Arbitration Proceedings pursuant to Article I,, Section 4 of the New York Dock: Conditions as stated in IOC Finance Docket No. 30,000 issued October 20, 1982
Parties

 AWARD AND DECISION

Union Pacific Railroad Company
 Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 Background The parties selected the Undersigned
 to be the Arbitrator on March 21, 198? to determine the orovi
 lions that should be included in an ir.-jolementing agreement
 that would provide an appropriate basis for selecting and as
 si_.^.=ns the yarsnaster forces operating in the Omaha Yards of
 the %lissouri Pacific, and the ya^d-master forces operating in
 the G7rana and Council Sluf fs Yards of t'.^.e. Union Pacific in the
 course of effecting an IOC approved consolidation o: these sev
 eral ; a: _s into a single combined terminal per :.t=on.

it was appropriate for the arbitration troceedings to be

 pros= essed in view a!' the fact that t'.^_e su-":ec t o^ -arA-:.-.aster representation on the Union ?acific property was currently be ing litigated in the federal courts.
 As hereinafter set forth, the Arbitrator ruled that it was proper to proceed :pith the substantive aspects of the dispute in view of t^e :act that the ?,:Ti=on : acif is had dealt
 and was dealing with the RYA as the a.ppropriate bargainin5 agent of the yardnasters.
On February 14, 1983 the Carriers served notice on the Organization of its wish to effect a consolidation of the Missouri Pacific and the Union Pacific yardmaster operations being performed at Omaha and Council Bluffs into a single combined operation controlled by the Union Pacific and under the Union Pacific Schedule Agreement rules.
 The initial bargaining session was convened on February 23, 1983 with the Carriers present;ng substantive proposals in furt::era_nce of the objectives of their February 14, 1983 Notice. The Organization took the position that it could not negotiate an i:ipler.enting agreement unless the Union Pacific recognized its representatives as "first class". representatives in the sa.::e way as it did other employee representatives on the property. ?t added that this recognition could be evi!enced by

 the Up issuing a formal s to tzrent stating that the IRYA was recognlzed bar_aining agent of the yarcLmasters and by the

 lea=in_ to it t'.^.e dues it had collected but not = cruar-d -c t*-RYA s=.^.ce the National Mediation Hoard had issued a certif=cation to another yardmaster organization, but which \M5 action had been restrained by a federal district court. The Carriers' response was that the RYA's requests regarding forma'- recogn=ti on and union dues collection were not proper subjects to raise in a New York Dock arbitration proceeding.
 On `arch 3, 1982 the parties met and discussed, int-~- alia, the concept of "controlling carrier". The Or3aniza~ion wanted the Carriers to agree to pay Union Pacific rates at C-...aham Council Bluffs and Kansas City, but to have the Missouri Pacific Schedule Agreement apply at Kansas City and Omaha/ Council Bluffs and XP rates and schedule rules would apply at Kansas City.
 The Organization also raised the issue of Bridge Dispatchers and Yardmaster training. The Carrier objected to cons_de:ing the first issue tecause it was extraneous to this arbitration proceeding and moreover, it was a subject that was being considered a public law board on the UP property.
 On March lo, 17, 18, 1983, the parties met and discussed a number of subjects. The principal focus was on seniority, with the Organization stressing tae acceptance of t'.^.e "prior r==hts" principle, with the Carriers favoring the dovetail-*nz of senior=ty. At tae :arch 16 session', the Organizatior again asserted tat the Carrier's February 14, 1983 Notice could not

