RE:

PAR7'IFS T9 DISPUTE:

APPEARANCES:

ARSITRATICN PRID=IINGS

NEW YORK DOCK LABOR PR=rIVE
CMITICNS (INPOSED BY INIERSTASE
COIF C*IISSICQV IN FINANCE
DOC= :O. 29455 (Size NOS. 1-5)
AND RELAMP PROCEEDINGS)

NORFOLK &V WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
ILLINOIS TERMNAL RAILROAD COMPANY
AND
UN= TRANSPOrtfATION ONION

FOR NORFOLK( 6 WESTERN RAILWAY

R. D. Kidwell
H. D. Amick
W. E. Goggin J. W. Horan FCR U= TRANSPOftIATICN UNION

C. L. Caldwell

(CAL AND VICE (MEAL QRAIFMN, UrJ-CLr

J. J. Fhslts R. S. Matz A. E. Haim LOCAL CHAIMIEN

C. W. Skdck
D. L. Leonard L. R. Wnaiert George S. Mimm C. R. Moore. Jr.
Jim L. Hmdy C. C. Chaonister Bill Martin K. N. Tlumpsan
SIPPIEMENfAI. AWARD NO. 1 SrATEMENr OF FACTS: The Interstate Commerce C®issian (ICC) approved the coon tics of operations of the Norfolk and Western Railway Company (NW) and Illinois Terminal Railroad Capany (TP) in its decision in Finance Docket No. 29455 (Sub Nos. 1-5) and related proceedings, service date June 22, 1981. Article 1. Section 4 of the New York Dock Canditians requires that subsequent to Carriers' serving a ninety (90) day notice of the intended transaction, the parties endeavor to negotiate an implementing agreement under which the employes will work upon implementation of the consolidation. Pursuant to the ICC order and the New York Dock Conditions, the Carriers served the required notice an the United Transportaticn Union (UTU)an July 29, 1981, of their intent to unify, coordinate and/or consolidate their respective operations an or after November 1, 1981. The parties met an several occasions for the purpose of reaching a gr~wmt as follows: The parties met an five days during August, 1981, being August 10, 11, 19, 20 and 21; and upon eleven days in September 1981, being Septa 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 28, 29 and 30; and on three days in October 1981, being October 1, 2 and 18: and endeavored to reach an implementing agreement under which the employees would work upon consummation of the consolidation. The parties, however, despite such sustained meetings and efforts, did not succeed in reaching a complete implementing agreement. The Carrier proceeded by invoking arbitration as provided for in Article 1, Section 4 of the New York Dock Ccmditiacu. The initial arbitration hearing was held in St. Iauis, Missouri, on November 9, 1981.

Arbitration Award was rendered on December 29, 1981, copy attached.

The arbitrator in his aced was of the opinion from reading the record that negotiations for a new and proper inplamenting agreement had not been carried out to the extent required far success. The arbitrator was of the further opinion that such negotiations, if resumed. Would result in a full and complete resolution by agreement of all issues, both major and minor, necessary to secure a complete implementing agreement, satisfactory and fair to all. Further negotiations were resumed on January 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 and . continued February 16, 17 and 18, 1982. The parties reached an accord on what they considered a fair and equitable agreement. A proposed Implementing Agreement was signed an Febrsawy 22, 1982, by two (2) General Chairman.

Under date of March 10, 1982, Mr. J. J. Hilts, General Chairman, United Transportation Union, CrSE, Norfolk 6 Western Railway Company (Wabash District), directed a letter to Mr. R. D. Kidwell. System Director Labor Relations, Norfolk & Western Railway Crnpany, Roanoke, Virginia, as follows:

"Dear Sir:

"This letter is in reference to yea letter dated Mach 1, 1982, concerning coordination agreement of N&W's acquisition of the Illinois Terminal Railroad.

"Due to Yard Loeal Chats Carl Smiclc and C. R. Moors not agreeing to the proposed agreement, I am unable to sign.

'Article 85 of the UTU Constitution, the General Chairman mast have the concurrence of the local Chairmen before he can sighs a local agreement.

