In the Matter of Arbitration Between:
BROTHERHOOD RAILWAY CARMEN OF THE )
UNITED STATES AND CANADA )
ICC Finance Docket No. 30053
SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD
Statement of Claim
1. That the Seaboard Systun Railroad Company violated
the terms of the New York Dock Conditions when they
deprived Carman J. A. Luhn and Carman B. C. Grubbs
of their employment at Dothan, Alabama on May 1, 1984
and Carman D. L. Schulman of his employment on or
about November 5, 1984 and failed to compensate them
thereunder. By furloughing these Carmen on these
dates, they became dismissed employees at this time
under Article I, Section 1(c) of said New York Dock
Conditions, and
therefore became entitled to pre
servation of employment under the provisions contained
therein, which the Seaboard System Railroad has denied
them.
2. That the above mentioned Carmen be afforded the protective
benefits of the New York Dock Conditions including, but
not limited to, their test period earnings, as outlined
in Article I, Section 6 and their fringe benefits as
outlined in Article I, Section B.
3. That the above mentioned Carmen be paid the eighty-five
(85) days difference between the five days notice they
were given upon being furloughed and the ninety (90)
day notice called for in Article I, Section 4 of the New
York Dock Agreement.
Background
In the winter of 1982 the Louisville and Nashville Railroad
(L&N) merged into the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (SCL)(effective
December 31, 1982) and the new corporation became known as the Seaboard System Railroad (SSR). Collective bargaining Agreements with
the former L&N and SCL remained operative and the SSR's employees
continue, as of thi; date, to work under the separate Agreements.
On November 1,
1982
the Interstate Commerce Commission issued a
Notice of Exemption to the L&N and SCL under Finance Docket No.
30053. This Notice of Exemption reads as follows:
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company (SCL) and
Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company (L&N) have
filed a Notice of Exemption in accordance with
49
CFR
1111.4(g), Railroad Consolidation Procedures, 366 I.C.C.
75,
99 (198'2),
regarding the planned merger of L&N and
SCL. The merger is scheduled to occur on December 31,
1982
and the surviving company will be renamed Seaboard
System Railroad, Inc. (SSR).
At present, SCL owns 100 percent of L&N's capital
stock. SCL and L&N have common officers and are operated
as a single system, known generally as the Family Lines
System. SSR will acquire all assets of L&N and will assume
all of its liabilities. All outstanding shares of L&N
stock will be canceled. No securities will be issues relating to the merger. No operating changes will be made
by Family Lines. The merger will not have anticompetitive
effects on Carriers outside the corporate family, and will
not have adverse effects on shippers.
The planned merger will be a transaction within a
corporate family that will not result in adverse changes in
service levels, significant operational changes, or a
change in the competitive balance with Carriers outside the
corporate family. Thus it is an exempt transaction pursuant
to 49 CGR 1111.2(d)(3), 366 I.C.C at 94.
As a condition to the use of this exemption, any
employees affected by this transaction shall be protected
pursuant to New York Dock R y.-Control-Brooklyn Eastern
District, 360 I.C.C.
0 79
. This will satisfy the
statutory requirements of
49
U.S.C. 10505(g)(2).
Shortly after the merger took place the SSR conducted a time study
of the train yard operations at Dothan, Alabama. The study was performed during the six day period, January 26-31,
1983.
As a consequence of this study the General Chairman of the union was notified
on April
8, 1983
that "...due to a decline in service requirements"
at Dothan the company intended to "...abolish the remaining first,
second, and khird shift Carmen's train yard positions at Dothan"
on or about April 22, 1983. The proposed job abolishments were
postponed, however, because of the request by the same General
Chairman that a joint time study be done and such was conducted, on
various shifts, on May 11-13, 1983. Approximately three months
later, in August of 1983 the company, in turn, suggested to the
General Chairman that a "...proper (joint) seven-day time study be
made
beginning September
11, 1983 and continuing through September
17, 1983". There is some disagreement in the record over exactly
why the General Chairman didi not participate-in a third time
study. According to the company, the General Chairman simply declined
to participate after he had verbally agreed to do so. According
to the General Chairman he declined to participate in another study
because he had learned that the company had advised the Carmen at
Dothan, after the second time study was performed, that "...in the
future they would not perform most of the duties that they had been
performing" and in view of this another "...time study would be useless". According to the company, "...the matter of reducing forces
at Dothan lay dormant until Claimants Luhn and Grubbs were furloughed
on May 7, 1984 in Carrier's continuing efforts to reduce expenses
due to a decline in its business". In November of 1984 the Carrier
also "...furlough(ed) Carman D. L. Schulman from his Carman's position at Dothan, Alabama". On June 12, 1984 the General Chairman
filed a claim for Carmen Luhn and Grubbs under the New York Dock
Agreement on the grounds that they were dismissed employees within
the meaning of Appendix III, 1(c) of that Agreement because of the
merger covered by ICC Docket No. 30053 dated November 1, 1982,
effective December 31, 1982. The.claim also alleged that the company
was in violation of Appendix III, 4 when it failed to give ninety
(90) days notice because of the dismissals at bar. Absent resolution
of the matter by means of conference the General Chairman filed
intent to refer the dispute to arbitration in accordance with
Appendix III, 11 of the New York Dock Agreement. On December 17,
1984 the General Chairman adCed Carman Schulman as party to the
claim since the union alleged that he had "...been affected the
same as Claimants Luhn and Grubbs". By letter dated May 31, 1985
the instant neutral was confirmed as Chairman and Neutral Member
of this New York Dock Arbitration Committee and a hearing on this
matter was held in Jacksonville, Florida on July 31, 1985.
