite event any positions advertised in the ccardina ted operation at South Louisville Shot's arc not filled in accordance with Paragraph (a), Glenwood cp:oyees whose positions arc to be aholi:hcd and who have not bid on advertised pssiticris in the coordinated operation or who do rat have sufficient seniority to excrcisc seniority on othcr· positions on the roztcr, and crployc2s who are to be displaced throuGh the crcrcise of seniority as descrir,cd in Parar,raph (a) and :.re uncble to Exercise seniority on other positions on the roster, Will be araipnad to th= unfilled positions) at S"th Louisville Shop-. in reverse order or seniority. Such assian^cnt will be by lett·_r 31rncd by tll:r appropriate Carricr officer with copiez to the Local (h_irr-,an aria C; rcr. 1. Chairman. An er? low.-e nosicined a poziticn at South Louis--r=lis Shops :.:1o fails to r·P0o^t to t:.a po::=tion cn the el'recr-iv= date of aasi(-frent, or as othcrwi;:. arranced with thg L!:'; officer having jurisdiction at thxt ?cc_tion, except undef eircurrmtzn=es heyonci his control, shall forfeit protce'.ien as set forth ;n Article 1, Scctien 6 of the yew York Docic'Conditions.


(c) The junior Clenwood e.tployce(s) will be assiGr.:!d in accordance With parar,raph (r) until tile positio:1(s) a: a either filled or until the e.;.ploycu: described in suds ?ara6raph (b) are cahaustcd.


(d) In the event employees at Clcnwood fail to ac:ept positions to which th:y are entitled at South Louisville Shops, such unf;:led positio:lz shall then accrue to the employees at the latter location . Pra:tions then unrillcd will be filled by rceall of furlouChed employees, if say, s.r,d ::yen by new hire.


5. (a) Frraloyees accepting positions at South Lou:r-:illa o-1 the L:N will have their seniority date, as it aapcars on the Clenw::,d "%3chinist rtostcr, dovetailed on the .appropriate roster to which transfcrr·d upon rcnortinG to work, and their rar_o will be romovcd frOrn the Clcnwood Mac: ini: t Rcstcr.'here, TollowinL; this pro.·L.Jurc results in two (2) or more c:~1:;ccs having tire same seniority date on tho dovetailed rortcr, their re=pcct_ve positions on Vic rostev will re deter;4incd by continuou. service standing a::s t: cn by age, oldest tit


(b) Cr:rloyccs transferring to South Loui:°.vil_= will bo a.sirncd pOaitions in accordance v!.th the bulletins advertising ;ositions.

6. In order that the provioions of tho first p:oviso set forth in Article I, Scetion 3 of the tfcw York Dock conditions may be propter·ly adainistered, such cmployco detcrmincd to be a displaced or .dismissed crployee as a rcault of this Agreement; who alzo is otherwise clir

,iblc for protective bcn·fits and conditions under zone other job s·_curity or other protective conditic-s or arrangcw=nts atLall, within ten (10) day r. aftc: notification of his ==etary protective entitl·:rzant under the New York Dock Conditions, elect bst::ccn the benefits thercuridcr and similar bencf=is under --uch other arranrement. In the c-rcat an emplo;ce does not make an elecl:ion within the ten (10) day period specified herein, he shall be considered to have clectcd to retain the protective benefits he in presently cl:Cible to raceive. This election sh311 r-of =crve.to alter or afi'cct any a:alicaticn of tho substantive provision3 of Article I, Section 3.


7. (a) Euch disaissed employee shall provide cithcr n40 or LV! with the followinin:oj·-._-tWn for ti-,,% precedinS month in %jhich he is entiLled to bene fits ro later than the tcat.h (10th) day of cach :subsequent co::th on a standard form provided by the Carrier:






(b) rn the event an e:nployee referred to in this Section 7 is entitled to uner_aloyzent be;iefits under applicable laze but forfeits such uncmploynent benefits under r--Iy uiicrplomcnt in=urnnee law because of his cr her failure to file for sue: ur..^r..~loy_ch': tz;.efits (unle:a prcvenLcd from doinS so by sickness or other unavoidable causes) for purponcs of the application of Sub-scetion (c) of Ssection 6, t rticle I or tie New York Dock Conditions, they shall be considered the s;ae as if they had filed for, and recoivcd, such unermploymcnL benefits.


(a) If the ecaloyce refcrres to in this Section 7 `ax nothing to report under this Secticn 7 account of their rot being entitled :o bC;lCflL3 under any uncmp loynCnt iWW:-ar-ca law and having no carninea froti :ny other employment, such cm, loyce s~111 au;.-.jit, within the time period provid:d for in Sub-cetion (a) of thi3 Scctio.1 7, on Me aapropriatc form annotated "N,2thinc to Report.".

(d) The failure of any employee rcfcrrcd to in 013 Section 7 to pro vide the information required in this Section 7 shall moult in the vithhuldingof all protective benefits during the month covered by such information ponds bn

Carrier's receipt of such information from the cmployce.

8. NothinC 7.n this inplcrP-inting a(:recmcnt shall be intcrpretcd to provide protective bwefi'to le=o than those provided in the ticv York Dock Corisition3 or exclude eoverare to those covered by few York Dock Conditicns lmpozed by the Z.C.C. and incorporated herein by paragraph 1.


Q. The provisions o! this Agreement shall become effective upon ten (10) days advance written notice by the biO and L6:1 to their raspectiva Ceneral Chairman.