"lfie vote taken was as foltoas:

"Yard Local Chairman: C. W. Smdck - Against
C. R. Moore - Against

"Road Local Chairmen:

'Firemen Local
Chairmen:

cc: C. L. Caldwell, Vice President UN'

B. B. Pritchett - For
J. L. Bundy - For
K. N. Thompson - For

L. R. Grunert - For
D. L. Leonard - Against

Years very truly,

J. J. Hats
General Chairmen

This present matter camas an for hearing in St. Louis, Missouri, pursuant to a ooarnadcation set forth as follows:
"March 6, 1982 "Mr. Leverett Edwards, Esq. 2704 Scott Ave. Ft. Worth, Texas 76103 "Re: N&WW Acquisition of Illinois Terminal R. R. "Dear Mr. E1wards: "Impasse has developed in connection with efforts to implement your decision of December 29, 1981, as related to the integration of seniority rosters. "Your award provided that you would reserve 'arbitral jurisdiction to resolve by further or supplemental Arbitration Award or Awards, arty deadlocks that may remain following the expiration of twenty (20) days ***.' "Therefore, the signatory parties respectfully request that you meet with us in St. Laos, Missouri, at the earliest date possible for the purpose of presenting this dispute to you for decision. Very truly yours,

"/s/ R. D. Kidwell, System Director Labor Relations Norfolk and Western Railway Oapany 8 North Jefferson Street Roanoke, Virginia 24042

"/s/ C. L. Caldwell, Vice President United Transportation Union 8311 Webster Drive, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24019"

DISCUSSION: The negotiations conducted in January and February, 1982 nude good progress. However, they were not unardirouuly 100 percent acceptable to the entire group of local d st*_,e, who, under the UTU Constitution, appear to have a voice in the matter. The Arbitrator notes that the employee position in this case was presented by a Vice President of the National Organization of the UTU, a representative who had spent most of his adult life in the handling of Union negotiations and who has attained an outstanding reputation of ability, knowledge and fairness aid has long held a position as Vice President of his Organization. His counterpart on the Carrier side has attained a similar record and reputation and a very high position with a major railroad, System Director of Labor Relations. Neither representative has any reason or ability, for that matter, to be arbitrary or to take unfair advantages. Each was assisted by an interested participating committee. Each has realized that in a coordination, such as herein, there may not be a satisfactory solution for everyone or every problem. The Arbitrator is firmly convinced that no effort has been spared by these committees to reach an agreepmt as fair as possible to all concerned, recognizing it would be impossible to bring forth a solution that would satisfy every interested party.

A closely similar precedent upon an almost identical issue was considered in an Arbitration Award in a dispute between Consolidated Rail Corporation and United Transvortation Union, Robert E. Peterson, Neutral Referee, Award dated August 24, 1981. A tentative agreement had bean reached between the parties on June 25, 1981. Final agreement was subject to ratification by the Local Union under Article 85, just as here.

By letter dated July 29, 1981, the General Chairmen for the Union advised Carrier's Senior Director of Labor Relations as follows:

"Please be advised that I have not been able to get Local Chairman J. A. Dolt to agreg that the proposed agreement, which would include the Detroit Terminal Railroad Caapany into Conrail's Consolidated Detroit Terminal, is acceptable.

'Under Article 85 of the UM Constitution the General Chairman must have the concurrence of the Local Chairman before he can sign a Local Agreement."

The Arbitrator further stated:

"As concerns the dispute, it is obvious from a reading of the record that the designated representatives of both parties were satisfied with the agreement they had reached on June 25, 1981. It is an agreement which appears to provide a fair and equitable arrangement to protect employee interests in the transaction. It is evident that all concerned were ably represented by persona experienced in the art of negotiations and familiar with a transaction of the type involved in this dispute.

"Accordingly, on the basis of the record, written submissions, and oral presentments by representatives of the parties at the arbitration hearing, it will be the neutral referee's determination that the terns and conditions of agreement betweat the parties be as set forth in Attactnent I to this Award. "

"In making a decision as above in this dispute, the neutral referee is guided by what he believes to be a reasonable

interpretation of the mandates contained in the I. C. C. 's order, particularly as concerns representatives of the parties having the principal responsibility for reaching terms and conditions of an agreement *** it should be recognized that regardless of the amount of time one could spend in negotiating an agreement, no amount of effort will solve or are all individual worker or management needs or desires. The purpose of collective representation is to entrust individual rights with accredited representatives so as to avoid the pitfalls of bargaining on an individual basis. 'thus, the neutral referee has placed great weight upon the fact that the representatives for the thion had indicated acceptance of the agreement, and that for the neutral referee to attempt to arbitrarily cJange that which had been agreed to would no doubt only lead to further contmversy."

The Arbitrator believes this is sound reasoning and is as applicable to the dispute now before us as it was in said Consolidated Rail Corporation-UrU case from which quoted. AWARD: The Arbitrator herepyLfinds and accordingly decides and awards that tTe 'terms and conditions of the tentative implementing agreement reached in negotiation by the respective representatives and setting forth terms and condi tions pursuant to Interstate Commerce Caerdssion decision on Finance Docket No. 29»55 (Subs Nos. 1-5) service date June 22, 1981, shall be as set forth in Attachment 1 to this Award.

k'- .

rent Arbitratora Fort Worth, Texas March 16, 1982