BEFORE AN ARBITRATION COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED
UNDER NETV? YORK DOCK (II) EMPL0:.
7F
PROTFCT=F COI,TDITIONS
In the Matter of Arbitration
Between
International Association of Machinists
And
Southern Railway Company
OPINION AND AWARD
I.C.C. Finance Docket
No. 29430
Case No. 1
3ACI!GROUND: On March 25, 1982, the Interstate Commerce Commission
( ICC) gave approval to the Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC) to
acquire control through stock ownership of the Norfolk and Western
Railway Company (NW) and its subsidiary companies as well as Southern
Railway Company (SR) and its consolidated system companies. The ICC
also approved the coordination of operations of NW and SR and imposed
New York Dock (NYD) Protective Conditions.
Pursuant to Article 1, Section 4 of the New York Dock Conditions,
the parties agreed to an Implementing Agreement on March 30, 1982.
This Agreement provided the terms applicable to future transactions
covered by such conditions.
On June 19, 1987, the Organization submitted a Request for
Entitlement to Benefits form on behalf of four (4) Claimants for the
protective benefits under New York Dock because each of them had been
furloughed on April 3, 1987. Each Claimant also stated on the individual Request for Eneitlement to Benefits forms the following significant points
(1) That he had been placed in "a worse position or deprived
of employement" on April 3, 1987 because he had been
furloughed;
2
"hat the coordi-ation involved =hat _az:a_ _-_~.-; _.. ; ,:c~._ _
Lcsition was that "Southern ':ransferr`d -;cr:: _.^. `~&W
_
_= -._ _
the required proper notice";
7-hat t'.^.e Carrier transferred the mountync of ._3" -.;neei
to the N&W,
and
that the Carrier dismounted used ;,,reel
at Coster
and
sent the useable wheels to Roanoke to --a ^cre~.
remounted
and
turned on a tread lathe-
r-,
~.:s_::g
-,~_i~ _ a_ -_.:
being sent there also from Coster. This work was trans_err=_
without notice, as required by the 1922 AAgreement which : _
lowered the production required, therefore _acreasi nc _..._
number of needed 'Machinists.
e Carrier :?enied each of the claims sssenti a_ 1 - -n _:.e pro.... _
.:-:a _ the Claimants had : een furloughed because of =educed nroducti_:.
__cuirements brought about because of a system-wide usage of frei,1-_
-ar wheels.
When the parties were unable to resolve their differences cn
-hese claims, including the "Question at Issue", they were advanced
.-.o this forum for final disposition.
.rcanization's Question at Issue:
Did the Carrier violate the March 30, 1982, Agreement
-~-:~t:_
the transfer of 28" wheel and bearing r,:ourt_ngs !.o rT;::i's
Portsmouth Shop from Southern's Coster Shop and
the
torin.=
and
remounting of used wheel sets to
ts~'~
Roanoke Shop
Southern's Coster Shop."
Carrier's Question at issue:
Are Machinists Buckner, Messer, Collins and
Flanigan en
tizi.;_:
to the protective benefits under New ':ork Dock as a resui,~
of the transfer of 28" inch wheel
mountinas and
the reborin=
and
remounting of used wheel sets
from
Southern's Coster
Shop to NW's Roanoke Shop on or about April, 1985?"
FINDINGS: At the outset, the Board notes that the parties have cro
_zressed certain contentions and other matters to this Board which ,;e
not discussed on the property. Accordingly, these elements of this
case will not be considered by the Board when arriving at _ts deci-_`-
,n these claims.
3
while the organization, with skill and vigor, has presented i=s
3osition at great length and in considerable detail, both in the reccra
and before this body, the Organization's views may be summarized as
follows:
(1) The Carrier has not denied the main contention that the
function of
mounting 28
" wheels was moved from Coster Shop
and that the mounting of second-hand wheel sets has been
performed at Roanoke, rather than the Coster Shop. The
parties are bound by the requirements of Section 4 of the
March 30, 1980 Implementing Agreement which in pertinent
part reads:
"Future coordinations which are not now contemplated and
may involved employees being dismissed may be accompli=_~
by giving those employees and their interested General
Chairman a thiry (30) days' written notice.'
Consequently, the Carrier erred because it did not provide
the required advance notice.
(2) The claimed work, which the Organization also has described
in great detail, both as to its nature and the impact its
transfer had on Machinists' tasks associated with it, clearly would affect the Claimants. If nothing else, the sheer
volume of the work transferred would lead to a reasonable
conclusion that it caused the furlough of the Claimants.
summary therefore, the Organization contends this Board
must sustain its claims.
The Carrier has acknowledged (and indeed it is self-evident, as
contended by the Organization) that the transfer of work in Apri1,1985.
associated with the 28" wheel sets from Coster, could have an impact
on the Coster work force. However, the Carrier
maintains that
evidence
also shows that the Claimants' work status did not materially change
at that time. It was not until two years later, in April 1987, that
the Claimants were furloughed.
In order to gain Near York Dock Benefits, the following key
criteria, as defined in Section 1 of NYD, must be-met:
4
(a) "Transaction" means any action taken -ursuant to
authorizations of this Commission on which these
provisions have been imposed.
(b) "Displaced employee" means an employee of the
railroad who, as a result of a transaction is placed
in a worse position with respect to his compensation
and rules governing his working conditions.
(c) "Dismissed employee" means any 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.
^hese criteria have been subject to numerous arbitral holdings ·;:hic^
-ce nave carefully considered.
Applying the facts of this case to the criteria,
that it must deny the claim. The Claimants continued to work at
their same location, in the same craft and without a reduction in
compensation until two year later, when in April 1987 they were f.:;.toughed. Clearly, it becomes more difficult to establish a "causal
nexus" when a lengthy time span exists between the time of the
"transaction" and the Claimants' furlough. However, the Claimant
have not met their burden in showing that the April 1985 transfer of
t.aork caused the abolition of their positions tao years later. We
r;:
that the Carrier's reasons for denying these claims, as summarized in
its letter of August 28, 1987 to the Organization, are persuasive.
the Board finc'-
AWARD
The claims are denied.
G. C. Edwards
Carrier Member
CA-
Ecke and Muess'
Chairman
oe R. Duncan
OJrganization Member