 be nezot'_a-ed until t-e :ss:;es of representation and -yes co?-

 leC-fat t t~ I~ tn,~ 6, ~~...i ~..= Q-
fort!: their reasons why the "prior rights" concept was no: an
 appropriate method o= dealing with the seniority issue. r::e
 Organization persisted in seeking to get an agreement on the
 representation and dues matters. Despite offers and counter of
 fers on these subj ects, no agreement could be reached and negc
 tiations broke off. On March 18 the parties co7mienced disc-_s-
 lions which resulted in the establishment of tile New Y:_^k Conditions arbitration machinery.
 On April 18, 1983 the Arbitrator met in Omaha with the parties in interest. Prior to this meeting, and in preparation thereof, the Carriers presented the Arbitrator with their pre hearing Submission dealing both with the history of the negotiations as well as the Carriers' substantive position on the disputed issues. The Organization's Submission, while it related briefly to the history o: negotiations, stressed its procedural position, namely, that it was inappropriate to arbitrate this dispute while the issue of representation was being litigated in federal appellate courts. The Organization also emphasized the untenable financial position it was being maneuvered into by the UP refusing to transmit to it the dues it was collecting from yardmasters. The Carriers reiterated that the matters that the Organization persisted in raising were matters that had to be resolved in other fora.
 At the conclusion of the April 18, 1983 arbitration hear - i ng, the Arbitrator directed the parties to continue to engage i n good faith: bargain=:.a for twenty days, because it was evident to h:.:: that t::e parties '.-.ad not bargained, except superficially, over the core =slues relating to the se_ectjon and rearrangement o'_' forces = nctdent ;,o t'.^.e operation o: a single combined ter-
 uinal. The Arbitrator instructed t'.^.e parties to engage is good
 faith bargaining until they reached abreem.ent, but this bargain
 ing period would not extend beyond bay 9, '-983. On April 18,
 1983 the Arbitrator issued an Interim Award to this effect.
 On April 19, 1983 the Organization petitioned t^:e A7rator f -or leave to submit a Supplemental Submission ~for imple menting the terminal consolidation.
 On May 4, 1983 both parties notified the Arbitrator that they had convened on April 19, May 2 and 3, 1983 but were unable to reconcile their differences and were at impasse. The Carriers also objected to the Organization being granted permission at this tire to file z Supplemental Submission, and it maintained that the Arbitrator should proceed to draft an Imple menting Agreement based on the record made at the April 18, 1993 hearing. On the same day, the Organization renewed its request for permission to file a Supplemental Submission.
 On May 6, 1983, the Arbitrator issued an Award denying the Organization's request, because he found that the Organ=nation had persisted in holding to '_ts procedural position. throughout the proceedings, and that it would be inappropriate now to allow the Organization to present a substantive position after its procedural pos:tton ::ad been rejected.
 Since-the parties were unable to negotiate voluntarily an Imp=eaenting Air eement, the :.r bl -rc for '.::as pro--ulgated such an Agr eement which i3 AV .a"A" t0 this Decision nn,; Award.
 We also a-a the f ci_cw=nb conc 1 usiona= y °_ndinis in explanation o:' t e major provisions of t::e attac ed Supp_ementa_ Agreement:
 (1) We =in;: it =nappr~priate, in drafting an =.-.p?er:.e:.tini Agreement ours,-a^t to the New York Dock Conditions, to c_va
 consi4°_ration to such unrelated matters as bargain.; -:s anent recognition and union dues collection. The first matter is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the National Medlation Board and the second has to be decided in a forum other than this one.
 (2) We find that the ICC has declared in Finance Docket 30,000 that the controlling carrier concept shall be applicable, when it held that Omaha/Council Bluffs yards were to be operated by Union Pacific as a Union Pacific single controlled terminal, as a consolidated common point. This concept is not now open to question or co^test by the Organization. We find further that, consonant w; th this concept, is this single terminal can be operated under Union Pacific wage rates and schedule rules. Also consonant with this concept is that Missouri Pacific .Yardmasters .-..ay be transferred to the Union Pacific ?P and function under the Union. Pacific Schedule Agreement and wage rates.
 W'.-.·_'-a we find i=ressIve the Carriers' arguments i r. :avor of dbveta=?ins into a single seniority roster for a single integrated ttr=inal, nevertheless, ire conclude, that we should accept th&_ Grgan_zation's plea that the constructed seniority roster reflect and recognize the "prior rights" of affected employees. Acceptance of prior rights :ere would recognize the domina.^.t and established role that UP yardrrasters rave long occupied in the Omaha and Counc=1 Bluffs yards.

