DAVID Do -ICS ..

)7) IIOATN Y-CM-CAN .VCNUC

Mr. J. D. Ger esux, Carrier Kember. 1:orfolt and Western Railway Company 8 North Jefferson Street Roanoke, Vi rtinia 24042 Nor. D. E. Col 1 i ns, Crganiza ti on !!ember resident, A-ae;-ican Train Dispatchers Association 1401 South Harlem Avenue Berwyn, Illinois 60402 GentIErEn:

`71`

y- 5~ ~'z'` w.ei·r.TOR 4J( Op..'~LLl '~2 CN-C.40. wLPNOis soot LcrNONC aaane July. 20, 1983 Re: American Train Dispatchers Association and Norfolk and Western Railway Company Furc·er AC&Y Train Disretchers -Enclosed to each c_° you is a copy o! my cropused fineir.-ZE, award, and i.^_plementinc aE-eement In the dispute suL·=_tted to the Consolidated Arbitration Cc7zittee under the ;.Ereezent :rtwaen the parties dated ·'.p^il 12, 1903. I he·:e car afully road and stadied sll submissions, replies tl:e:·etc, rebuttal c:ie^s end volurzincus exhibits. Aithc;:Eh 7 .`%ave checked and rechecked any writings, there very well =.as :.a errors of dates, references and rIsspellings. If you will call or write me of these, I will czke the neccssa_-y nor recticne. Fieese advise me at your earliest convenience if the findinCe, the award and the linplezanting agreement &^e acceptable to both of you. If so, I will sign three copies and mail them to you for your signatures. Should either or both c_^ you desire an executive session., please Live re several alternate dates when you are both available and I will do my best to accommodate you. Vc-~-y truly Sours. DD/eh enclosures ATOA photocopies made 7/21/83 for; Mr. R. E. Johnson Mr. G. P. MacDougall ---4PMr. J. C. Spinelli. Gen. Chmn. ACSV dN)Mr. E. C. Nye. Jr., Gen. Chmn. WALE N4 DAVID D0I1dICK PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A CONSOLIDATED ARBITRATION COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED BY THE PARTIES IN AN AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 12, 1983 PART] S American Train Dispatchers Association TO Tilt DISPUTE: and Norfolk and Western Railway Company QUESTIONS BEFORE TIC CONSOLIDATED ARBITRATION C0107ITTEE: Question rl Those submitted by the Organization: Is the merger of the AC&Y into NW azong the possible YE !5 future related transactions referred to in recital V and Section 2 of the January 10, 1962 Agreement? Cuestion 72 Does the WJPA apply to all of NK's Train Dispatchers in the A:cron and Brewster, Ohio offices who swill be Y~J affected by NW's proposed elimination of the (former AC&Y) train dispatching facility at Akron, Ohio and coordination of same into NW's train dispatching facility at Br, ewster, Ohio? Q:jestion ,74,'3 If the answer to Question rl above is in the aff it=ative, do Sections 1 and 2 of the January 10, '_962 Agreement contemplate application to all of NW"s Train Dispatchers in the Akron and Brewster, Ohio offices who will be affec d by the changes proposed in tfri's Septe=ber 29, 1982 no6ice, including protection based on coeensation received (and hours worked) in the twelve calendar month period ir,=.ediatelY preceding the nontch h affected by suc c in whi ~nges? Question #$ Question +5 For the purpose of application of the January 10, 1962 Agreement to train dispatchers affected by the changes proposed in NW's September 29, 1982 notice, shall the term "general locality", as it is used in Section 1(b) of the January 10, !962 Agreement and in the Memorandum of Understanding referred in Question #5 below, be defined as an area within twenty-five (25) miles from an employe's point of employment as train dispatcher on the date so affected? Under the provisions of Paragraph 5 of one of the I 'emo. -anda of Understanding attached to the January 10, 1962 Agreement, reading: "5. In construing the last paragraph of Section 1(b) of said Agreement concerning the right of the Norfolk & :estern to transfer the work of the eszloyees protected under said A-zree-ent, it is clearly understood and agreed t:-:at the Ncrf ol:c & Vestern may not transfer any e-plovee (as distinguished fro= work) to another ~Ob Within his craft or class beyond the =az.e general locality as his point of a=:o;-ment or. t::e date affected without the consent of his IE:.^eSentat=v'e and that the refusal or such .representative to agree to the transfer or such e=.plo,~ee without the emplcyee's consent snal_i not be sub:ect to arbitration as provided in EECtiOn 1(d) of this Ag:,rzement." =ay !-N unilaterally require any Train D_Sratcher r^otected by the January 10, 1962 Agreement and affected by the coordination of the f or --er j~CfY train di£;atchinr facility into tie NW facility at B-ewster, G`a o, to transfer to a fob beyond the general locality of his Em-.1G-tent on the date he is affected by said coordination in order to maintain eligibility for Laxim.;m co=sensation protection? Question l#'6 Question 7 Are ail of NW's Train Dispatchers in the Akron and - Brewster, Ohio offices who will be affected by NW's proposed elimination of the former AC&Y train dispatching facility at Akron, Ohio and consolidation of same into NW's train dispatching facility at Br, ewster, Ohio, entitled to receive no less favorable 'than =hose required by the ICC in Finance Docket Nfl_ 2q805 (i.e. New York Dock-II) in connection with AC&Y's corporate merger-T-nTo-Rn on or about January 1, 1982? If the answer to Question #6 above is in the affirmative, is ftv' required to negotiate with ATDA towards an implementing agreement with respect to application of the terms and conditions of New York Dock-II pursuant to (Article I) Section 4 thereof? ..-hcse siibml tted by the Carrier: ,,.-eation r3 Z:~:1:!1, _f an-,, of N1.1- t-rain dispatchers in the Akron. C!.^.iC and z:^e'e:$te-^, )tic offices who will be adversely 2ffeC.e~_ b}' T~-e:' S Pi.