In the Matter of Arbitration
between

 BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES

 and

 SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

 Pursuant to Article 11 of the New York Dock II Conditions which were imposed by the Interstate Commerce Commission in connection with its Order in Finance~Docket 29430 (Sub-No. 1), approving the coordination of operations on the Norfolk and Western Railway Company and the Southern Railway Company.

 QUESTION AT ISSUE:

 "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it de
 clined to allow benefits claimed by Agent-Operator L. E. Fitzgerald,
 Manassas, Virginia as a result of his being displaced on September 19,
 1982, from his position of Clerk-Operator at Monroe, Virginia.

 2. Carrier shall now be required to allow any and all benefits to
 Agent-Operator L. E. Fitzgerald due under provisions of the New York
 Dock Conditions as a result of said transaction."

 FINDINGS

 AND

 AWARD

 FINDINGS:
 The dispute here at issue concerns a determination as to whether Claimant is entitled to the protective benefits of the New York Dock Conditions as a consequence of being displaced from his clerical position following Carrier's abolishment of another contract position at Monroe, Virginia on September 19, 1982.
 It is the Organization's contention that the job abolishment should have been treated as a "transaction" subject to the protective conditions imposed upon the coordination of operations of the rail carriers. In this regard, in arguments to the Board, the Organization states: "While Claimant suffered no monetary loss insofar as compensation is concerned
 up to this point, he still suffered a monetary loss when the Carrier failed to properly comply with the provisions of the New York Dock Conditions which would have provided him with benefits as to moving expenses and allowances under Section 9 thereof."
 Section 9 of Appendix III of the New York Dock Conditions reads, in pertinent part, as follows:























We would note that the basis for there being no claim for compensation stems from the fact that Claimant displaced onto a position 0roducing compensation equal to or exceeding that of his. position at Monroe, Virginia. The rate of pay of the Clerk-Operator position from which he was displaced was $92.26 per day, whereas the rate of pay for the Agent-Operator's position to which he exercised seniority at Manassas, Virginia is $94.85 per day. However, the Claimant submits that such exercise of seniority necessitated he sell his home and incur moving expenses in going from Monroe to Manassas, a distance of 132.5 miles.
 In support of its contention that Claimant was "adversely effected" by the coordination, the Organization directs attention to various
 changes in rail traffic involving Monroe, offering interchange re
 ports, switch lists, interchange corrections, etc., maintaining that
 by reason of traffic by-passing Monroe following the coordination the
 Carrier has affected the amount of work which had previously been re
 quired of employees at that location. Essentially, the organization
 urges that the rerouting of cars has caused one entire yard shift to
 be abolished as well as three jobs in the mechanical Department in
 addition to the clerical position involved in this dispute. It dis
 putes Carrier allegations that the position abolishment was, as Car
 rier states, "due.to a serious and pervasive decline in the Carrier's
 business," and challenges Carrier as having "dealt totally in general=
 ities and not in specifics." In this latter regard, the Organization
 asserts that the claim should prevail account the Carrier not having
 met its burden of proof, the Organization citing Section 11(e) of Ap
 pendix III of the New York Dock Conditions, which reads:
 "(e) In the event of any dispute as to whether or
 not a particular employee was affected by a trans
 action, it shall be his obligation to identify the
 transaction and specify the pertinent facts of that
 transaction relied upon. It shall then be the rail
 road's burden to prove that factors other than a
 transaction affected the employee."

 The Carrier states that upon receipt of Claimant's "Request for Entitlement to Benefits" form it reviewed its records and determined that Claimant's displacement was a direct result of the declining economy and not the consolidation as was alleged by Claimant. In this respect, Carrier wrote Claimant under date of February 18, 1983, stating in pertinent part the following: "On your form you state that you were first placed in a worse position on September 19, 1982 when you were first displaced by J. H. Wilkes. You also state that the diversion of traffic to the NW caused a drop in work at Monroe. A review of the details concerning your situation reveals that your displacement was due to the 7 A.M. Chief Clerk's position at Monroe being abolished because of the economy. The Carrier experienced a serious business decline in 1982 and thusly had force reductions to help reduce expenses. The abolishment of the chief clerk position started the chain reaction that resulted in your displacement which was due to economic reasons and not because of the merger."
 In support of its contentions, the Carrier directed attention to statistical information it had provided to the Organization during the handling of the claim on the property, arguing that the data supports a finding that the business decline at Monroe as well as on the Carrier's system properties began long before the consolidation of properties on June 1, 1982. In this connection, Carrier submitted that "Revenue-Ton-Miles" had declined (1982 vs. 1981), 6.9 percent in June, 17.6 percent in July, 17.1 percent in August, and 19.2 percent in September, or the month in which it had abolished the clerical position at Mo--oe. As concerned "Cars Handled/Engines worked" at Monroe, Carrier showed that there had been a decline in cars handled commencing in December 1981 through September 1982, except as concerned May 1982, with the monthly decreases (1982 vs. 1981) ranging from 13.9 percent to 29.8 percent, the latter reflecting the decline as between Augusz 1981 and August 1982.
 In addition to the above, the Carrier also maintained that any traffic that may have been diverted from Monroe as a result of the consolidation had been codpe_^s ated for by the addition of a new switcher between Monroe and Danville. -he Carrier also directed attention to the following statement frog _=s letter of January 18, 1984 to the organization: "The claimant at-_s-_!==s to support his argument that interchange at Rice_-_on Junction as a diversion away from Monroe is a -_=or cause for the loss of a job at Monroe. He poi-=s up the interchange of 66 loads and the return of 6E emptys in the month of August 1982 at this station. This total of 132 cars handled in said month amounts to an approximate average of 4.3 cars per day. This certainly is not enough diversion, if such was the case, to impact substantially on the nubmer of clerks jobs to be maintained at Monroe, Virginia."