 We find t'_^.at therefore i t would be appropriate to desig-
 rate U? employees who, prior to the consolidation, worked -4est_ of the River as "OH" employees and UP employees who have we east of the River as "CB" employees. Missouri Pacific yard=asters should be also treated and des;gnated as employees who worked west of the River.
 We find that Yardmaster positions should be designated either "OH" or "CB" assignments based on where a preponderance of the work was performed.
 We find that there should be no prior rights designation to yarc!rasters who acouire'seniority after the date o: the consolidation.
 A copy of the consolidated seniority roster for the GTaha/ Council Bluffs Terninal, emboding these principles, is attached hereto as Attachment "B".
 (4) 4:e find with regard to Protective Benefits and Cbligations thereunder, that the New York Dock Conditions as prescribed by the ICC in its Finance Docket No. 30,000 shall apply to those e_ploy ees directly affected by the transfer and ccnsolidation of the Terrinal.
 The attached Implementing Agreement (Attachment "A") contains the specific details pertaining to "test earnings", .. e a .ff ect of unemployment conpensation as well as other earn:.^.=s on the prescribed allowances.
 The Implementing Agreement also contains the prescribed Monthly Form to be used to calculate benefits and allowances for "Dismissed" and "Displaced 7.-..ploy ees" . See Attachment "D" .
 (;) With regard to Initial Assignments we find t::at a:_ employees on the integrated single seniority roster (Attac"-_-;e.^.t "B") shall be afforded the opportunity to bid simultaneously in accordance with the requisite provisions of the UP Schedule on all yardmaster positions in the Omaha/Council Bluffs Terminal. The bulletining and assignment of these positions shall be administered in such a manner so as to make the effective date of these assiSrnrr,ents concurrent with the effective date of the consolidation of the Terminal.
 (6) We find that service credits shall be accorded to all :rassouri Pacific employees who transfer to the Union Pacific in accordance with the implementing Agreement. These the employees shall be treated for Agreement purposes as though heir J:F service was performed on the Union Pacific. ?ai l road.



100A ie s3

 ~B SETDENBER, Xew. ^k conditions A:^bit1~GJtor
 A G R E L M E N T

 Between

 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
 MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

 And

 RAILROAD YARDMASTERS OF AMERICA

 The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) approved, in Finance Docket No. 30,000, and selected subdockets 1 through 6, the merger of Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (MP), and Western Pacific Railroad Company (WP), effective December 22, 1982. The ICC., in its approval of the aforesaid Finance Docket, has imposed the employe protection condition set forth i'n New York Dock RY. -Control - Brooklyn, Eastern District Terminal 354 ICC 399 (1978), as modi:ied at 360 ICC 60 (1979) (New York Dock Conditions) in FD 29430.

 Therefore, to effect consolidation of (1) all MP yardmaster's functions now being performed at Omaha, Nebraska, (2) all UP yardmaster's functions now being performed at Omaha, Nebraska, and (3) all UP yardmaster's functions now being perfor::ed at Council Bluffs, Iowa, into a single, combined terminal

 one=anon controlled by UP with all work performed under the pl:cable UP schedule rules,

 IT IS AGREED:

 ARTICLE I - PURPOSE:

 Effective or. or before June 15, 1983, (1) all MP yardmaster's functions now being performed at 0^:aha, Nebraska, (2 ) all UP yardmaster's : unc Lions now be=ng perfo: :..ed at Omaha, Nebraska, and (3) all UP yarc.:.aster's functions now being p°riorred at Council Bluffs, Iowa, gill be consolidated Into a single

 combined terminal operation with all work being performed under the applicable UP Schedule Agreement.

 ARTICLE II - SEh?CPI':Y:

 (a)(1) 0n the effective date of the consolidation provided herein, the noes and seniority dates of all ya:r.:.asters appearing on the seniority rosters identified in Article I above will be dovetailed into a new single terminal seniority roster which. will result in the elimination of the three seniority rosters mentioned above
 (a) (2) Although there will be a single ter-ni-.al senIJrl ty roster said roster will recognize and acknowledge prior ris:~ of resoective UP and MP employees for service rendered prior to date of consolidation, as herein set forth

 (a) (3) Union Pacific employees east of the Missouri River will receive the designation "CB" on the consolidated roster.