Position of the Company
The original reason for wanting to abolish 1 first, second
and third shift Carman positions at Dothan was "...due to decline
in service requirements" as the company explained to the union after
the first tine study was performed in January of 1982. When the
abolishment of the positions at Dothan was finally implemented in
1984 and the union filed its claim under New York Dock the company,
in turn, denied the claim by relying on a number of Agreements which
had been signed in 1959. In other words, a "decline in service requirements" at Dothan may have been the factual reasons which the
company gave for its actions, but the 1959 Agreements were the contractual justifications for the furloughs. The company states that
the furlough of the employees was unrelated to the "transaction"
which took place on December 31, 1982 when the SCL and the L&N merged
because "...it (was) apparent that the ACL/L&N Montgomery and
Birmingham Yard coordinations ?/ have been completely overlooked by
(the union) as well as the Agreements which provided for those
coordinations" when the claim was filed. The company goes on to say:
(t)he Montgomery ACL/L&N coordination was executed in
1959 and the Carmen's work and seniority rosters were consolidated at that time. It is significant to note that
prior to 1959 the ACL carmen from Montgomery protected car
1/ The Atlantic Coast Line (ACL) and the Seaboard Air Line
(SAL) Railroads merged in 1967 to form the Seaboard Coast Line
(SCL) Railroad.
repair work on line of road and the Carriers did not
give up the right to perform this work out of Montgomery
simply because the yards were consolidated.
In other words, the company argues that the Consolidation of all
Terminal Facilities of the ACL/L&N at Montgomery, Birmingham and
Atlanta Agreements dated June 10, 1959 and September 11, 1959 protected its actions with respect to the furlough of the employees
in question by effectively permitting it to coordinate work between SCL and L&N Carmen as this related to Birmingham, Montgomery
and Dol:han, Alabama. For example, when the union states that on
May 30, 1984 28 bad ordered cars at Troy, Alabama were placed in
the L&N Shops at Montgomery "...for repairs of defects found by
the State Inspector" rather than repaired by SCL Carmen at Dothan
the company responds that:
(w)hile we have not checked to determine whether the
report you received was correct regarding the State
Inspectors (at Troy) and the repair of 28 bad order
cars, even if this were true there is absolutely nothing
improper in having repairs made to these cars in the
coordinated yard at Montgomery in accordance with the
1959 coordination agreement.
Another reason given by the company for denying the claim
is that the abolishment of the positions was but part of the
company's "...effort to reduce its expensesibecause of a decline in
business". The company states:
Wt
is common knowledge that the railroad industry and
the entire nation in general has suffered through a severe
recession the past several years. This Carrier was affected
by the depressed economy beginning in November 1981, and
while there was a brief upswing beginning in the fourth
quarter of 1983, the economy again softened in 1984.
Position of the Union
The basis for the grievance which was first filed on June 12,
1984 by the union is that:
the L&N employees out of Birmingham and Montgomery, Alabama
were performing work on the former SCL R.R. line of road;
whereas, prior to the merger of the SCL R.R. and L&N R.R.
on January 1, 1983 this work was rightly performed by
the SCL employees working at Dothan, Alabama. Since
the furlough on or about May 1, 1984 of Carmen Luhn and
Grubbs (and later in November of 1984, Carman Schulman)
the Seaboard System Railraod has continued assigning
L&N employees from Birmingham and Montgomery, Alabama
to perform work on trains and freight cars on the former
SCL R.R.
