Award No. 3 Case No. 3


PARTIES American Train Dispatchers Association
 D17UTE: and

 Seaboard System Railroad

 STATEMENT "Claim of Train Dispatcher K. G. DeMarte submitted
 CLTfM: under New York Dock Conditions for guarantee payments
 account being displaced from regular train dispatcher
 assignment as a result of coordination of the Raleigh,
 - North Carolina and Erwin; Tennessee dispatching offices."

 FINDINGS: The present case concerns substantially the same basic
 situation that was before us when we issued denial
 Award No. 2. The locations and claimants differ.
 Carrier served notice on February 14, 1983, pursuant
 to Article I Section 4(a) of the New York Dock employee protection
 conditions of its intention to coordinate certain train dispatcher
 functions at Raleigh, North Carolina and Erwin, Tennessee. The imple
 menting agreement reached by the parties on May 4, 1983 provided for
 the coordination and made the New York Dock protective conditions
 applicable to the transaction.
 The May 4, 1983 implementing agreement also provided
 that four dispatchers holding regular assignments in Raleigh on the
 date of the agreement may transfer to the Train Dispatching office at Erwin. That agreement also provides that if four dispatchers at Raleigh do not elect to transfer to Erwin, the unfilled positions will be offered to other dispatchers in accordance with certain prescribed procedures.

 Claimant, a regular assigned train dispatches ~6 Raleigh with a November 24, 1979 dispatcher seniority date, was in line for a regular train dispatcher assignment at Erwin.
 On May 10, 1983, notice was posted in the Raleigh of fice addressed to claimant and other dispatchers, notifying them of their right to apply for the four new positions at Erwin. The notice also made it clear that time was of the essence since the closing date of. the offer was stated in the notice to be May 15, 1983 at 4 p.m. The dispatchers were instructed to indicate on a form supplied with the notice whether or not they desired the train dispatcher position at Erwin.
 Claimant did not express a desire to obtain a position at Erwin and on May 27, 1983, was displaced. She then was placed in unassigned status. The record clearly establishes that her displacement resulted from her failure to bid on an Erwin position that was available and realistically was not attributable to "the transaction" in question, namely by the coordination. The,fact that no position at Erwin was open on May 27, 1983, is not helpful to her case. She ignored the May 15 deadline clearly set forth in Carrier's notice of May 10, although she was aware of her dispatcher seniority standing and knew that she would soon be displaced if she did not
 avail herself of the Erwin opportunity.
 Her letters to Carrier during the month of May 1983 do not express a desire to obtain the Erwin position. Nor do they serve to build up a case for other protective benefits.
 The claim will be denied. The record does not show that claimant was adversely affected as a result of a transaction within the meaning of New York Dock Conditions.

 AWARD:

 Carrier ember

 Claim denied.

 Adopted at Jacksonville, Florida, August 24, 1985.

 on, Chairman

Emp o ee member

Dissent Attached

EMPLOYEE MEDIBER'S DISSENT TO. AWARD No. 3

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 Erwin under the terms of. the implementing agreement of May 4,

 1983.

 'these terms were for the purpose of affording voluntary transfers. Claimant was not required to transfer to a distant location. She retained employment at Raleigh.

 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. 3320. See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen vs. Central of Georgia Railway, U.S.C.f1. (S), 415 F.2d. 403.

 Q

 R. J. Irvin
 Employee Member
 Send to: Clarence M. McIntosh,'Administrator
 Railway Labor Executives' Association
 400 First Street. N.W.
 Washington, D.C. 200001
 (Attach Copy of Decision and Award)

 EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ARBITRATION-REPORT
1. . Date of Award: August 24, 1985 _ [P.LB. 3820, Award No. 3]

 2. ICC Employee Protective Provisions, Finance Docket or





        ' /-/ other:


3. Type of Arbitration involved:

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

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

 Whether claimant wad required to aoalv for position at distant location in order to maintain eligibility for displacement allowance
4. Arbitration between:

 Carrier: Seaboard Svstem Railroad
 - Carrier official:

      Organization American TRain Dispatchers Association


. Organization Representative"' R- J. Irvid.

 5. Arbitrator: Harold M. Weston
      Address: ~~ 30 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 4320 -~ New York, N.Y. 10112


Total Charge:

 Daily Charges

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

            -Appointed by NMB Selected by Agreement. Other:


Not available as of 9/1Q/85
 (b) flow do you rate arbitrator's performance:

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

      (ii) Did arbitrator appear to understand case and arguments:. /_/Yes /__JNo /X~y Not Clear


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

    /~ Good Decision which was fair to both _ parties;


      /^/ Decision 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;


/XXX/ Decision in carrier's favor which could
 just as easily have been decided in
 organization's favor: or -

      /~ Award in favor o£ 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:w-

      . ~ /Won / XX Lost / /Split _


(c) - Would you recommend arbitrator be selected by labor for an
 employee protection related arbitration:
 (check one)

    °-/ /Yes //Undecided /XX/No

          Avoid _at, all. costs - . .


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

 Implementing agreement. proyi.dedforvoluntary transfer to -

 positions at Erwin. -Award.held that transfers wpr-,*

 Name of Preparer:
 Address:
 Title: -
 Date:

 G..J. rlixon, Jr.
1401 South Harlem Avenue, 0erwyn, IL 60402 ~Oirector of Research September 19, 1985