IN TI;E .'1ATTER OF ARBITRA'T'ION
before an

 ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 under

 ICC FINANCE DOCKET NO. 28250
 (NEW YORK DOCK CONDITIONS)
 APPENDIX III, SECTION 11

 HEARING HELD IN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, JUNE 26, 1984

 PARTIES BROTHERHOOD RAILWAY CARIIEN OF THE
 UNITED STATES AND CANADA

 TO

 DISPUTE

 and

 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COtiPAN Y

 FILE NO. SCA 82-11-3
 STATEMENT (1) That the Burlington Northern
 Railroad Company, hereinafter (BN or Carrier)
 OF violated and breached the letter and intent
 of the provisions of ICC Finance Docket No.
 CLAIM: 28250 (commonly known as New York Dock
 Conditions), particularly Section 6 and 7
 thereof, when the aforesaid Carrier furloughed
 the employees listed below at Kansas City,
 t1issouri, as a result of a "Merger related
 transaction to change operat'ions" with~he
 meaning of the clew York Dock Conditions but
 failed and refused to provide said employees
 with the protective benefits provided for in
 New York Dock. The following employees,
 hereinafter referred to collectively as Claimants,
 were improperly denied protective benefits:
 J. D. Anders, J. Brown, Jr., R. L. Burton,
 L .J. Burks, D. ti. Bush, R.W. Clark, C.E.
 Espeland, J. A. Farris, J. R. Fink, L.H.
 Galloway, R.W. Gering, J. R. Heshion, J . R.
 Henninger, W. D. Hopkins, K. D: I:enagy,
 R. B. Malkames, III, C. E. !!cMcoy, T. M. osbern, t1. W. Railey, F. E. Rickman, J. !4. Ryan, W. A. Shaw, L. E. Shipman, T. A. Sack, D. P. Sevedge, F. J. Toth, G. D. Webb, L. R. White.

 (2) That BN violated the provisions of Section 4 of the New York Dock Conditions by failing to furnish appropriate notice of the aforesaid transaction.

 (3) That BN be required to award Claimants the protective benefits set forth in Section 6 and 7 of New York Dock and all fringe benefits provided for in Section 8 of New York Dock.
This dispute arose based on the Carrier's action in reference to change in forcelevel for Carmen at the Carrier's Ncrth Kansas City, Mo. facilities. Twenty-eight employees, the Claimants herein, were displaced and claim that this was as a result of a "transaction". The Organization argues that the Claimants are eligible for protective benefits under the Clew York Dock Conditions.
 This dispute is similar, although not identical, to a dispute resolved by an Arbitration Committee on January 17, 1983 (File 8CA 82-2-4E) between the same parties. In that dispute, the Arbitration Committee found that the Claimants were not entitled to protective benefits as claimed.
 The background here is the same as that in the Award. cited above. The Burlington Northern (the Carrier herein) and the St. Louis San Francisco Railway Company effected a merger as of November 21, 1980. Following this, on January 29, 1981, the Carrier and the organization entered into an
 Implementing Agreement, recognizing coverage of New York Dock Conditions (Finance Docket t'o. 28250). The Implementing Agreement specifically referred to the locations at issue

 here, as follows:

(a) As a result of this transaction, certain Frisco Carman assignments at Rosedale yard will be abolished and consolidated with BN work at hurray yard, North Kansas City, Missouri; and, thereafter, all car department functions in the Kansas City terminal will be performed on a coordinated basis under the BN collective agreements . . . . As in the previous Award, the sole issue for resolution by the Arbitration Committee is whether the Carrier's actions between September 1981 and July 1982 constituted a "transaction" resulting from the merger, as claimed by the Organization, or whether it was a result of "factors other than a transaction". The New York Dock Conditions are applicable here, and

 relevant portions are as follows:

 1.. Definitions - (a) "Transaction" means any action taken pursuant to authorizations of this Commission on which these provisions have been imposed. Section 1 (c) of the Conditions reads as follows:

 (c) "Dismissed employee" means an employee of the
 railroad who, as a result of a transaction is deprived
 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 a result of a transaction.

(e) In 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. It shall then be the
 railroad's burden to prove that factors other than a
 transaction affected the employee.

 There is no question that the merger involved the consolidation of the Rosedale and Murray Yards, with the eventual elimination of the Rosedale Yard. At the time of the consolidation, protective benefits were granted to certain affected employees. The Carrier, however, has presented conclusive evidence of a later substantial decline in business and the resulting need to reduce its force levels. !lost significant to this dispute, these changes occurred not only at the Rosedale-Murray facilities but generally throughout the Carrier's operations.
 (The general right of the Carrier to reduce forces is, of course, covered by Rule 22 (a) which states in part, "When it becomes necessary to reduce expenses, forces will be reduced.")
 Kansas City is a part of the Springfield Region. For the period involved in the Claimants' furlough dates (September. 1981 to July 1982), monthly carloadings declined from 49,119 to 38,049. Train miles for the same period declined from 677,412 to 525,460. Revenue carloadings for Kansas City itself from September 1981 to September 1982 showed a decline of 41
 per cent. The number of Carmen assigned at `lurray/Rosedale
 during the same period declined in virtually the same degree -
 43 per cent.
 3.n rebuttal, the Organization presented to the Arbitration
 Committee a thorough analysis, from its viewpoint, of the
 Carrier's activity between 1981 and 1984. This appears to
 show a less drastic downturn than reported by the Carrier.
 Nevertheless, a review of the Organization's data confirms a
 downtrend in carloadings and inbound inspections during the
 pertinent period (1982). That activity recovered after this
 period does not affect the Carrier's argument that the 1981-82
 reductions were due to lowered business activity in that period.
 The Organization would have the Arbitration Committee
 believe that the consolidation of Rosedale and t!urray Yards
 (the transaction) resulted in the severe reduction in forces
 over an 18-month period. Rosedale did eventually close. But,
 had the Kansas City activity continued on a relatively even
 level, there is no basis to show that the merger of the two
 yards would have caused reductions as severe as occurred.
 After review of the data presented in this dispute, the
 Arbitration Committee comes to the same conclusion as in the
 similar dispute resolved on January 17, 1983, in which the
 Committee stated:
However, this by itself does not explain the decline in force beyond that effective at the time of the Implementing Agreement. The Carrier has sufficiently proved that the reduction in force in either or both points at the time of this departure was rationally grounded in concern for reduction in expense owing to decline in business.

 As a procedural note, the Carrier argued as a threshold issue that the claim by the Organization was not timely under Rule 34 (a). However, the Committee concurs with the organization's view that Rule 34 time limits are not applicable under New York Dock Conditions agreement. In view of the Committee's findings above, the Carrier also did not violate Section 4 of the New York Dock Conditions by failing to furnish appropriate notice, since the conclusion is that the reduction herein reviewed did not constitute a merger "transaction".
The Carrier did not violate ICC Finance Docket No.
 28250 (New York Dock Conditions) by failing to provide the
 Claimants herein with protective benefits.

 New York, New York
 Dated: August 30, 1984
                    HERBERT L. MARX, JR., Neutral tlember d Chairman


R. P . WOJT ICZ , Em yee !!ember

 cl,-,,~ k.", V.)
CLEtiENT LANE, Carrier Member