='.c ti On of the fo-^-er hCSy train d-sT.ctChinC facility at ;.;:-on, Ohio and the consolidat=G:1 of the sari°_ into NW's t-rain dispatching facility at °_^e.:ster,' Ohio will be entitled to the_p;jgt ections afforded under the merger protection agreement of of J2nt:~: y 10, 1952? ._-.. _-, Are the ?;y w_ York -Dock _II Conditions, iercsed by the 3C.' in Finance Dp:Y.et Nc. 2 o3 5, involving the rerger of AC&Y into ?:h for ccr.-crate simplification, applicable to the consolidation of offices described in eues.-ro_n 1 above? (a) If the answer to q-Westion 2 is negative, does the Implementing Agreement proposed by the Carrier which is attached to its submission, meet the criteria set forth in Section 1(b) of the January 10, 1962 MergerAgreement and in the Washington Job Protection Agreement of May, 1936 as amended by the parties for the purposes of the said January 10, 1962 Agreement, in effecting the transfer of the train dispatching office and territory of the Akron District, former Akron, Canton do Youngstown Railroad, Akron, Ohio to the train dispatching office at Brewster, Ohio as described in the Carrier's notice of September 29, 1982? (b) If the answer to (a) is "No", what terms would be appropriate for application in this particular case? PRELD.INARY STATD~NT: She AWerican Train Dispatchers Association is herein referred to as the "Cr~Canization", the Norfolk and Western Railway Co=zany is herein referred to 2s the "Carrier" and sometimes as ~1:~ r ."~ Oy vhE Ne.WC:'c. ':~1:~n ~_..ec^ _nt dated April 12, 1083, wherein .':~ 1:~ o ,., ~ n ~:.zar ties estatlish ed the Corzolidcted ~rt'itrcti~ Co =ttee and ,efined the =ss'.;es and proccd;res tterE'-rider is herein referred to as the "AgrEEzenz" The A_recn_nt arose because o_` a disrute, w:,ich is the a~?icat'eht cfst stated in ty- of ~ted _n tne ;z=ee= eht.ras tc _?i (1) -:e Wzshincton Jot f:0tCction AEreenent of May, ~C~S ("h,'ZA") Grid the "Azr eE.7zent Effec==ve .'an-a^v 10, _9-2 and =our Attac-e^ Memoranda of Un-4ercta-ndin7 For Protection of Emplcvees in .-.vent of -·;rc,v21 of Me^Eer and Related !~zlications 7!led by Norfolk and '':estern Fairway CG.`..pany and other Car=1E.^s in I.C.C. -inance Doc~:et Nos. 21510, 2!511, 21r-12, 21513 a_nd 21~14 " f.`Icrit:cr}' 10, 10-2 i;G:`e°- ent"), and (2) the employee protective conditions required by the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC") in connection with the merger of the former Akron, Canton and Youngstown Railroad ("AC&Y") into NW in ICC Finance Docket No. 29805 (New York Dock Ry-Control-Brooklyn Eastern Dist., 36o I.C.C. 60, 80-94 (1979) ("New York Dock-II") to the proposal contained in NW"s notice dated September 29, 1982 announcing intention to transfer the train dispatching office and territory under the jurisdiction of the AC&Y train dispatching office at Akron, Ohio to the NW train dispatching office at Brewster, Ohio. The Consolidated Arbitration Committee consists of th: ee me-bers. 1r. J. D. Ge: eaux is designated as the Carrie^ ._~-.:.cr, M._^. D. r. Collins is designated as the Cr-ganization mcntter - _ c.^.t·.^. .rcvid':.!fMCk .~5 C°SiCPct°d cs the C~a.._..^..=_n and :.f'u_.^C :___. IPurs-,;ant to -he t:.r ov15_Cas O° the Ag"E°_=ent, each par _ -:.c-ed written su_.-_ASsiC·ns and exhibits, exC'an_Ed CG:ies and a2se ~.ent copies to the Chat -an and neutral __zter. G. hearinx before '.he Conso21dsted ..c.'c.~a~t~r referred to as the $1nrbltraz=Gn C.'. !:znday, !-'ay 2, 29'53, _n Hotel =Canci:e i1: ed -ear t_es, _r..^!.:c_ _ the ::.e-bers e^ t:,e t.r._~:a__c.. e3-:'1 tear i, Part-ctpated if: z.':: ='JC-=C:C~ r~.:ed -.s cosition. Also, purs-,;ant to Paragraph 6 o!' the E=ree ~e~ each Pa: ty elected and did submit pest hearing briefs wilhin --he tine limits therein provided. .~__.;,ee, ::ere present., and each s::-.;=and BACKGROUND FACTS: On Marcb 17, 1961, Carrier filed a joint application with the Interstate Commerce Commission, hereinafter referred to as "ICC", under Section 5 (a) of the interstate Commerce Act for Authority to mere properties and franchises of The New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as "NKF'", into NW, to lease lines of railroad and certain franchises of othe!a properties of the Vabash Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the "Wabash" and to accomplish other related t:^ansactions. This application was assigned ICC Finance Docket Nos. 21510, 21511, 21512, 21513, and 21514. S=et=ce '.*areafter the Carrier entered intc discusscns ^.iE %Y:r.^..^., Car tca &' ',' o-nss town '2i 1 rcaC Cc-Gnu', eferrec tc Z$ ~~`x.l.u. After several :nee`..`.^.=s, no was r eac~Ed. Cn SE: temter 15, '_951, ACLY filed a pet:ticn w-_th the _..I rc^ .Eav a tc in.c-VE-.e and .for inclusion -in ~: a-.:actic.^.. !,'e=tin,-s bE:.:ecn this Carrier and AC-_ i.^. a 2etter dated D:=E=:.E:' .~., -Cr1, t~-is Carrier _.a c° c.'. cf Vie:' ..c :., __ to pL;rc~.ase its s'~a-es or cc-_,on stock. ":is cf f E: was c~CE: ted. do LcCcr.:.E. 11, _aC~, ii.&Y w'-tt':d:'Ek; -t£ '..._.. _ cEI.S..ion filed. with the 1CC. On filed a petition with the -_-CC for the approval of its Purchase of AC&Y common stock. It -.:as approved by the ICC ~n Finance t y_ s r. ft a G; rGG En1. ,Docket No. 21920, on June 24, 1964, and the acquisition of the AC&Y common stock became effective on October 16, 1964. In the same" order dated June 24, 1964, the ICC also approved the merger of properties, leases and franchises in Finance Dockets Nos. 21510, 21511, 21512, 21513, and 21514. All these mergers, acquisitions, leases and franchises also became effective October 16, 1964. Prior to the Dockets, this Carrier its emplbyes, includin Protective Agreement o that Merger Frotective but Section 4 thereof The forEgoin of protection e approval of the above mentioned Finance and a number of organizations representing g this Organization, entered into a Merger n April 16, 1962. The effective care of Agreement is noted therein as January 10, 19u2, s;.a;,2s the following: G .-=resents an azrcE,^. settlement ^. of the interests of the E=Dloyees o^ the ca-r_E^ 1.-.vol':Ed in '.