In support of this contention the union states the following. First
of all, after the joint check was made at Dothan on May 11-13, 1983
the study showed that there was sufficient work at Dothan to keep
the car inspectors working. Secondly, the General Chairman refused
to participate in a second joint study at Dothan because his local
committeeman informed him by letter dated August 28, 1983 that the
Mechanical Department Foreman "...instructed (him) not to make any
more inbound inspections and to make only outbound inspections. This
applies to all car inspectors at Dothan. No reason was given for
the change in ...work schedule". Thirdly, the General Chairman
claims that while he was doing the joint study on May 11-13, 1983
he:
found that the
L&N
employees had been coming into the
SCL
property and performing the-work contracted to the SCL
Carmen, and that even the shop work was being moved to Montgomery, Alabama to be performed by the Carmen on the L&N
R.R. at that point.
Fourthly, on:
May 23, 1984 a State Inspector bad ordered 28 cars on SCL
R.R. at Troy, Alabama. On May 30, 1984 these 28 cars were
placed in the L&N Shop at Montgomery, Alabama for repairs
of defects found by the State Inspector.
Fifthly, on:
May 31, 1984 the L&N over-the-road truck from Montgomery,
Alabama went to Randall, Georgia with an L&N crew made up
of Carmen and a Foreman with the instructions to rerail a
car. This (was) on the SCL property and therefore-work
belonging to the former SCL employees and not the employees
on the L&N R.R. out of Montgomery, Alabama.
It is the position of the company that this latter decision was
made by the company because "the forces assigned to Dothan, Alabama
were on another assignment at the time and were unavailable to meet
the local at Randall" and in an effort to expedite the movement of
a shipment for a customer forces were sent from Montgomery to attempt
to pull the "car back on the track" which , as it turned out, was
unsuccessful and the Dothan forces had to be called later to do the
job anyway. The union's response to this is that it simply proves
the point that this was work belonging to the SCL Carmen forces at
Dothan in the first place. Sixthly, on June 9, 1983 the Tallahassee,
Florida over road truck made repairs to cars at Bainbridge, Georgia.
These cars had been bad ordered by a FRA Inspector. It is the contention of the union that this work belonged to the Dothan Carmen.
Lastly,
on or about August 9, 1984 there was a large number of
cars bad ordered at Dothan, Alabama by D.O.T. and/or F.R.
A. Inspectors. These cars were put in a train and were
sent from the SCL Yard and Shop at Dothan, Alabama to the
L&N Shop at Montgomery, Alabama. Thirty-nine (39) of these
cars were shown to be repaired and returned to Dothan,
Alabama; and seventy-seven (77) of these cars which had
been bad ordered by the D.O.T. and/or F.R.A. Inspectors
were to be repaired at Montgomery, Alabama and continued
from there on to their destinations.
In short, it is the position of the union that these are all instances
of actions taken by the company after, and as a result of,the merger
sanctionned by ICC Finance Docket No. 30053 and that they represent
"operating changes" which put the Claimants under the protection
of New York Dock Finance Docket No. 28250 as "dismissed employees".
The union states the following in its submission:
(p)rior to January 1, 1983 when the SCL and the L&N
Railroads were merged into the Seaboard System Railroad
the point of Dothan, A.abama wasin the Waycross Division
of the SCL Railroad, and the SCL trackage in the Waycross
Division ran from Brunswick, Georgia to Montgomery, Alabama.
And the line-of-road work on this section of track from
Montgomery, Alabama to sout of Dothan, Alabama was performed
by the Carmen (Claimants) at Dothan, Alabama. After the
merger of the L&N and SCL the Carrier arbitrarily placed
Dothan, Alabama and the trackage running northwest from
Thomasville, Georgia to Dothan, and up to Montgomery, Alabama
inl-:o the Birmingham Division of the former L&N Railroad.
This new Birmingham Division, being primarily a L&N
Division, assigned the work on the
SCL
trackage to
L&N employees out of Birmingham and Montgomery, Alabama
and had repair work which had formerly been done by the
SCL
employees at Dothan, Alabama moved from the
SCL
trackage and Shops into Montgomery and Birmingham,
Alabama for repairs to be made to the cars. This assignment of work which is contracted to the
SCL
employees,
and which is now being performed by the employees under
contract with the L&N Railroad, was a primary factor in
the furloughing of our three Claimants from the service
of the Carrier.
