SPECIAL ?_.1RO CF i.uJU:~T;"ltOi
 ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO
 .SECTION 11 OF THE
 NEW YORK DOCK II CONDITIONS

 CASE N0. 1
PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CARMEN OF THE UNITED STATES
 TO
 DISPUTE ) SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD

 AND CANADA

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "Request that the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company compile the test period averages of 'Dismissed Employees' Carmen M. Cornett, D. P. Rimer, D. M. Wood, A. B. Adkins and R. Harris as provided for in Sections 5 and 6 of the New York Dock Agremeent, and make these men whole for any difference in pay and continuing for a period of six (6) years or until such time as they may have been recalled to their positions as Carmen at DeCoursey Shops, Covington, KY." (BRC File 574-900-T-165; L&N File 16-AA(82-10431M3.

 BACKGROUND:

 The claim involved in this dispute is for protective benefits as provided by the Interstate Commerce Commission in transactions it authorized under Finance Docket No. 28905 (Sub. No. 1) and related proceedings, the employee protective conditions being those set forth in New York Dock Ry Control - Brooklyn Eastern Dist. 354 ICC 399 (19791 as modified at 360 ICC 60 (1979) (New York Dock II Cvnditicnsl.
 The dispute involves the coordination of certain facilites, opera:iuns and services of The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company (B&0) and the former Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company ILSN), the latter (1.&N) having meantime merged with the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and the new corporation now being known as Seaboard System Railroad ISBD or Carrier).
 In pucsuance of the ICC authorized coordination, the 860 and LsN served notice on the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada (BRC) under date of January 19, 1981 of the intent of the BOO to discontinue operation of TOFC ramps located at Cincinnati, Ohio and Jeffersonville, Indiana and tr·iasfer such v~vr~c to the
 L&N and, further, to consolidate and coordinate remaining carman work at Jeffersonville,. Indiana with .work performed by Carmen at . Louisville Terminal, Louisville, Kentucky on L&N. A bulletin board notice of the same date more fully described the consolidation and coordination to be as follows:








Thereafter, under date of April 15, 1981, tered into an Implementing Agreement with the BRC tent of the aforementioned notice.

 ment ;ead:

the in-

 concerning

 Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the April 15, 1981

 Implementing Agree-

 "3. Positions to be established on L&N at DeCoucsey
 Yard, effective with the date of coordination, will
 be bulletined at Cincinnati, Ohio, for a period of
 ten(10) days and will accrue to employees on the Cin
 cinnait Carmen Roster Western Region Seniority Point
 25.
 4. Upon expiration of the ten-day bulletin, determi
 nation will be made of the employees who have bid and
 who have been 'awarded a pos'ition at DeCoursey Yard.
 In the event any position advertised at DeCoursey Yard
 is not filled in accordance with the foregoing, em
 ployees on the Cincinnati Carman Roster will be assign
 ed the unfilled position(s) in reverse seniority order.

 5. (a) Employees accepting positions at DeCoursey Yard
 on the L&N will have their seniority date, as it appears
 on the Cincinnati, Ohio Carmen's Roster, dovetailed on
 the appropriate roster to which transferred upon report-
 ing to work, and their name will be removed from the'
 Cincinnati, Ohio Carmen Roster. Where, following this
 procedure results in two (2) or more employees having
 the same seniority date on the dovetailed roster, their
 respective positions on the roster will be determined by
 continuous service standing and then by lot.

 (b) Employees transferring to DeCoursey Yard will be assigned positions in accordance with the bulletins advertising positions: thereafter, changes in the coordinated operation in the filling of vacancies, abolishing or creating positions and reductions or restoration of force will be governed by application of the L&N Scheduled Agreement.

 (c) 8&0 carmen who are awarded or assigned positions in the coordinated DeCoursey Yard operation will become L&N employees subject to the rules of the Agreement between Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company and Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada.