`.E acre-described t:c::ScCWCnS e5 ."Ep:'ESEntECyb1' c ....:nG:=:eC and __^ECC_f._:eC bc:'ti'_nW _ "ErrC .°.E.'1va- tiVES SiS73i.C_^y r.E: Ei.C, rl:.^S''-~cn+.. v0 i(2) O: the 5:7:.EI'S'.ct2 CO.'-3rCe ~,Ci. c.'.'.. ct^._.'.1iCcj.`je provisions Or the Railway LauG_^ i.Ct, 8S a-ended, which shall `..cCGze 2pplicab7E cnly in the event of c; f_^CVcl by .h°_ CC -=SS~C:n _.''W CC.'.5'-=-._~:G:1 C~ any or 211 Cf "':°_ c~CVE-~_=_--c.2C c=-:.-Cc t=G^s now Fcr,c=-= tE"C:'e 3:. __ .s:·.asi ~E cers_Cc: EG and CC.`:~:. ;:EC 25 c SE, a^cLE cC^cE=_rt bet-,.--en 1;:r.^~C=Y s' 'VES:.E^:. c..'.,. each of the 1cCC_^ G.-_c.'._.:.c:_G.^.E Si~'c.'.G_^y hE.^EtO. n :a° "above- dEsC'r:bEd tra:-.sacttons" and -.he c.,-24C2viOnS" refer t0 t:':° SUbStcne_VE =°SUeS if: I.C.C. -nc:WE Docket Nos. 21510, 21511, 2'12, 21513, and 215?. -'_.^.a-sc° Dc:i:E: No. 21920 is not mentioned ever thGuth the petition ::as .^ilE,-f cn January 10, 1962. In an agreement dated September 22, 1981, The Akron, Canton Ee Youngstown Railroad, an Ohio corporation, was merged into AC&Y Railroad, Inc. (AC&Y), a Virginia corporation. Ch December 24, 1981, with a service date of December 31, 1981, the ICC issued the following NOTICE OF EXEMPTION in Finance Docket No. 29805_ On December 18, 1981, the Norfolk and Western Railway Company (NW) notified the Commission . that its wholly owned subsidiary, The Akron, Canton and Youngstown Railroad Company (Akron) will merge into AC&Y Railroad, Inc. (AC&Y), a wholly owned subsidiary of NW. AC&Y will be the surviving company, and subsequently it will merge into NW, with NW the surviving company. The transactions 2.^e within the corporate family and come within the exemption described at 49 C.F.R. 1111.5 (c) (3). lne mergers will not result in any change in service levels, operations, or the competitive balance with carriers outside the corporate family. The purpose of the mergers is corporate simplification. As a ccndition to use the exemption, any Akron and AC&Y employees affected by the merger shall be protected pursuant to New York Dock .r.-Control-Brooklyn Eastern Dist., jo0 I.C.C. b0 2 19 ). '"his rill satisfy the statutory requirements of 49 U.s.C. 10505 (E) (2). (2-aphasis retained) Pursuant to Section 1(b) o: the Jan;:ary 10, 191? Merger trotEC,.On r._^eez.ent, tf)e Carrier, on September 24, 19E2, EErved notice on the Organization of its intention to close the -:din dispatching office at Akron, Ohio and to assign that work to the train dispatching office at br, ewster, Ohio. ''his notice s:agested that the parties meet and negotiate an implementing agreement. 1983, the Conferences between the parties followed. On January 14, - t Organization wrote to the Carrier, in part, as follows: This is to formally serve notice of our desire to enter into an implementing agreement with respect to NW's proposal referred to above, under the provisions of Section 5 of the Washington Job Protection Agreement of May, 1936, Section 1(b) of the "Agreement Effective January 10, 1962 and Four'Attached Memoranda of Understanding for Protection of Employees In Event of Approval of Merger and Related Applications Filed by Norfolk and Western Railway Company and Other Carriers in I.C.C. Finance Docket Mos. 21510, 21511, 21512, 21513, and 21514° and Appendix III, Section 4 of the' employee protective conditions (New York Dock Ry.=Control-Brooklyn Eastern Dist., 3bO I.C.C. b5; 4- 1 required as part of the ultimate merger of the AC&Y into the N'd (ICC Finance Docket No. 29805) on or about January 1, 1982, for the protection of a11-Train Dispatchers - affected by said proposal. In a letter dated February 9, 1983, the Carrier submitted 'he following question to an Arbitration Committee established ru^ruant to Section 1(d) of the January 10, 1962 Merger Protection Agreec.ent (a) Does the implementing agreement pro.-tsed b3· the Carrier, attached as Carrier's '.·_,x::_c_t "C" ceet the criteria set forth in Sectic·^· ? (b) of the Jars::ary 10, 1962 Merger Agreement sac in the ?:ashington job Protection Agreement o may, 1936 as amended by the parties for the pu^peses of the said January 10, 1962 Agreement, in effecting the transfer of the train cis;.a; c~:_ office and -territory of the Akron District, fo Wer Akron, Canton & 5·oungstown Railroad, Akron, Ohio to the train dispatching office at Brewster, Ohio as described in the Carrier's notice of September 29, 1982? (b) If the answer to (a) is "No", what terms would be appropriate for application in this particular case? The Organization responded in two letters both dated February 24, 1983. In the letter that refers to Carrier's letter of September 24, 1982, and which implies knowledge of Carrier's letter dated February 9, 1983, the Organization wrote, in part, as follows: Because of our dispute as to the application and or interpretation of the WJPA and January 10, 1962 Agreement regarding changes proposed in your notice, this is formal notification under the provisions of Section 1(d) of the January 10, 1962 A_reement to refer such dispute to an arbitration co=dttee for decision. In addition, because of our similar dispute as to the concurrent application of the New York Dock II pursuant to NC Finance Docker NO. 29505, this is also formal notification under the provisions of (Appendix III, Article I) Section 11 of New Fork Dock-II to refer this dispute to an arbitration. committee for decision. In order for timely and efficient resolution of these disputes, this is to request your agree-ment to refer them to a single consolidated arbitration cc`ittee, rather than two separate cc~ t tees . .. 'ne ltcreement of April 12, 1953, pr eviously referred to, followed. POSITION OF TIM PARTIES: Organization The position of the Organization is as follows: 1. Sections 1(c) and 1(d) of the January 10, 1962 Agreement are applicable to AC&Y employes under Section 2 of that Agreement. 