It is (the) position (of the union) that although the Carrier
has not admitted that there has been a coordination, and has
not treated it as such under the New York Dock Protective
Agreement, there clearly has been a coordination which has
infringed upon our contractual rights in the Dothan, Alabama
area. This coordination began when the Carrier, upon the
merger of the L&N and SCL R.R.'s on January 1, 1983 redivisioned
the combined Railroads and placed Dothan, Alabama area and
its line-of-road territory under the Birmingham Division of
the L&N Railroad. And as a consequence (it) assigned work
belonging to the SCL Carmen at Dothan, Alabama to the L&N
Carmen mainly at Montgomery, Alabama but also at Birmingham,
Alabama.
Findings
New York Dock Finance Docket No. 28250 at Appendix III 11 (e)
states that:
(i)n the event of any dispute as to whether or not a
particular employee was affected by a transaction, it
shall be his obligation to identify the transaction and
specify the pertinent facts of that transaction relied
upon.
Examination of the record shows that the union has done a reasonable
and credible job of
identifying the
alleged transaction as noted
above in the section of this Award entitled: Position of the Union,
and that it has provided pertinent facts in its attempt to show that
certain operational changes took place at SSR after the ICC approved
merger of December 31, 1982, and that such operational changes had
a reasonable impact on the Claimants. The company never really
denies that certain operational changes took place after January
1, 1983 and in the Seaboard System News it publicized as much in
the March 1983 edition where it stated, with accompanying color
coded map, that:
(w)ith consolidation of the Seaboard Coast Line, Louisville
& Nashville, Clinchfield, Georgia and West Point Route rail
roads into the new Seaboard System Railroad, a number of
divisions were realigned. The most notable change was the
consolidation of the Waycross, Rocky Mount and Georgia Divisions,
reducing the number of divisions from 16 to 13.
It certainly appears to be no accident that the reduction of the
number of divisions from 16 to 13 after the January 1, 1983 merger
coincided with the time study immediately conducted thereafter by the
company in January of 1983 at Dothan, Alabama.
The focus of the company's arguments in denying the claim does
not lie, however, in the denial of such changes but rather on the
grounds that it was justified in doing such because of contract right,
stemming from the 1959 Coordination Agreements, and because of a
decline in business. In accordance with New York Dock Finance Docket
No. 28250 at Appendix III 11(e) it is the company's burden to prove
that these other factors, therefore, and not the transaction santionned by ICC Finance Docket No. 30053 were the causes of the
abolishment of the Claimants' positions at Dothan.
Was the company contractually protected when it shifted work
formerly done at Dothan, Alabama to other points after January of
1983? The company has failed to prove that the 1959 Agreements
authorize the performance of the Dothan work at other locations;
nor is there any evidence in the record that these Agreements were
ever used in that way during the some 25 years prior to this case.
The company next argues that the "...decline in service requirements" at Dothan, Alabama for the three Carmen, which was first brough
to the union's attention in April of 1983, after the ICC approved
merger of the L&N and the SCL, were also due to the "...Carrier's
efforts to reduce its expenses because of a decline in business".
There have been numerous arbitration and Special Board of Adjustment
Awards in the railroad industry denying claims such as the instant
one on the basis of a "decline in business". Such Awards have
emanated from union claims on the basis of the New York Dock and
Oregon Short Line Agreements, and on the basis of the Agreements
regulating both Special Board of Adjustments 570 and 597. The parties
to this dispute are abundantly familiar with such precedent and it need
not be documented here. Further, as recently as May of 1985 a number
of denial arbitration decisions, on the basis of "decline in business",
were rendered on this property which involved grievances filed by
this same union as a result of an ICC authorized coordination between
the L&N and the B&0 railroad.
The company presents for consideration a number of types of
data to support its "decline in business" thesis and these have been
studied and analyzed by the arbitrator. These data include information on the volume of business (in carloads or units) done by the
company, over time, from 1977 through the second quarter of 1985;
the number of employees in the employment of the company from 1981
through 1984, and the number of locomotives in storage from December
of 1981 through December of 1984.
2/
Information applicable to the
instant case on the company's fluctuations in business, measured in
carloads hauled, which is taken from the company's exhibit "E", is
presented on the following 3 Tables.
2/ No information is presented by either party on the company's
earnings during these years but it is not clear if such information
could serve as basis for any useful conclusions relative to the
instant case anyway. In that respect this arbitrator is in accord
with the comments made by the neutral in Case No. 1 at p. 9 of the
Award rendered pursuant to N.Y. Dock Conditions dealing with a
dispute between the same parties here at bar (May 29, 1985, Jacksonville, Floridal.