 6. In order that the provisions of the first proviso
 set forth in Article I, Section 3 of the New York Dock
 conditions may be properly administered, such employee
 determined to be a displaced or dismissed employee as a
 result of this Agreement, who also is otherwise eligible
 for protective benefits and conditions under some other
 job security or other protective conditions or arrange
 ments shall, within ten (10) days after notification of
 his monetary protective entitlement under the New York
 Dock Conditions, elect between the benefits thereunder
 and similar benefits under such other arrangement. In
 the event an employee does not make an election within
 the ten (10) day period specified herein, he shall be
 considered to have elected to retain the protective bene
 fits he is presently eligible to receive. This elNction
 shall not serve to alter or affect any application of the
 substantive provisions of Article I, section 3."
 Pile coordination was thereafter imhlamented on May 15, 1981. At this time, five B&0 carmen positions were ablolished and the seniority of the five B&O employees was dovetailed on the L&N Carmen's Roster at DeCoursey. Two of the former B&O employees exercised 'seniority to and were awarded carmen positions at the L&N's TOFC ramp, and the remaining three former B&0 employees exercised seniority to and were awarded positions at DeCoursey Yard.

 Subsequently, on December 14, 1981, a bulletin was issued at DeCoursey announcing the furlough from service of the five named Claimants effective December 21, 1981.

 On December 28, 1981 the five named Claimants submitted requests or claims for the protective benefits of the New York Dock Conditions. The claims were handled in conferences on the property and then by agree ment of the parties referred to this Board for determination in keeping with the arbitration of disputes manadates of the New York Dock Conditions. POSITION OF THE EMPLOYEES:
 It is the position of the Employees that the Claimants are "Dis
 missed Employees" as defined in Section 1(c) of the New York Dock Con
 ditions. Section 1(c) reads:
 "(c) 'Dismissed employee' means an employee of the
 railroad who, as a result of a transaction is de
 prived of employment with the railroad because of
 the abolition of his position or the loss thereof
 as the result of the exercise of seniority rights
 by an employee whose position is abolished as 3
 result of a transaction."
 fhe Employees maintain: "(Tlhe Carrier has, with intent, fur loughed the Claimants in anticipation of the ulitmate coordination of all forces at the a&0 facility at Cincinnati snd the L&N facility at DeCoursey that became an actuality effective 12:01 AM, June 18, 1984, in line with the decision rendered by the Honorable William E. Fredenberger, Referee in a decision rendered may 1, 1984."
 The Questions at Issue before the Fredenberyer Board were as follows:

2. W:!re the ten einploy~:es furlou,jh-ld in Autvisrt and
 September (1')83) furloughed in .-inticipati,.n c)f
 the ro(j=dination, and if so should these
 ployees oa dovetailed on the B&O roster?

Although the Employees direct attention to the

 of Referee Fredenberger, particular note is taken of the following portions of the Findings of the-Fredenberger Board:

 "After laborious review of the evidence and arguments, this Neutral must conclude that there is substantial support for both sides of the question whether the furloughed SBD carmen are in such status due to actions by the Carriers taken in anticipation of the transaction in this case. However, such question is more appropriately for a proceeding under Article I, Section 11 of the New York Dock Conditions. In any event, it is not particularly helpful with respect to the question of how the furloughed SBD carmen should be treated in this particular case." (p. 6)

 "Any question as to whether the ten SBD carmen were furloughed (in August and September of 1983] in anticipation of a transaction should be raised in an Article I, Section 11 proceeding." (p. 8)