2. Under the June 24, 1964 ICC orders which were consummated on October 16, 1964, the Carrier took into its employment, as of the latter date, all train dispatchers except those of the P. C&Y. 3. Similarly, the Carrier assumed all Train Dispatchers' Agreements as of October 16, 1964, except the one with AMY. 4. The merger Of AC&Y into 1.^.-: is among the possible future merger transactions provided for in Section 2 of the January 10, 1962 Agreement.' 5. The elimination of the train dispatchin_ office at Akron, Ohio and the transfer or consolidation of th:e work into Ca crier's facility at Brewster, Ohio is a "coordination" within the meaning and intent of Section 2(a) of the WashinEtc-. Job ~ctec:ic:-: AE^ee-ent. -=.e date of hire or promotion is _. relevant to the application of the `VJPA, except as otherwise yrc':ided in Section 7 thereof. The VJ FA, ther efore, applies to all of Carrier's train dispatchers who will be affected by the closing of the Akron, Ohio office and coordinating the operation into Carrier's office in Firewster, Ohio. 6. The Carrier did not take AMY train dispatchers~.ijEo its employment until December 31, 1981, when the ICC issued a Notice of Exemption in Finance Docket No. 29805. The merger between AC&Y and NY was not consummated until January 1, 1982. C For more than 18 years following October 16, 1964, AC&Y was separately operate . It follows that all AMY train dispatchers affected by Carrier's changes proposed on September 29, 1982, are covered by the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the January 10, 1962 Agreement, "including protection based on compensation received (and hours worked) in the twelve calendar month period immediately preceding the month in which affected by such change". 7. It is also the Organization's position that any transfer of train dispatch=ers by reason of the jnr:-AC&Y merger should be defined as "an area within twenty-five (25) miles from an ezploye's point of employment as defined in Section 51(c) of the June 28, 1968 Im=leMenting Agreement which interprets the 1=r=uace in Section (b) of the January 20, 1962 Agreement. S. Pirther, '''v is the position of the Organization -fat the Cc r_^_Er =ay not l:^ _°_.^ rc.^$graph 5 Of a T:°_ :O: cnC_.L O. i.:1~E: £:cnG:c: taC~ed to the ;,c~l::ar~' _=, 1952 Agreement require a train C=spatc'her to transfer ;,c ancther job in his craft or class bevenC the sa=e general local=tl· of his point of erploynent on the date affected without consent of his representative. The Carrier may only transfer work. Any refusal of a representative to agree to an employe's transfer is not subject to arbitration under Secticb l(c of the January 10, 1962 Agreement. 1 9. The WW-ACdcY "control" ended December 31, 1981. The "merger" or AMY Into NW was consummated on January 1, 1982. The consolidation or the Akron and Brewster facilities is not taken pursuant to 'control" but rather under the "merger". This is supported by iCC's order of December 24, 1981, with a service date of 'December 31, 1981, which required that New York Dock-I1 employe protective conditions be applied. The application of the benefits in New York Dock-1I is not intended to duplicate those In the WJFA and in the January 10, 1962 Agreement, "but only that the protective benefits should be no less favorable to the affected Train Dispatchers than those provided in any of the arrangements (=~hss:s retained). 10. Carrier is.reouested to negotiate with the Organization for an implementing agreement concerning t'.^.°_ application o_" the terms tend conditions o: the New York DOQ'~--- ree.:_rezents. Carrier The.position of the Carrier is as follows: v (a) The protection of benefits afforded by the New York Dock conditions are not applicable "because there is no causal connection between the intended changes and the ICC order approving the merger of the AC&Y into MI for corporate simplification purposes". It was not the 1982 merger of the AC&Y and NW that precipit4ted the consolidation of the Akron and Brewster train. dispatching facilities. This consolidation would have occurred in any event because the Carrier has the right to do so under the January 10, 1962 AEree::ent. This is not a "transaction" within the =easing and coverage of New York Dock-II. ~ The p: oposed consolidation is soleiv attributable to the conditions of the Janery 10, 1962 Agreement, v;hich was consun=.aced on October 16, (b) The operations of AC&Y and hW "have been increasingly ccc--,=mated since 1964 ". Since 1964 the AC&Y and 1: r.' .have been c::_^a;.=nG as a single system. This is recognized by ;.he _CC c,4-er _n Finance Docr:at 2;::01,~ dated DecE=:.er 24, lc°_:. ~'._re, :.'.= ' ^Opcsed chc-.=es were not con.te-:laced o.^ tci:ell f.::rS::c.':.`. t0 t*-at :CC order. (c) L--pioyes hired after October 16, 1964, a== not entitled to benefits under the January 20, 1962 Merger Protection Agreement because Section 1(b) limits these benefits to "f-resent employes" as of January 10, 1962 up to and including October 16',~' 1964. This is so even though the actual merger of AC&Y into NW a ri did not take place until January 1, 1982. Those hired after October 16, 1964 are not "present employes". The consolidation of the Akron and Brewster dispatching offices was not taken under the authorization or approval of ICC Finance Docket No. 29805. (d) Recital Y and Section 2 of the January 10, 1962 Merger Agreement consider the merger of the AC&Y Into NW as a possible transaction. Two other possibilities are contemplated in the language. One is the "control" of the AC&Y acquired by the Ire on October 16, 1964. By the acquisition of the AC&Y c_pital stock, the MW had "control" as provided in the January 10, 9E2 !'.erger lbreement. In the alternative it also "leased" the C%Y =,roperties which has the same effect. (e) Carrier is under no obligation under any agreement to offer r:JPA protection to affected former AC&Y employes. If the :;J?f applies to such affected employes then neither the january 10, _=12 l-:e:ger Agreement nor the few York Dock. Condit_cn= a:a ~t~l_cabie _..e te-=s and rrcce_::res o: all three cannot be ecnc;:-_ -.