Table 1
Company's Volume of Traffic in Carloads
Company's (Including Coal) or 1982-83,
Changes by Month
Year
Month 1982 1983 Change by Carload Percent Change
January 278,365 263,215
(1/)
- 15,150 - 5.76%
February 288,348 263,898 - 24,450 - 9.26%
March 320,035 297,665 (2/) - 22,390 - 7.52$
April 287,206 272,852 - - 14,354 - 5.26%
May 272,895 282,387 + 9,492 + 3.^I$
June 283,925 287,760 + 3,835 + 1.35$
July 257,612 259,409 + 1,797 + .07%
August 277,464 298,884 + 21,420 + 7.72$
September262,262 295,418 + 33,156 +12.64$
October 282,995 305,522 + 22,527 + 7.96$
November 261,270 294,337 + 33,067 +12.66$
December 256,122 288,013 + 31,891 +12.45$
(1/) January 1, 1983: day after scheduled merger between the L&N and
SCL occured in accordance with ICC Finance Docket NO. 30053.
(2/) April 22, 1983: proposed date for abolishment of the Carmen
- positions at Dothan, Alabama by the company "due to decline in
service requirements.
Table 2
Company's Volume of Traffic in Carloads
(Including Coal) -or 983-8 ,
Changes by Month
Year
Month 1983 1984 Chance by Carload Percent Change
January 263,215 294,638 + 31,423 +11.94$
February 263,898 303,845 + 39,947 +15.140
March 297,645 331,241 + 33,596 +11.29%
April 272,852 307,776 (1/) + 34,924 +12.80%
May 282,387 321,935 - + 39,548 +14.00%
June 287,760 312,223 + 24,463 + 8.50$
July 259,409 293,867 + 34,458 +13.28$
August 298,884 324,768 + 25,884 + 8.66%
September295,418 306,595 + 11,177 + 3.78%
October 305,522 314,907 (2/) + 9,385 + 3.07$
November 294,337 291,512 - - 2,825 - .09$
December 288,013 277,074 - 10,939 - 3.94$
(1/) May 1, 1984: Abolishment of positions of Carmen Luhn & Grubbs.
(2/) On or about November 5, 1984: Abolishment of position of Carman
Schulman.
Table 3
Company's Total Volume of Traffic in Carloads
(Including Coal) By Year: -
Year Total Volume Carload Change from Preceding Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Percent Change
4,343,891
4,333,716
4,396,789
4,168,698
3,960,233
3,322,499
3,409,340
3,680,381
- 10,175
+ 63,973
- 228,091
- 208,465
- 637,734
+ 86,841
+ 271,041
- 0.023
+ 0.146
- 5.44$
- 5.26$
- 19.19$
+ 2.61$
+ 7.95$
The data show that there was a drop in overall volume of traffic
from 1979, which is the highest volume year shown on the data sheet
presented to the arbitrator, to the end of 1984 of 716,408 units
(Table 3). Nevertheless, this overall business conducted by the company by the end of 1984 was some 357,882 carloads higher than the
business it conducted in its lowest year, just 2 years before, which
was 1982.
3/
In other words, from the time that the ICC Finance Docket
No. 30053 went into effect until the end of 1984 the company's
business volume increased by over 350,000 carloads. It did not do
this immediately after January 1, 1983 when the Notice of Exemption
went into effect but gains were made already in the month of May of
1983 (volume +3.48$) over the preceding year, and in the fall of that
year dramatic gains were being made in business volume measuring by
carload units (Table 1). Likewise, gains were made in total volume
from January through August of 1984 which were rather dramatic. Gains
3/ 4,396,789 (1979) minus 3,680,381 (1984) = 716,408; 4,396,789
(1979) minus 3,322,499 (1982) = 1,C74,290 minus 716,408 = 357,882.
continued through October of that year after which there were
small losses incurred in the winter of 1984 (Table 2). From the
time that the ICC Docket No. 30053 went into effect, however, on
January 1, 1983 until Carmen Luhn and Grubbs' positions were
abolished in May of 1984 the company had increased its unit volume
in 9 of the preceding 13 months of this period (Tables 1 and 2)
and May itself was the ninth month of increase in volume, all but
one of which (October, 1983) had double digit percentage increases.