 (a)(4) Union Pacific employees west of the Missouri River and MP employees transferring to the Union Pacific will receive the designation "OH" on the consolidated roster.

 (a)(5) Employees acquiring yardmaster right subsequent to the date of consolidation will not get a prior rights designation.

 (b)(1) Each UP yardmaster position will be given a design=tion "CB" or "OH" based on the preponderance of the work of the assignment, which will be determined by whether the greater amount of the work is east of the Missouri River "CB" or west of the Missouri River ("0:i").

 (b)(2) The employee having the letter designation corresponding to the position designation will have prior rights to that position over those employees with a different designation or without a letter designation.

 (c) A copy of the consolidated seniority roster with prior ri=hts designation is attached as Attachment "B".

 (d) The following "NOTE" is added to Rule 3(i) of the UP Ag-reement:

ARTICLE III - INITIAL SULLET;NS:

 In order to accomplish :he initial assignment of the ec:ployes ho=ding seniority on the new consolidated seniority roster, there will be an advertisement and assignment of C:ra::a/ Council Bluffs Terminal yard=aster positions as provided =n =.:le 6(d) of the UP Agreemenz in such manner that the effective da:e of the assignmenzs w=11 be simultaneous with the effective date
 0i' the consolidation herein provided. (All employes on the new-
 1 60
 ly consolidated roster provided herein may bid for the pcsitions advertised.)
 ARTTCLIV - QUALIFICATIONS:

 Any employe involved in the consolidation herein orovi~e-d, whose new assignment requires performance of duties on a geographic territory not familiar to him, will be given full cooperation, assistance and guidance in order that the employe's qualifications therefor shall be accopplished as quickly as possible.

 ARTICLE V - SERVICE CREDIT:
 MP employes transferred to UP pursuant to this agreement will be treated for agreement purposes as though their service on MP had been performed on UP.
ARTICLE VI - PROTECTION BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS:

 General
(a) Employees directly affected by this transfer and consolidation will be subject to the protective benefits of the New York Dock conditions as prescribed by the Interstate Commerce
Cowission in Finance Docket No. 30,000. It is also undersood there shall not be any duplication or compounding of benefits under this Agreement and/or any other agreement or protective arrangement. A copy of the New York Dock conditions is attached as Attachment "C".

 (b)(1) The test period average for compensation of yard=aster employes directly affected by this transfer and consolidation will include the "total" earnings of the employe during the test period, i.e., the earnings both in the yardmaster craft and in any other craft in which the employe has secondary seniority will count toward the test period average.

 (b) (2) Any yard=aster employe receiving a protective allowance as a result of this transfer and consolidation must exercise all seniority rights to secure the position yielding the _reatest amount of compensation, i.e., the employe must exercise either yardmaster seniority or secondary.seniority so that the g=latest amount of compensation will result.

 Dismissed Employe
(c) Each "dismissed employe" shall provide the Carrier with the following information for the preceding month in which he is entitled to benefits no later than the tenth day o: eac_ month on a form provided by the Carrier:

(2) The days) each such employe worked ;n other e- -


(d~ In the event a "dism-_ssed emploYel' is entitle:! :c ;,~_ employ=e;:. benefits under applicable law but forfeits sic:^, .:r.er_ploy~ie-t benefits under any unemployment insurance law because of failure to file for such unemployment benefits (unless prevente~ from doing so by sickness or other valid causes) for purposes of the application of Subsection (c) of Section 6 of Attachmea "C", he shall be considered the same as if he had filed fo;, and received, such unemployment benefits.

 (ei If the "dismissed employe" referred to herein has nothing 1-o report under this Article account not being entitled to be-efits under' any unemployment insurance law and having no earniygs from any other employment, such employe shall submit, within the time period provided for in Paragraph (c) of this Art:=le VI, the appropriate form stating "Nothing to Report".

 (f; The failure of any "dismissed employe" referred to in this Article VI to provide the information reouired in this Article 71 shall result in the withholding of all protective benefits during the month covered by such information pending Carrier': receipt of such information from the employ e.