-.c1:: «-!·__ee. (f) Carrier's proposal does not contenpl«e :he :.:-ansfer c.^ train dispatchers "beyond the _cenera3;=c_-_:.: c_° h_s e==lc;-.ent ...". Brewster is not beyond the Eeneral loca?_ty cf ~.::ro (g) The intent and purpose of the January 10, 1962 t Merger Agreeipent Is to indemnify an employe against lost wages r when he is unable to work or receives less compensation due to coordination. An erploye who refuses placement is entitled to no protective pay. DISCUSSION AND OPITffONs . This decision, including the preliminary statement, the position of the parties, the discussion and opinion, the findings, the award and the implementing agreement is exclusively the work of the neutral me=ber of the Arbitration Committee. Fe alone bears the sole responsibility for all that is herein written; he alone initially reached all of the conclusions and answers to cuestio=.s presented by the parties; he alone prepared the au-and and the implementing agreement. It is his sincere hope that his findings, his award and his implerjenting aF,eement will be acceptable to both parties and that the partisan mernbers o_" the A^titration Cc-==`--ce vill indicate their assent thereto. At c ==r=~.:7, he 1.=11, ~':Q::Et'er, repretfu2ly accept the azscnt :hereto c -e part1scn =e-ber Q: the %r!,itrc~lon Co=4_..t°.°.. O_ the three e.estions proposed by the C~^==E~ a.^.:. SE'.c~: C::ESy...,_G..^.5 r2;SEQ by the O-^&cniZa`v.iOn, the 1''_-^5t an~ per-'a--s t::e nest important issue before the r.^bi tration Cc -__-jY_J__e i s whether or not the train dispatchers of the former ACx-Y .:ho ::ere hired after October 16, 1964 and before January 1, 1982, who malir be adversely ~a.ffected by the elimination of the Akron, Ohio ~s dispatching office and the coordination of the same into NW's train dispatching office at Brewster, Ohio, are entitled to protective benefits under Merger Protection Agreement dated January 10, 1962? The answer to that question, after a careful and, exhaustive study of all of the voluminous written data presented by the parties and the oral arguments at the hearing, is "yes". Al1~fo:;mer AC&Y train dispatchers in active service on January 1, 1982 are entitled to protective benefits under the ?;erger Protective Agreement effective January 10, 1952. Item V of the January lO, 1962 Merger Protection reads as follows: . certain other applications may be later filed path the Coznission under Section 5(e) of the Act involving the lease, control by or mercer into Norfolk & Western of the Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad Company and Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway or transactions ray be undertaken by the carrier heretofore ra:.ed inducing Nickel Plate and Wabash in"cl-ving the diver lion of I?abash traffic frog the Canadian ::GtiCnal Railway t0 ?%iCk21 F1EtE, C_" the diversion o.^ Nickel Plate PassEn:E^ operations ^:c= the LzSelle Street Sta:_._. (hock Island Lines) in Chicago, Illinois^~c =aE Chicago and T:2Stern T17G_caa nail^Cad (:cc_'_:.':1 Street Station), Chicago, Illinois, v:h_c· applications c: transactions :ay have adverse effects upon enoloyees represented by :h. la-'.,cr organizaziors parties hereto, the extent tc which is not now determinable. Transmittal letters dated December 11, 1961 and December 18,.1961, from Carrier's Assistant General Counsel to~ NW Senior Vif President John P. Fishwick merely state 'in each case that drafts of labor agreements are enclosed. Presumably, these were preliminary drafts of the Merger Protective Agreement which later became effective January. 10, 1962. In a letter dated December 27, 1961 to Mr. Stuart T. Saunders, NW President, Mr. Fishwick wrote that "Section 2 is to be rewritten in consultation with Mr. Hicket in order to clarify its meaning ... this section is intended to limit employment protection to employees of the N & W, Nickel Plate and Watash and, in addition, the Av C&~ and Pittsburgh West Virginia in the event that the applications under Sections 5(a) are approved". his, says the Carrier, c? ear 1y indicates "that, at the time this language eras drafted, the Carrier uas referring only to its contezp2ated control through =.zeck oi,..-.ership and not to some hypothetical post aer ger transaction as n:-;; contended by the Organization". k-natever the contemplation Or _.:~c.':~ these -letters do not determine the intent of the r-arties. -:':_=-_..re=,:esent no -utual agreement. For additional s*wpport, Carrier quotes ^=G= a 2etter date-` G:tcber 10, 19541, from Mr. rish-,%·ick to the GG.-.era: Cha___ar G= :.^.° Brother hood of 'Elli;ay Tr ainren wherein 1:.^. 7-4=::'w-CS!, referring to the Sale item v, states that '·7I:° ap-2icatiC.'l5 referred to relates to stock. control of AMY and lease of P&HVr and the trap actions referred to are 'the transfer of f7abash trace from Canadian Railways to Nickel Plate and the diversion of Nickel passenger trains from LaSalle Street to Dearborn Street. There is nothing in this paragraph which indicates in any way that a separate application is required for either of those transactions (Emphasis retained). Aside from the fact that this letter is a self serving document, it is significant that the control or AMY is not a "transaction". Oaly the transfer of Wabash traffic and the diversion of Nickel Plate passenger trains are "transactions" which do not require additional applications to the ICC. Ca..rrier agrees that AC&Y employes are covered under the :;anua^y 10, 1952 Me^ger f:g^eement, but only those who here in active service on October 16, 1964. Although 1 %'W acquired the capital stock o^ AC&Y on or at-out .Lecember 11, 1961, and the acquisition b:a$ az~roved by t::? ?CC =n F=narice Docket 13o. 21920 on June 24, 1054, t:.e :act is ..'