 The Employees dispute Carrier contention that the furloughing of the Claimants was the result of poor economic condtions, decline in business, and superior seniority rights afforded Journeymen-Carmen over upgraded Apprentices under Agreement rules.
 As concerns the economic condition of the Carrier, the Employees direct attention to earnings statements released by the CSX Corporation, or the -)rporate head of the Carrier, and which were reported in the LouiSvil'_e, Kentucky Courier-Journal as follows:



nt on

 entire Award
In regard to there having been a decline in business, the Employees urge that although "we are and were at that time in an economic slowdown on the national scene, this is not true with the Carrier." In this respect, the Employees state: "Coal being the main product hauled by the Carrier is a product that is hauled by freight cars. These cars need repair work on them and they cannot be repaired sit ting in a side track while men are forced out of the jobs of repairing them."
 Lastly, the Employees maintain that the Claimants were not displaced by furloughed carmen from another point on the L&N, but reason of the Carrier bulletin notice of Decmeber 14, 1981, and that 14 carmen transferred in line with the provisions of Rule 27 of the General Rules Agreement, with such transfer displacing 14 junior upgraded carmen. POSITION OF THE CARRIER:

 It is the position of the Carrier that a decline in business
 caused the furlough of the Claimants and hundreds of other employees,
 and the Claimants were not dismissed or affected by a "transaction"
 as defined in the New York Dock Conditions, which is defined t^ be as
 follows:
 "(a) 'Transaction' means any action t.iken pur~a~:ant
 to authoriziations of this (interstta-a ~o:,merc=1
 Commission on which these (labor protective condi
 tions] have been imposed."
 The Carrier submits, notwithstanding the reported earnings statement of CSX, that there has been a decline in the volume of business, and that this decline in business was as evident at Louisville, KY and Cincinnati, OH as at other locations on Carrier's system. In this respect, it points to the introduction of statistical data ~ihi~h shoas total carloadings on the L&N decreased during the peciod '-tacch 1981 to July 1981 from 1.80,000 to 1060,000 and dropped in January 1^82, or the month following the furlough of the Claimants, to 140,000 cacs. W? re,

the Carrier submits that when carloadings drop, the number of ^.mployees needed to handle those cars decreases promptly.
 The Carrier also directs attention to statistics it offered as representing four different indicators of business levels in the railroad industry, submitting that all reveal the extent of the decline in business which the Carrier has sustained, namely Net Revenue Train Miles, Revenue Cars Received from Connections, Carrier's-Total Work Force, and Carloadings.
 The Carrier also states: "Numerous publications, including labor union publications, have characterized the recent recession as being the most severe in several decades. The number of furloughed employees, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, clearly pointed to the national jobless rate as being the highest since the 1930's with numerous areas of the country exceeding 188 to 208. Every state in the union reported job losses in manufacturing and at least two-third experienced decreases in mining, construction, transportation and public utilities." In this respect the Carrier submits various articles, excerpts, charts, etc., depicting the business decline in the nation generally, and int he railroad industry specifically. It cites of especial significance to the L&N, an article from the Kentucky Coal Journal as showing the drop in coal production during 1982 and 1983, the figures in the article reflecting a 6.2 million ton drop from 1981 to 1982, and a further 16.5 million ton drop in 1983.
=ub:~cs_:;-:, the Ca.:.Ler maintains the Claimants were affected by a decline in ness and not by a,"transaction" as defined in the New York Dock Conditions. In this latter connection, the Carrier submits that at the time the coordination was implemented (May 15, 19811, there were no L&N positions abolished nor were any L&N employees affected by the transaction and that the B&O employees tranferred to the L&N facility merely followed their work as agreed between the parties in the April 15, 1981 AgrC^_ ment. Further, that at the time of the transaction, the five B&O Carmen were placed on five jobs that wire created for them, that they di~.: not displace any L&N employees.
 During the handling of the claim on the property, and by lf_tter dated March 30, 1982, the Carrier additionally aroued as follows to the BRC:

 "A severe decline in business during the recession we are in has caused the temporary layoff of several hundred Mechancial Department employees over the entire system, including many Carmen. The resuling movement of Journeymen-Carmen who were furloughed at other points on the system due to business decline, transferring to DeCoursey under Schedule Agreement rules, caused the upgraded Carmen Apprentices, who are Claimants herein, to be furloughed on December 21, 1981. At the present time, there are 14 Journeymen-Carmen working at the DeCoursey facility who are senior to Claimants. These Journeymen-Carmen were furloughed from the South Louisville Shops as a result of decline in business and had the right under Agreement rules with your organization to displace those working in an upgraded capacity at any location on the LSN Railroad.