 Bascially, the Carrier urges that Claimant's employment status was not altered as a result of any action taken by it in connection with the consolidation, but rather, by what it states, "the normal ebb and flow of seniority which is dictated by the volume of traffic handled by the Carrier." It thus submits that there is no merit to the claim.
 The Board has given careful and studied consideration to all the arguments and data submitted by the parties. We do not find this record to support the conclusion Claimant be considered a "displaced employee," as that term is defined in the New York Dock Conditions, since we think it evident Claimant was not placed in a worse position as the result of a "transaction" flowing directly from the coordination of the two rail carriers. To the contrary, we believe the record supports a holding Claimant was displaced from his position as a consequence of Carrier having found it necessary to reduce its work force at Monroe coincident with a general decline in business and, in particular, a substantial decline in traffic at Monroe both before and after the consolidation on June 1, 1982, as well as at the time the abolishment was announced to be effective September 19, 1982.
 Thus, while it might be held that there was some minor diversion of traffic from Monroe as a consequence of the coordination, it was not of sufficient nature to hold that a causal nexus existed between the job abolishment and the consolidation of the rail carriers. In this respect, we think it noteworthy that heretofore the weight of most arbitral authority has been to the effect that a remote or tangential affect cannot qualify an individual as having been adversely effected by a transaction. It will, therefore, be the Board's finding that Claimant was not adversely effected coincident to a transaction so as to be eligible for protective benefits under the New York Dock Conditions and the claim will be denied.

 AWARD:
 The Question at Issue is answered in the nenative, i.e., Claimant is _not found to meet the necessary requirements in order to be entitled to the protection afforded by the New York Dock Conditions in relation to his exercise of seniority from Monroe to Manassas.

 D. R Johnson, Carrier Member

 Atlanta, GA
 October,Z3 , 1984

E.~. N . Emp yee Member
 In the Matter of Arbitration

 between

 BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES

 and

 SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

 Pursuant to Appendix III, Section 11 of the New York Dock Employee Protective Conditions (Imposed by the Interstate Coma=rce Commission in Finance Docket 28250)

 QUESTION AT ISSUE:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

 1. Carrier violated the Agreere=t(s) between the parties when it declined to allow Claimant T. E :enne his rightful displacement allowances for March ($191.69), Ac=--'l' ($278.93), may ($365.42), and June 1982 ($278.93).

 2. Carrier further violated t-_ Agreements) between the parties when it failed or refused to compute the Average Monthly Compensation due Claimant T. E. Venne in a prc=--- manner.

 3. Carrier shall now be required to allow Claimant T. E. Venne his displacement allowances enur.e> -e3, supra, in Item No. 1 and shall further be required to compute _s Average Monthly Compensation in

 the proper manner as contempla=ed and mandated by the Agreement(s)

 FINDINGS

 and

 AWARD

that:

 FINDINGS:
By Decision and Order dated December 8. 1981 in Finance Docket No. 29690, the Interstate Commerce Commission approved application of. the Southern Railway Company and the Kentucky and Indiana Railroad Company for a coordination of operations, facilities, services and work forces of the two rail carriers.
 In regard to the imposition of employee protective conditions, the ICC Decision and order reads as follows: "Emplovee protections. - Our approval of SOU's purchase of KIT must be conditioned on SOU's agreement
 The

 negotiated protection Applicants

 to provide a 'fair arrangement at least as protective of the interests of employees who are affected by the transaction' as the labor protective provisions imposed in control proceedings prior to February 5, 1976. 49 U.S.C. 11347. In New York Dock Ry.- Control-Brookyln Eastern Dist., 360 I.C.C. 60 (1979) (New York Dock), affirmed sub. nom. New York Dock Ry. v. United States, 609 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1979), we described the minimum protection to be accorded employees under the statute in the absence of a voluntarily negotiated agreement. 4! We may, if we choose, fashion greater employee protective conditions, tailored to the special circumstances of an individual case. Burlington Northern. Inc.-Control s Merger-St. L., 360 I.C.C. 784, 94.6 (1980).