.a~ t::e AviY _rE=?ined a se'arate and dfst=l:ct en:t~t~ '.;ntil r. 1, 1932. It re=_=ned an Ohio corporation ~.-.'il on cr atr_t September 22, 1961 and a Virtinia ecrpcrat_cn aS ;C__ :-.al 1r oad, .Inc., until on or about December 31, 1931. ':W a_id I,C -ailr·oad, Inc. merged on January 1, 1982 after the ICC issued its order in Finance Docket No. 29805. -20- As cu-ner of the AC&Y capital stock, NW obviously had authority to direct the operation of that railroad as it deemed best to its Interest. It did so, by electing officers of AC&Y who appointed operating personnel to carry out the appropriate orders and directives. It is i=aterial that NW supervisors were _ yI1.Yi~. _1i .n~ .n.n.~r assigned to operate AC&Y facilities or that a single time table was issued. The fact remains that all train dispatchers remained employes,of AC&Y and not of NW. They worked and were paid under the rules of the schedule agreement between AC&Y and ATDA. The loiryt time table was merely a ,joint venture between two rail-GaC rir.ge 't_'.ef_ts, G^ ;.e. ..a_r.:~ t..e: etc, -!;' a5 L. cv: of w7ar.-.;ary 10, a97'12 W l= vi:: c. on This agreement is signed by Carrier representatives, by the Organization's President and by four (4) General Chairmen, each, representing \tAin dispatchers on the aforementioned railroads. Not included in this implementing agreement are the train dispatchers who were working for the AC&Y. The reason is obvious. They .were e.-nployes .of_.i.he_AC&Y. They were not employes of NW on October 16, 1964; they ::are not employes of NW on June 28, 1968, they first became employes of M: on January 1, 1962. before that last date the ?X did not exercise "control" over them, -:or did the 1;:: as a corporate entity 'control" the operation o: %Lie ACIY within 'Ile -_canlnz end intent of teG 1' of the C= ,.'~-..:a^~' i0, ? _ _~ ?'e- her . ^ctEc;ien E.c^;.==~nz. . c. _. Ca= m=:z-ed Into !;-W or lesSad by !7% c'.' the hC&Y. Only than did the !;:.' have _ 22_ the locations at Akron and Brewster, Ohio. From October 16, 1g when the ICq,apgroved NW's petition to purchase AC&Y common st , r until January 1, 1982, when ACgY merged into NW, NW did not "control" the AC&Y as contemplated in the January 10, 1962 Merger Protective Agreement. Train dispatchersof_1'ormer AC&Y are covered by the January 10, 1962 Mercer Protective Agreement. Section 2 of said Agree--Bnt reads as follows: 7t is further ac: eed that 211 of the provisions set forth in Section 1(a) of this f,_reE=Ent rEspECt!ng Y,otection to be af: crded e_r_cyes in the evEr.t e.^ z:e^ze^ of' Nickel Fit=a _r. ;,c ?:C._C:k L :-=E: c_^t. s1--'a2! e>:CC-.=t as :.o E..=_c~.=a -r.to_;=~ _.-. Ec=.. C. _ 23_ With certain additions and modifications as they appeIr in Section *and Section lib) of the January 10, 1962 Merger .r T Protection Agreement, the Washington Job Protection Agreement of 1936, as provided in Section 1(a) of that January 10, 1962 Merger Protection Agreement, applies and covers train dispatchers of former AC&Y in active service on January 1, 1982. This includes all who have been promoted to train dispatchers as of January 1, 1982 It follows that the twelve month "test period" is the twelve months =zr-ediately affected by the change. Tine C:car-jjzat._on contends that the tar= "general local~'y" as la '_n _i _ (b) Gr _,. I_s .:sec 2Se:__c.. _ .he _an..a^r _C, 1:~E2 1:erg=^ =:.;, a^ea ::=-.=.-. _. _.. .-._:__ (2j) ~__es thereof that "The Committee shall make findings and render a written award with respect to each dispute listed". Question NOTE heretofore quot9d, Is listed by the Organization. The Arbitration Committee is obligated to answer this question. Carrier states that the distance between the train dispatching offices at Akron and Brewster is 34 miles. It cites precedents wherein The Disputes Committee in Docket No. 18 held that under the WJPA a distance of 48.68 miles did not require a change in residence and Award 421 of Special Board of AdJust=ent ;:o. 6r15 held that a distance o_° 43 c.=las of co=-uting did not aq.are a chirze'in re_de.~ce. in i.;:ard 422 o_" Special, _.. _: d C_^ rc~-s:-..:.. .';c. -25- area within twenty-five miles from an employe's point of employment as train dispatcher on the date affected". Hut the June 28, 19 Agreement doles dot cover AC&Y train dispatchers for the reasons heretofore stated. AC&Y did not merge into N&W until January 1, 1982 Ts.-enty-five (25) miles may not be a proper and precise definition of "general locality" with respect to former AC&Y train dispatchers. .The parties need to consider the circumstances of the train dispatchers at AC&Y locations to determine an equitable definition. The next item discussed is an example. In another Mcnor andi:W of Un,=_rstandingg also executed c.-. : a.-.,:ary 10, -=2, any at'.~c..=a to ~..e ~ar.::ar~ 10, 1952 ?.'°r~Er _< :a-a=rah = :.._-~_. . ea_; as < o-_ , ows: E..lcye (as c_s'. .:cr~:) '_c ~.c~e^ fob xith=n ~_s cry.":. cr cl.rs `.=;o-,, ;,?:E sa-ne sEr.Era= _ecs_~-_ as c: v.i_^^vJ`h n0 fault Cf f=s own, he E3_rS iE£S i.'._.'. ..__ .'._W.=_ -26- work hours been available or through no fault of his own is unable to work due to coordination. It is not the intent of th-f Agreement for as employe to receive protective pay when a job assignment within his class or craft is available to him and he voluntarily refuses to accept that assignment. The parties in negotiations and in mutual agreements set the rules when, how, and under what circumstances protective benefits are available. Section 1(b) of the January 10, 1962 Rcreemeht provides that the Carrier has the right to transfer the, wcrf, of the protected emL2Oyes "th=-G'.;zhOUt the rerted or consolidated it p-Gl'_Ges tray the v. ~c.._~-_O~ v1ll. Co0,e:-ate arid =ft -__-=-a _ ___~ -~.al- nay s n O_ i.~uC3.