Award No. 4 Case No. 4
Public Law Board No. 3820
PARTIES DISPUTE:

 STATEMENT CLAM:

 FINDINGS:

 American Train Dispatchers Association
 and
 Seaboard System Railroad

 "Mr. J..F. Fey, Jr., as a .result of the transaction of June 1st, 1983...has been placed in a worse position with respect to his compensation."

 In Award No. 2, we considered the claim of a regularly assigned train dispatcher at Carrier's Savannah, Georgia, offices who was displaced subsequent to the June 1, 1983 coordination of train dispatching functions from the Savannah and Waycross offices to Birmingham and other locations. As in that case, the present dispute arises in Savannah under the New York Dock Conditions and the parties' implementing agreements. However, in this instance, unlike the situation in

 Award No. 2, claimant was an extra employee protecting extra train dispatcher work at Savannah. As Petitioner contends, claimant's standing on the extra board was reduced when displaced regularly assigned dispatchers were forced on to the extra board after the June 1, 1983
 coordination. The record indicates that, as a result, claimant's compensation was adversely affected in the months of June, July and August 1983. New York Dock defines a "Displaced employee" as (see Appendix III Section 1(b):

 "An employee;of the railroad who, as a resultfof a transaction is placed in a'worse position with respect to his compensation and rules governing his forking conditions." Petitioner reasons that although claimant was not displaced from the extra board, he is entitled to relief under New York Dock and the implementing agreements since he suffered a loss in compensation just after the coordination had taken place. It is Carrier's view that extra employees are clearly not entitled to protective benefits under New York Dock.

 I''its'judgment, the applicable agreements and the record in this n 1 case support that position.
 Contrary to Carrier's assertions, the language used in New York Dock does not unambiguously exclude extra board employees from all protective benefits coverage. While Sections 6 and 7 of New York Dock as well as Sections 3(f) and 5(a) of the parties' implementing agreement apply only to regularly assigned employees, they pertain to certain specific benefits over and above the displacement allowance provided by Section '5 of New York Dock. It can reasonably be argued that, in the light of New York Dock Section 1(b)'s definition of a displaced employee, Section 5 of that Agreement is applicable to extra board employees even when their boards have not been abolished.
 On this property, however, the situation is affected by Article IV (h) (1) of the Schedule Agreement. It reads as follows:
 "Nothing in this Article IV (h) (1) shall be deemed as creating any guarantee of any number of days' work for extra train dispatchers." That Article governs the conditions under which extra work is protected and has not been abrogated by New York Dock Conditions or the Implementing Agreement. The Organization as well as Carrier stand committed to its terms and claimant must be held to have been aware of them when he accepted extra board work both before and after New York Dock Conditions went into effect. In connection with a similar coordination under New York Dock, this time from Birmingham to Atlanta and other locations, the organization proposed on November 10, 1984, that an arbitrated implementing agreement contain the following provision:

 15. "In order to eliminate any cause
 for dispute, such as we have experi
 enced in the past, we wish to specific
 ally explicate that extra train dispatch
 ers placed in a worse position with re
 spect to compensation and working con
 ditions will be afforded wage protection
 and retention of fringe benefits, includ
 ing sick leave in accordance with the
 train dispatchers' agreement."
 While the proposal may have been made only to
 settle the controversy, it does lend some support to Carrier's con
 tention that it shows that the agreements in force could not be relied
 upon to give extra employees the protective benefits in question.
 At any rate, on this property, extra train dispatch
 ers are not guaranteed any number of days' work. No valid basis
 exists therefore for the present claim.

 3
 AWARD:

 Carrier Member

 Claim denied.

 Adopted at Jacksonville, Florida, August 24,1985.

 arbl . Weston, hairman

EMPLOYEE MEMBER'S DISSENT. TO. AWARD No. 4

PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 3820


The award of the majority is erroneously based on Article IV(h)(1) of the Schedule Agreement, which does not control.the instant claim for benefits under the clear provisions of the New York Dock Conditions.

 The Board has no jurisdiction to interpret the Schedule Agreement.

 The award does noc draw its essence from the New York Dock Conditions, 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 F.2d. 403.

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 Awards August 24, 1985 [P.L.8 ,3820, Award No. 4]

      2.- ICC Employee Protective Provisions, Finance Docket or Abandonment No. F.D. 30053


(check one)

 3. 'type of Arbitration involved:

 Oregon Short Line III New York Dock Norfolk 6 Western/Mendocino Coast Other:

 / / Under Article 1, Section 4, or /5C-XX/ Under Article 1, Section 11,

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

 Whether extra Train-Dispatcher who wns placed in a worse

 _n_os_ition with resnect to compensation as a result of the

 trancartinn ie onti lad n displacement allowances
Arbitration betweens

 Carriers Seaboard System Railroad

 Carrier Official:

 Organization American Train Dispatchers Association

 Organization Representative.R. J. Irviri
Arbitrator: Harold M*. Weston

 Address: 30 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite~4320

            New York, N.Y..10112


Total Charge:

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

            / / - Appointed by NMB Selected by Agreement Other:


- Not available as of 9/18/85

 Daily Charge:
 (b) flow do you rate arbitrator's performance:

 (i) Length of time arbitrator took to render
 decision: 86 (days after close of
 hearings/brie s, whichever later)

      (ii) Did arbitrator appear to understand case and arguments: / /Yes / /No /XXW Not Clear


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


/X X X/

 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;

 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) f'rom-Union~Point of view, case was: /Won / Lost / /Split -.


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

      employee protection related arbitration:

      (check one) - i -


            / /Yes /!/Undecided /XX/No -'

            Avoid at. ,all. costs .. . . ..


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

      Award based on schedule agreement pfovision that extra train


dispai:chers are not aiiaranta~d any numhor of days Work, rather
 _.· than HYO-11 provisions concerning eligibility for'displacement
 .. allowances as a result of a transaction

 Name of Preparer: G. J. Mixon, Jr.
Addresss
 Title: Date:

 1401 South Harlem Avenue, Berwyn, IL 60402
Director of Research
 September 13, 1995