 FINDINGS:

 After carefully considering the record as developed and presented, the Board finds that the Carrier has produced sufficient probative support of record to establish that the Claimants were placed in an adverse position by reason of a decline in business and not the consequence of the coordination of facilities as authorized by the ICC in its Finance Docket No. 28905 (sub. No. 1) and related proceedings. In this respect, we find it worthy of note that at the time of the particular r%ordination here involved on May 15, 1981, the Claimants continued to enj)y benefit of both their positions and earnings as before the c_·:r:7Lnati:n, and that it was not in fact until some seven months later that Carrier found it necessary the Claimants be furloughed as the result of significant declines in business. There is nothing to suggest that Claimants were furloughed as a result of the dovetailing of seniority c,)sters or that the transaction called for Claimants to perform work differently or caused them to be displaced coincident with the coordination on May 1' 1981. It must be presumed, therefore, from the weight of evidence that they were indeed furloughed as the result of declines in bl::;iriess which followed the coordination, and not as the direct result of the coordination itself.
 in making this ~',=termination 1-he Board -Joiild also note it finds nothing in the record before it to probatively substantiate that the Claimants here involved in this particular dispute were furloughed in anticipation of any other or subsequent coordination or transaction. We likewise fail to attach any significance to the fact that the same number of positions as were found to be involved in the coordination on May 15, 1981 is also the same number of positions subsequently furloughed some seven months later. Furthermore, the Board does not believe that merely because earnings of the parent company may be shown to have increased at a time when employees are being furloughed that this fact alone defeats Carrier arguments that it was nonetheless experiencing reduced work force needs as the result of reductions in carloadings, tonnage, cars being received from connections, net revenue train miles, etc. There are many aspects of corporate finance and railroad operations which can be held to account for such happenstance, as note, for example, the following excerpt from the Kentucky Coal Journal, which the Carrier had introduced into these proceedings:

Recent FOB mines dollar-per-ton contract and spot market steam coal prices for low sulphur Eastern Kentucky coal were listed at $35 term and $27 spot. Wyoming prices were $16.50 term and $15.50 Spot. Kentucky operators paid 4-.5 percent severance tax on coal valued at virtually twice the pcice of coal on which Wyoming paid 10.5 percent tax.

 It is thus obvious that Wyoming has a big profit edge on production. But, Kentucky being closer to Southern and Midwestern utility markets, should gain through lower transportation costs. Wrong again. With transportation costs included,-Wyoming can be price competitive with K1:ntucky _for coal markets in Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, Georgia and Florida. With low sulfur coal!
The per-ton cost of rail coal shipments ace lower if you can ship ~init trains and lowers progressively as distance-to-destinarion increases.

"Most _oE Kentucky's independent coal ~arjtors don't ship by unit train, don't own rail cars, and they are all subject to. premium rates for short distance coal transportation. And, the ICC approved an increase of 4~ percent on rail rates for coal originating in Kentucky, effective Jan. 1, 1984.

          Kentucky coal operators with the capacity to compete for large long-term utility and industrial coal contracts have long contended that excessive rail rates take them out of the com-

          petition." (Underscoring by the Board) ,

The Board finding, as the indicated above, that Claimants were placed in a worse position as a result of factors other than a transaction, we may not hold them to be eligible for protection under the New York Dock Conditions account their being furloughed December 21, 1981. Accordingly, the claim to have the Carrier compile test period averages of the Claimants as "dismissed employees" and to make them whole for any difference in pay and continuing for a period of six (6) years or until such time as they may have been recalled to their positions as Carmen at Decoursey Shops, Covington, KY, will be denied. AWARD:

 Claim denied.

 Williams, Carrier Member

 Jacksonville, FL May 29, 1985

    Robert E. Peterson, Chairman and Neutral Member


R. P. Woj owicz, ployee memb,=

A), r