^S~c-. -2T- are not involved in that Memorandum of Understanding. The merge of AC&Y into.Nh' did not occur until January 1, 1982, after the ICC approved Finance Docket No. 29805. Whatever may have been the employment conditions of the train dispatchers who were aSfected by the approval of the five Finance Dockets first above mentioned, they may or may not have been comparable to those train dispatchers who nay be affected by the coordination of the Akron and Brewster train dispatching offices, which are only 14 miles apart. To Per=it AC,--v a:=3oyes to deliberately : ef',_:se a ' tc another nc'Zed cS.d CGnsc_=,__tcd £y'ster woild do tlE .'._ _=_ _ - -. ..r n - -~ lf`G^ .C t. __ _._n_ C: ~~ia~ is C"i'~ated t0 _C :E-CA__Ct____._.. . '~a .._..,. _ a _ C G.1 _--~-.7~._ G:'~._.~ rC' alfe=-uate ~h_s .,tcse. ~1 ^'. _ - a.`.c _-c6:stcr a.^° Cn_y 3 G~l e~ c~ c= .. _ 1:G_=d LE i. r . a Cntrary 2o ~:.~ _..'= C_°Es C. ... .: E'- E and totally c:' i_'OtECt=C' -28- The twenty-five mile definition of "general locality" and paragraph 5 of the Yenorandum of Understanding attached to the January 10, 1964Merger Protection Agreement shall apply only to transfers of train dispatchers employed by the former railroads aerged in MI by ICC orders approved in Finance Dockets 21510, 9 e 21511, 21512, 21513, and 21514. Neither should apply to former AC&Y train dispatchers. . Whether or not hew York Dock-II conditions apply to for=er AC&Y train dispatchers depends on whether or not the transfer of train discatch_:g office fro:r Akron to b^ewster, Ohio It, a a ..^E-nsaction" tai:en Pursuant to the IC .... ficp: oval in F=nonce a _ ~Cr.E. N0. =i, t:.e ;c.,~'o?i: and nc-'i"Ied '--e S wh CI_'V' C'r.~EC c y7'--, E~C.~c^\', -29- As a condition to use the exemption, any Akron and AMY employees affected by the merger shall be protected pursuant to New York Dock -Control-Brooklyn Eastern Dist. 3b6 I.C.C. 1 . This shal satis y the statutory requirements of 49 u.s.C. 10505 (g) (2). The proposed transfer of train dispatching from Akron to Brewster was not taken pursuant to the above ICC order in Finance Docket !do. 29805. it is not a "transaction" under the New Yohk Dock-II Conditions. It is, rather a "coordination" permissible in the January 10, 1962 I-larger Protective Agree=ent. . ^':-.e change w:as contezaated long be_'ore December 24, 19?1 and the .':G.,CE v0 CGG: C_.^.2te the two t=2;n C:S'G:ChinC. StctiC:'Ss was to tae -TCC n==rC'ia_ G^ __nciCe ~,.~f:p~ i.0. G,=- c, f :.h e ` a - '-he CGG.^C.i.ncLiO^ O: not an a--t resulting _:-.O I.r~ :c5 y . and -30- FINDINGS: For all of the reasons stated in the Discussion and . Ir Opinion, the'Copsolidated Arbitration Committee makes the following findings: 1. By reason of the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by and between the Carrier and·the Organization on April 12, 1983, this Consolidated Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction to render.a written award on each of the issues raised by each of the parties. 2. On the questions p-resented b5· the Organization as ear c_ jn t yaCy= =tut "~:a ,.il 12c?= t!r,.%0, - :p W: _ OW the n;J- , _. r .BnG. ~.v C: -_'_=ment, :.^e anfi.;a-s O^ t^e Consolidated Ar::traticn C.C-.-~..'-,c _ _ =s _`Gl?GWs: av ~:.wi:~C.s v~C~ Cs . C'_--,-CC lr. ~i (c) To Question #3, the answer is that Sections 1 and 2 of the January 10, 'A2 Agreement apply to all former ACacY train dispatchers in active service on January 10, 1962, or October 16, 1964, or-on January 1, 1982, who will be affected by the changes proposed in 1TW's September 29, 1982 notice, lnclud=.^.z protection Cased on CC=.zensat'_on rECE=':cd (arid hours 1-.C: i:E'C1 -n the ...c_:E ._:En_a_ rsr`L^ c"E-E: G~ T /v eSts M F C T "y. p (E) TO e,..E~tf. Cn _ 32_ (a) To Question #1 the answer is that a_11 former AMY train dispatchers at Akron, -Ohio and Brewster, Ohio offices who were in active service on January 10, 1962 or on October 16, 1964, or on January 1, 1982 .o._.v..~.n^h..1."..y~s...r~w rv w~r.r ~- znd_r:ho will be adversely affected by MI's elimination of the former AC&Y train dispatching facility at Akron, Ohio, kill be entitled to the protections arfG.^GEd under the s.er her protection c: Jan',;a.^S 10, ?g52. :.c :~.==a ~ir.~=-.~s and to the :'-.at a--,7ac'.^.ec S:C::S Or _ C: -33- AWARD Each o; the questions propounded by the Organization r and by the Carer in Attachments "A" and "B" to the Memorandum of Agreement dated April 12, 1983, are answered in accordance with the findings. Attached hereto is an implementing agreement between the parties containing all 'of the terms and conditions discussed above and included in the findings, which by reference is made a part of this award and is valid as if the said terms and conditions of said implementing agreement were verbatim contained in this award. inis imple=enting agreement is valid and becomes f=Seal and binding upon all par t=es G.": :f:° Gate C.° Ei:Ecution O_° :fi=S awa-'d. C:.:SC.===:.=:,D .:=-L=_=,r__0:; IMPID-LNTING AGREEMENT By notice dated September 29, 1982, the Norfolk and Western( Railway Company- hereinafter referred to as "NW") served notice upon the American Train Dispatchers Association (hereinafter referred to as °ATDA") of its intention to transfer the territory under the jurisdiction of the train 'dispatching office at Akron, Ohio (former Akron, Canton k Youngstown Railroad Company ("AC&Y")) to the train dispatching office at Brewster, Ohio, on or about January 2, 1983. '-:e pu: pcse of this ag^Eement is the practical imple=entatlon Of she M5"s SEptE=ter 20, 1GC2 notice and- 'the :z-so---.i1:ion of l._~ ..Es 'hat lave ar_s~- 1T: CC -ECt-cn ~~=~v:_.r.. S, Lj c^,:=. Ca.,°°~ j-n° 2", -.he consolidated system and that the labor organizations will enter r into implementij* agreements providing for the transfer of employees to follow their work and the employees, their organization and the Carrier will cooperate to that end; NOk', TPDrFC-FORE., pursuant to the aforesaid agreement of January 10, 1962, the parties signatory hereto mutually agree that, as pertains to train dispatchers represented by the Organization signatory hereto, the train dispatching office and tern i tory of the Akron District, former ACBY. Akron, Ohio rill be transferred t0 .