 (gl The dismissal allowance shall cease prior to ex?!ration o.' the employe's protective period in event of the em - ploye's resignation, death, retirement, termination !'or justifiable cause, failure to return to service upon recall or failure to accept a position pursuant to Article I, Section 6(d) of Attachment "C".

(r) Each "displaced e:aploye" shall provide the Carrier with the information requested on a form provided by the Carrier. Tne form shall be submitted no later than the tenth day or the month following the month: for which benefits are claimed.

 ('-j The failure o: any "displaced employe" referred to i.^. this Article V= to provide the information reo_u=red =n this article VI shad result in the withholding of all protective benefite during the wonth covered by such inforn.ation pond=n; the Carrier's receipt of such information :rpm the employe.

 U) A copy of the "Monthly Claim Form" to be used by both "dismissed" and "displaced" employes is attached as Attachcen.. "D"

 ARTICLE VIy - SAVINGS _C11WAUSES
(a) Where the rules of the UP/RYA Schedule Agreement conflict with this Agree=ent, this Agreement shall apply.
 5 -

 (b) Should any error or omission concerning the consolidated seniority roster be discovered, the parties ray make the necessary correction without penalty to either party.

 1983,

 Signed at Omaha, Nebraska, this

 FOR THE RAILROAD YARD
 MASTERS OF AMERICA

 R. L. Ryba
 General Chairman

 A. J. Crost::4aib
 General C:.a=rran

 day of.

 FOR THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY:

 R. D. Meredith
 Director of Labor .Relations
FOR Tat MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY:

 0. B. Sayers
 Director of Labor Relations
 Attac'.^..~em,t ":"

 RAILROAD YARDMASTE=S 0? A:I"R;CA

 NEBRASKA DIVISION

 YARDMASTGRS AND ASSISTANT YARDviASTERS

 PRIOR RIGHTS SENIORITY'
 DESIGNATION NAM-7 DATE

 C3 ONEILL JR., A.L. 06 05 53
 CB CANNIA, T.J. 12 25 56
 0 PLYMALE, J.B. 08 05 60
 0 GILLEN. M.F. 09 22 61
 CB MOON, R.L. O1 Ol 62
 C5 GAPPA, R. O1 19 62
 C3 FUNK, E.K. 03 16 63
 CE MAIN, R.E. 11 16 63
 0 GERBER, E.D. OS 28 64
 CB NIELSEN, :41 .:" 04 23 65
 Cc
 ~# THRAEN, A.C. 08 08 66
 0 CANNIA, S.C. 08 22 66
 C3 HASSLER, A.L. 10 19 66
 0 HOMAN, W.M. 11 3o 66
 0 STRATTON, G.T. 08 O1 69
 0 KERSIG09 G.F. 01 26 70
 J WHEELER, E . J . 08 2 2 70
 0 HRABOVSKY, G . E. 10 04 70
 0 HEGARTY, JR., D.R. 01 28 71
 CB RYBA, R.L. 03 20 71
 C3 MATTER, D.D. 07 28 72
 CB SHUDAK, S.F. 07 28 72
 C3 BOWEN, D.A. 07 28 72
 0 BUXTON, G.Q. 12 21 72
 0 BINGO, R.E. 05 19 73
 0 GERMAR, J . L. 07 01 73
 C3 WALLING, G.A. 12 05 73
 0 ANGLI:i, L.J. 04 07 74
 ,;B RYBA, S.E. o6 14 74
 0 CONNER, N. 09 01 74
 C9 NETTLES, E.W. 03 05 76
 13 LUKOWSKI, R.J. 07 09 76
 C9 BAKER, G.I. 06 28 78
 LB NIELSEN, J.W. 08 13 78
 0 CAMPBELL, C.P. 12 17 78
 0 SCHWAGER, P.A. 07 18 79
 0 JARRELL, P.J. 07 20 79
 C3 RYBA, J.A. 08 09 79
 C3 SWEENEY, J. OS 18 79
 J CHAMBERS, A.M. 02 22 80