Likewise, Carman Schulman's position was abolished at the end of
a period of increases in business volume which.was October of 1984
as underlined above. On the basis of this data it is reasonble to
look to other reasons besides "decline in business" as the basis for
the abolishment of the positions in question. Such conclusion is
supported by data presented by the company on locomotives in storage
from 1981 through 1984. These data are presented on the following
Table.
Table 4
Date
Locomotives in Storage
1981 (December)
1982 (December)
1983 (August)
1984 (December)
307
455
312
101
As business volume dec=eased from 1981 to 1982 (Table 3) it is
reasonable to assume that more locomotives were put in storage.
As business volume began to increase in 1983 and 1984 the locomotives
were needed and were taken out of storage. Thus the data on the
volume of traffic and locomotives in storage are consistent and
permit the same conclusions arrived at above.
4/
4/ There are also data in the record on freight cars in storage
but they are incomplete and do not permit any conclusions. Logically,
however, such data must be consistent with the two types of data discussed above since freight cars are needed to increase volume of
carload loadings and their number in storage will fluctuate with
business volume in a fairly consistent manner.
Lastly, the company presents information on employment levels
at the company from 1981 through 1984. These data are particularly
interesting for 1983 and 1984, although they are just summary data.
These data are presented below in Table 5.
Table 5
Company Employment Levels: 1981-84
Year
Employment Level
1981: January
December
1982 January
December
1983 January
December
1984 January
December
33,804
32,787
30,712
28,835
29,127
29,137
28,797
28,285
These data show a a very large drop in employment level from
January 1, 1983 to the end of 1984 for SSR (all of which took
place in 1984: -842 employees) which is at variance with the
increased business volume for that same year. In 1984 there was
a 7.95$ overall increase in business volume (Table 3) and a 2.92$
overal decrease in employment level (December, 1983 to December,
1984)(Table 5). Thus a decrease in business during the period
after the ICC Finance Docket No. 30053 approval until the Claimants'
positions were abolished cannot explain the drop in employment
level at the company, including the elimination of the Grievants'
positions, because there was no decrease in business during that
time. Some other factors must, therefore, be operative.
5/ The conclusion(s) arrived at by the arbitrator in Case No.
1 of May 29, 1985 and its companion cases have been studied and they
are consistent with the data found on the Tables herein presented.
Those cases dealt with an ICC approved coordination dating back to
the early part of 1981 which was at about the beginning of a dramatic
drop in business volume for the company (Table 3).
Decision
The union has argued in this case that the cause of the abolishment of the three Carmen positions at Dothan, Alabama in May and August
of 1984 was the "transaction" which took place when the L&N and SCL
merged into the SSR effective December 31, 1982. The union has presented
evidence herein to the effect that duties which had been performed
by SCL Carmen at Dothan were being cemoved in the summer of 1983 and
that various other work which had been performed by these Carmen at
Dothan in the past was being done at Montgomery, Alabama, including
shop work, repair work and wrecker service. None of this is denied
by the company in the record before this Committee, and the company
even publicized the fact in March of 1983 that it had "realigned"
a number of divisions with the consolidation of the L&N and SCL into
the SSR. This alignment meant the consolidation of the Waycross?
Rocky Mount and Georgia divisions with the result that the former 16
divisions were reduced to 13. Dothan was involved in this realignment
and consolidation because it was in the Waycross division. In
accordance with the ICC Finance Docket No. 30053 employees affected
by a transaction "...shall be protected pursuant to New York Dock".
The company's reasons for not having provided such protection is
based on contractual and financial arguments. The arbitrator has
examined both closely and has found them wanting. Neither the 1959
Coordination Agreements in cruestion, nor a decline in business, since
there was-none during the time-frame in question, can serve as adequate reason for the transfer of the work from Dothan to other points
which resulted in the abolishment of the three positions. The
Claimants are, therefore, dismissed employees as stipulated by the
New York Dock Conditions at 1(c) and they shall be paid all compensation and benefits due them as dismissed employees under these
Conditions including those in accordance with Section 4 of the
same.
Award
The claims are sustained in accordance with the Findings and
the Decision. All compensation and benefits due the Claimants shall
be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of this Award and
theredfter in accordance with the provisions of New York 0tick Ry.
- Control - Brooklyn Eastern Dist., 360 I.C.C. 60 (1979). The
arbitrator retains jurisdiction over the interpretation of this
Award until December 2,1, 1985.
Edward L. Suntrup,.~Chairman
r
"I/I
R. .P. W towicz, )~Mployee member
JOT.
-Williams, Carrier
Date: November 21, 1985
Jacksonville, Florida