`.he ~.rcin d=sL2tchinC. office at Brewster, C'Ijo as _ESC.__cC. by Ccr_^=E: 'S nGZ=CE dated $ei:E:J.ber 2_ _, :C and _.._.. ~,_: c:... 7: t ES At tc=.=.=.'.C rrjrr, e;_··'eC.. i.C :!%-= `c1_.. in=: '=:r :..c _.'.cn:e5 described 1T, I-.`.t2C ~-°_rJ~ ~. r:~=~' .. c_ s= a:,c'.^.=rs cn .-e <C&Y District Ci5s,0:.ci:?.^s O: ^iC2 ^OS:.°_r cc n.-.. G.' ccr C J ..he _a ca:,es, s _ _ T _ - _ _ ._ _ t et ! P '°' an.C SU~_ _E~c~.,.EC. .. CCPV Or 5'..iC.. CCz.=_' r. E ~_- _ _ : _'S :Er as it 'r:, ~_ S:c:.Gn :^E effective date O.° the C:.:.'.=°_f u rr n· n CeSC^i"GEC in ~:i.teC.`=c~ f. i5 cttaCh°_d hereto c5 h~:.cC.=.5,. ARTICLE II MW will qualify dispatchers now working in the Akron, Ohio dispatching office on territory on which they are not already qualified as set forth in Attachment "C" attached hereto. ARTICLE III - An employe whose position is abolished or an employe who is displaced as a result thereof will exercise his seniority in accordance with existing rules and 26:EEmEnts. Cr CM G° C4 and affected by th,4--z :`:e be::°_:-.:s r-G-adec f or in 'he E_=-z=Cle for 'yrG:,EC:.=Gr: L~.C~_^ :.!?15 c=rc^==.'nt or protective arrangement(s), such employee shall, .within third (30) days after-they date of this coordination, make an election in writing as to whether he desires to retain the protection and benefits available to him under any of the other agreements or protective arrangements or to receive the protection and benefits provided under the provisions of this agreement. In the event the employee fails to make such election within the said 30-day period, he shall.be dee=ed to have elected the protection and benefits provided under provisions of this agree=ent t0 the exclusion of protection and ~c.'._fi~5 ~:..^.C,e: any o-th?r a_ree-.ert or ar:-an=e=.snt. _.. the event G_° c=:': CC!.=1~C~ Gc....EE~ :~:E C~==_C.^.£ C: .h=S __ ~c-.c.^.. and pr_Cr _ . _C:'°e-'G~EC~'_~E at_'E==.3.'._5 c'.~.7c=c-.nt5, '_~:c ; GS'18_Cns hereof 5~':all Fcvern ac ._c~;.cr5, except for :.·:e election permitte. i n ~^ r _ -'nz an. ass' c. t. ~._. e= r_n~ f= c = c^...o a.^.L~rr 10, lc (2, or Q:tc'.^.er lE, _, case may be, was a work day), all extra employes who were working or were available for service as train dispatcher on January 10Ci or on October 1,6, 1964, or on,January 1, 1982, as the case may be, and who are expected to respond when called for service as train dispatcher. ARTICLE VI This agreement shall be implemented upon fifteen (15) days bulletin board notice to the employees involved, with copy to the general and office chairmen, showing the positions to be abolished, the name end seniority dates of the regular occupants and the date the c =r.=a will be Bade. _____ 7IT t:=^.e^e _,._e~, c:..=. -~-Ee=_:.ts cr r-act_ces C=~l_c _==.:.t :hE 1.: CV_C=C.^:, G_ L::;s ai^E3_Eri: 5^a!2 a=. ~~. Signed at -C_1CkE, \1rginia this _ce l'resiGCnt Vice President September 29, 1982 All Pittsburgh D iv .ion, Akron District, furmer Akron, Canton and Youngstown Railroad (AC&Y) Train Dispatchers All Pittsburgh Division, former Wheeling and Lake Erie (WLE) Traii Dispatchers,, .f Notice is hereby given of the Carrier's intention to transfer the train dispatching office and territory of the Akron District, former Akron, Canton i Youngstown.Railroad, Akron, Ohio, to the train dispatching office at. Brewster, Ohio, on or about January 2, 1983. Concurrent with the above changes, the following positions will be abolished on or about January 2, 1983: Akron, Ohio Position 3st Trick Dispatcher 2nd Trick Dispatcher Relief Present Incumbent W. S. Barnes J. C. Spinelli L. C. Geissman :he territcrv o: the ACLY Dirt=ict extends fro- Delphos, Chic M.P. G, to Mccaccre, G1_o, Y.F. 1E9.1, which will be ass'_cne= :c t..e t__ciri Ci°=~2:ChEr ct .CEV'S:2r, C·i_C 'J:: hanCll.'IC the c5t E.'.C terr=tcrf i.=Cn CC::SC'_:Cct:Cn cf the nl:ron, Ohio Train Di5_a_ch-^= C= -,,to t::e Brewster, Chic' -rain Dispatching Office, t'e ccn._rc___n5 ac_eenen.t will be the :cr-,er Wheeiinc and Lai:e Erie Ac=EEn=n.: _ effective ?rcvEr,.ter 1, 1°47, as amended anc sup:..E-,entec. It i5 a=t_-.atec twenty-two IZ-L) cis=ctcL.SC_° bi'_ ° af`Ec·_° bv t'.^.= above c:.cnce. '=.`.e above c-terct_Cnal cL2'cce :5 .:.2:nC made _..'-'..':E t.'e E_°~C~encV Cf train mcvcment Cn the _:tst.urc- _~'_°1Cr. c- C ~C E=:cot ec--mcm=es c·:Er and abC:'E the _'zE52-t '=:.'·: : C` C...a=-~-.· O. .'_.._e' C'.-.iEf D~--,:;c=.er Chief Train S'_-catcher Attachment "E' NORFOLX AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY Dispatchers - Pittsburgh Division WLLE and Akron District January 2, 1983 Rank Name Soc. Sec. No. Sen. Date Rema 1 Condon, W. G. 705-12-9496 7-05-46 2 Litten, J. R. 286-18-9259 8-24-49 Prom 3 Copeland, R. 705-12-9557 1-19-50 Disb 4 Robinson, P. E. 290-16-4582 5-11-50 5 Huye-tt, W. W. 510-12-6479 10-31-52 Prom 6 F'inley, 14. 0. 235-22-7540 12-11-53 Prom 7 Williams, E. R. 715-10-8980 3-07-55 8 Terry, V. N. 290-25-9977 6-14-60 Disb. 9 urns, W. S.· 301-22-6415 E-1E-61 10 Mentro, R. N 285-34-0941 9-26-61 11 Dcnato, R. J. 27E-2-'.-EE_3 E-:2-62 __ 2.:_eich, D. 1:. 2_°4-:-'.-·cE4 4-17-63 ?rC.-.c _2 S-.lcer, Jr, F. .;. .;GE-1:-i21., 4-29_63 .> Wacccner, V. i. 2:.°-24-E4iG E-__-6E _-`. Cc=S - ~.^., L. C. ':E--~- EC62 _-<~-67 ._ :rc= °r, L`. L. CIl-=E-E_t!. __-_~-C( - ~- :.ell _, .; . C. 2'6-24-C~25 -_-_ -E7 _= 2:.e, Jr., _. ? 27s-3E-4Ei1 .-_.-Et°1 -- _~gc _r, 223-72-7112 ~_~:._70 _ G=av, J. L. 277-3E-EBC2 '.-C:-70 ==G '^ - P:. £. ~00_:2_~iGi --_--i4 __ '~. -, - __ Ga-='_tano, F. P. 262-42-56_6 '-_.-i4 _- .==C_E5. _. i;. -0_-4E-EE.4E .-;.-._ _ _ = c _ _ '. C c - - G E - ' . i · - _ _ - - E i

`71`

y- 5~ ~'z'`

`Question` rl

`is corporate` simplification.

Av