 SOU estimates that SO employee positions will be abolished in Louisville and New Albany. Seven SOU agency clerks and 1 SOU agent at Louisville will be transferred. Six new positions will be created: 1 yard foreman, 2 yard helpers and 1 yard engineer at Louisville, and 1 Labor Relations Officer and 1 Director of Labor Relations in Washington. DC. Ail of these changes will occur in the first year." above referenced footnote. _4Y, stated: "Applicants have not

 any agreements with labor unions which establish employee in excess of the protections provided in New York Dock. have commenced negotiations with labor unions to obtain

 implementing agreements to effectuate the proposed transaction..." In this latter respect, the Carrier and the Organization party to this dispute entered into an Implementing Agreement under date of February 26, 1982.
 Almost one month after the ICC approved coordination, and by letter dated January 6, 1982, Claimant was advised by the Carrier, as concerns this dispute, that his then current position of SLipervisor of Data Processing (an appointed, non-contract position) was to be abolished on January 31. 1982 and that he was being appointed Project Analyst, Accounting, at Atlanta, Georgia, effective February 1, 1982, at a salary of $2,220.00 per month. This letter further stated:
If you choose not to accept this appointment, you may opt to have Southern pay you a one-time cash payment of 12 months pay.

 In order to simplify your handling of these options. I have provided below two spaces with which you may signify your election...

 If you accept this offer, your new Department Head will be in touch with you regarding the details of your relocation and assumption of your new position.

 I would appreciate your advice and indication no later than January 27, 1982."

 r date of January 14, 1982, the Claimant wrote Carrier as
follows:

 "This has reference to your letter dated January 6, 1982, File LF 338-10-L.
responding to Claimant's declination of the two options, the Car
 rier, =_- letter dated January 22, 1982, essentially reminded Claimant
 that s-_ce he held seniority as a clerk under the KsIT Agreement at
 Louts -tee, Kentucky, that he did, of course, have the right under the
 Agreer..e_m·_ to exercise seniority to a clerical position. In this same
 co.^.^e -:=.^., the Carrier letter further stated: "You should understand
 that scald you elect to displace a junior clerk that such action on
 your p__= is a voluntary choice in lieu of accepting the protective
 benefits contained in my letter of January 6, 1982." The letter con
 cluded:
 "In the event you change your mind and decide to exer
 cise one of the two options contained in my letter of
 January 6, please recall that I need your advice and
 indication to do so not later than January 27, 1982."
 On January 27, 1982, Claimant advised the Carrier that he wished to exercise his seniority rights, stating he would displace a junior employee from his position effective Monday, February 1, 1982. The Carrier acknowledged receipt of Claimant's notice of displacement on January 28, 1982.

Under date of April 12, 1982, Claimant filed with Carrier copy of a form known as a "Request for Entitlement to Benefits" form. The Claimant indicated on the form it was being filed account: "Placement in a worse position with respect to my compensation and rules governing my working conditions." In response to a question on the form as to the date he had first been placed in a worse position, Claimant stated it was February 1, 1982 and March 21, 1982 account his position abolished. The Claimant listed the position he held immediately _=for to the dates shown above as "Per Diem s CMO" (the position to which he had exercised seniority to on February 1, 1982), and listed his =rent position as that of "City Clerk."

 Upon receipt of the above form, albeit Carrier subsequently maintained it was by wrongful action, Claimant was notified by letter dated April 26, 1982, that a "preliminary investigation" showed -s approximate average monthly earnings in the twelve-month period ~=._~ing February 28, 1982 to be $2,181.71, and that this would "hereaf==-- [be] referred to as [Claimant's] test period average."-
 A little over six weeks later, on June 11, 1982, Car=ie= addressed the following letter to Claimant: "This is in reference to your request for Enta_ _._at to Benefits received in this office April 12, 1:_:, and our letter to you dated April 26, 1982. You were inadvertently advised of your test pa=_=_ average in the above correspondence. This was _ - proper due to the fact that you were on a nonsc=e_-_,1ed position with the K&IT and were offered a ocs_=ion with Southern as a Project Analyst which you declined. Subsequently, you elected to exercise your rights to a scheduled job.

