Award No. 2 Case No. 2
Public Law Board No. 3820
PARTIES
 TO
 DISTUTE:
Seaboard System Railroad

 STATEMENT "Claim of Train Dispatcher T. J. Fabrikant submitted
 CLITIM: under New York Dock Conditions for guarantee payments
 account being displaced from Regular Train Dispatcher
 Assignment as a result of Coordination of the Savannah
 -., _ Waycross and Birmingham Train Dispatching offices ef-

 fective June 1, 1983."
 "Claim for months and amounts as follows:

 July 1983 $ 92.19

 September 1983
 October 1983
 November 1983
 December 1983
 January 1984
 February 1984

 632.35
 92.19
 1,372.51
 307.83
 731.54
 1,693.55"

 FINDINGS: This dispute arises under the "New York Dock" labor
 protective conditions and the parties' implementing
 agreements of May 6, 1983. Pursuant to Section 4 of
 the New York Dock conditions, Carrier served notice
 of February 14, 1982 of its intent to coordinate certain train dispatching territories, functions and work incidental thereto from the Savannah and Waycross offices to Birmingham and other locations. Implementing agreements were signed by the parties on May 6, 1983 and the coordination became effective on June 1, 1983.
 Claimant was a regularly assigned train dispat, -· in Carrier's Savannah office. It is Petitioner's position that he remained in that capacity. until June 14, 1983 when he was displaced by a senior train dispatcher as a result of the coordination of June 1, 1983. Accordingly, in Petitioner's view, claimant is entitled to the compensation he seeks under Section 5(a) of the New York Dock . Conditions.
 ... The record establishes that prior to June 1, 1983,
 the coordination effective date, regular assigned train dispatchers
 at Savannah and Waycross, including claimant, were offered in seniority
 order the opportunity to fill four dispatcher positions transferred
 to Birmingham. That offer was made in accordance with the express
 terms of an implementing agreement of May 6, 1983; Petitioner as
 well as Carrier committed themselves to the provisions of that agree
 ment.
 We also find that claimant was well aware prior to June 1, 1983, that the coordination was about to take place and that he would inevitably be soon displaced in the chain of displacements that would follow. Nevertheless, claimant decided not to apply for the Birmingham train dispatcher position which had a higher rate of pay than his position in Savannah. As a result, he was bumped off his position. He lacked sufficient seniority to obtain a regular
 position at Savannah and was placed, at his election, on the extra board in Savannah since no opening existed at Birmingham after June 1, 1983.
 Viewed realistically, this record establishes that claimant's displacement did not flow directly from the "transaction" in this situation, namely, the coordination of June 1, 1983, but resulted from his failure to take reasonable steps and precautions to exercise seniority and protect his status. He knew of the options that were available to him and we are not impressed by his plea that lie did not have to protect his rights as a regular assigned dispatcher until June 14, 1983 when no Birmingham train dispatcher position was still open.

 AWARD:

 Claim denied.

 Adopted at Jacksonville, Florida, August 24, 1985.



Carrier Membe

 Employee Member
 Dissent Attached

EMPLOYEE MEMBER'S DISSENT TO AWARD No. 2

PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 3820


The award of the majority is based on the erroneous premise that Claimant was required to apply for a position in Birmingham under the terms of the implementing agreement of May 6, 19F3.

 These terms were for the purpose of affording voluntary transfers. Claimant was not required to transfer to a distant location. He retained employment in Savannah.

 The award does not draw its essence from either the New York Dock Conditions or the implementing agreement, and thus exceeds the authority or jurisdiction of Public Law Board No. 3820. See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen vs Central of Georgia Railway, U.S.C.A. (5), 415 F2d. 403.

IPJ )._,~

R. J. Irvin
 Employee Member
 Send to: Clarence M. McIntosht 'Administrator




EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ARBITRATION-REPORT
1.' Date of Awardt August 24, 1985 . [p,L.8. 3820, Award No. 2]




                  Norfolk & Western/Mendocino Coast

        ' Other:


3. Type of Arbitration involved:

      (i) / / Under Article 1, Section 4, or

      Under Article 1, Section 11,


            .. (ii) Issue (s) involved (if Section 11 arbitration, what sections were in dispute):


            Whether claimant was required to apply for position at


dicta,nt1ncatinn in nrdpr to maintain oligii hilitv fnr
 disolacemgn_t allowance.
4. Arbitration between:

      Carrier: Seaboard System Railroad

      Carrier Official;

      Organization American Train Dispatchers Association

      Organization Representative--- R. J. Irvin


5. Arbitrator: Harold M Weston
 Address: . 30 Rockefeller Plazas, Suite 4320
 New York, N.Y.-10112
Total Charge:`

 Daily Charge:

 (a) How was arbitrator chosen: (check one)

      / / Appointed by NDtB

      Selected by Agreement /-_/ Other:


- Not available as of 9/18/85'
 (b) flow do you rate arbitrator's performance:

 Length of time arbitrator took to render
 decision: 86 (days after close of
 hearings/briefs, h never later)

      (il) Did arbitrator appear to understand case and arguments: / /Yes /_JNo /XXYI Not Clear


      (Ili) Based on evidence in record and/or presented, Decision was: (check one)


            Good Decision which was fair to b ,:.I; parties ·t


Decisiof~in organization's favor which could just as easily have been decided in carrier's favor;

 Split decision which attempted to satisfy both organization and carrier;

 Decision in carrier's favor which could just as easily have been decided in organization's favor; or

 Award in favor of carrier which ignored law and/or facts.

                  (iv) Was arbitrator obviously biased in favor of carrier or organization: /XX/Yes / /No / /Not Clear


                  (v) From Union point of view, case was: / /won /xx/Lost / /split


      (c) tlould you recommend arbitrator be selected by labor for an

      employee protection related arbitration:

      (check one)


              / /Yes / /Undecided /xX/No Avoid at all costs


G. Additional comments about decision or arbitration .
      (demeanor; attitude and temperament; etc.).


      Implementing agreement provided for voluntary transfer to


      positions at Birmingham, Award held that transfer3 were


Name o£ Preparer: G. J. Wixon, ,)r.
Address: _1401 South Harlem Avenue, Berwyn, IL 60402

 'title: ,Director of Research

 Date: September 13, 1985