 You will recall after you made said election that Mr. D. H. Watts, Vice President - Personnel, explained to you in his letter of January 22, 1982 that your action was a voluntary choice in lieu of accepting the protective benefits as explained in his previous letter to you of January 6, 1982. If you had accepted the Project Analyst position as offered, you would be currently employed with your protection rights intact. Hence, the Carrier cannot now be held liable for your protection. For the reasons given above, you (sic) claim is invalid and accordingly declined."
 Carrier's declination of the claim was thereafter appealed on behalf of Claimant by the Organization to designated appeals officers for the Carrier, and by agreement to this Arbitration Hoard in pursuance of the grievance procedures of the New York Dock Conditions.
 It is the Organization's contention that when Claimant's position of Supervisor of Data Processing was abolished at Louisville he became a "displaced employee" as that term is defined in Section 1(b) of Appendix III of the New York Dock Conditions and "clearly eligible far benefits, _.e., 'Displacement allowances' as contemplated in Appendix III, _ection 5," of the New York Dock Conditions.







(b) If a displaced employee fails to exercise ha seniority rights to secure another position available to him which does not require a change in his place of residence, to which he is entitled under the working agreement and which carries a rate of pay and compensation exceeding those of the position which he elects to retain, he shall thereafter be treated for the purposes of this section as occupying the position he elects to decline.

 (c) The displacement allowance shall cease prior to the expiration of the protective period in the event of the displaced employee's resignation, death, retirement, or dismissal for justifiable cause."
 On the one hand, the Organization argues "it is obvious that the Carrier has attempted to 'put the cart before the horse.'" In this regard, it submits that the provisions of the Implementing Agreement of February 26, 1982 "were not even in effect at the time Claimant was given his two (2) options either to move to Atlanta or resign and remain in Louisville and even if it had been it would not have been applicable to him due to the fact that he was not covered by the Schedule Agreement on the K&IT." It urges, therefore, "the Carrier was, if effect, attempting.-.to force Claimant to make a move from Louisville to Atlanta under provisions of a non-existent a;=eement."
 Conversely, the Organization states that "another remedy supports
 the position of the Employes." In this respect, it directs att==.=ion
 to Appendix III, Article IV of the New York Dock Conditions, s- _ing:
 "This clearly gives to the Claimant the same rights and benefi=s and
 affords him the same protection as if he were, in fact, covers= by the
 Collective Bargaining Agreement."
The Carrier submits "that while it may be true that Mr. Venne was affected by the transaction in question, he was not adversely affected by it." It urges that when Claimant "elected not to accept an offered comparable non-contract position with the Southern Railway Company or a lump-sum separation allowance, his actions from that point forward were no longer a result of the transaction." It also argues that "in order for this Board to identify Mr. Venne as either a 'displaced' or a 'dismissed' employee, it would have to expand the definitions of these terms."

It is the Carrier's further position that employee protection agreements, as well as the New York Dock protective conditions, "were designed to provide protection to employees against adverse effects flowing from the transaction involved and not adverse effects arising from other unrelated causes, as in the instant case." It asserts the Claimant neither lost a regular job, nor was he involved in a chain of displacements that resulted from the transaction. It submits that Claimant, occ_=,ring a non-contract position, was precluded from taking advantage of any of the benefits the Organization secured for its members for th_s particular transaction, thus making any arguments which the Organization would offer relative to alleged violations of the February 26, 1982 Implementing Agreement moot.

 In the Eoard's view, while it may be that Carrier decided to abolish Clai==V.='s former non-contract position as a consequence of the coordination, there is no valid basis to support the contention a direct ca_sa: relationship or nexus exists between that abolishment and any loss == compensation or earnings Claimant may have sustained on the basis c= his voluntary exercise of seniority rights to a contract position. The change in the employment status of Claimant from a non-coat== to a contract position must, in our opinion, be treated as outside t..e protective pale of the New York Dock Conditions. In this respect, -w= think it evident Claimant had the opportunity to be afforded su===anzially the same levels of protections as are offered to members c: labor organizations by having accepted one of the two options accorded him relative to his employment status at the time o_' the coordination as a non-contract employee. Certainly, absent any probative evid=ence that exercise of seniority to a contract position was also a proper alternative available to Claimant, it must be held that Claimant waived such non-contact protective status. At the same time, the Board believes it must be concluded that any effort to identify a tangential effect as flowing directly from abolishment of the non-contract position to Claimant's voluntary exercise of seniority to a contract position, and thereby application of the Implementing Agreement of February 26, 1982, must likewise fail absent a clear showing
 that such Agreement has application to non-contract positions the same as contract positions.
 Since the Board fails to find any proper basis to hold Claimant is entitled to a displacement allowance under the terms and conditions cited from the New York Dock Conditions and the Implementing Agreem=ent, we have no alternative but to deny the claim as presented. AWARD:
 The Question at Issue is answered in the negative. The Claimant is not found to be entitled to a displacement allowance as claim:_ in the Question at Issue.

      4;?KP4=

Robert E. Peterson, Chairman

and Neutral Member


D. R.
 1) '16 J hnson, Carrier Member

 Atlanta, GA
 October,23 , 1984

 E. 1, nployee Member