SPECIAL HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 917 - Case 12
MFMHERS OF THE HOARDt


C. A. Peacock
 Neutral Member

 Shari E. Cohen
 Carrier Member

 PARTIES ) Brotherhood Railway Carmen of United States and Canada
 TO
 DISPUTEt ) Norfolk and 'western Railway Company
 OTHER APPEARANCESt
 Orgaaization Carrier
 PAY antler W. L. Allman
 0. Mier G. C. Edwards
 QUESTICU FOR
 ARHITRATIONt "Did the Norfolk and Western Railway Company improperly
 fall to provide the protection afforded by New York
 Dock conditions to Caneent R. E. Pound, Ke P. Wilderman,
 A. E. Kirkman, J. 11. Hunch, and H. F. Peterson when they were furloughed
 February 25, 19821 - If so, should the Norfolk and western Railway Company
 be required to compute the test period averages of the aforementioned
 Carman and apply the benefits set forth in Article 1, Section 5 through 9,
 of Nor York Dock conditions and the elections contained therein?"

 The agreement establishing this Special Hoard of Adjustment was executed by the partisan members on November 12, 1982. On December 17, 1982 I, C. A. Peacock, was appointed by the National Nediation Poard to sit as Neutral Member of SEA No. 917.
 SPECIAL HOARD OF ADJUSTMUNT N0. 917 - Case #2

 ME?!HEtiS OF THE HOARD



C. A. Peacock
 Neutral Member

 Shari E. Cohen
 Carrier Member

 PARTIES ) Brotherhood Railway Carmen of United States and Canada
 TO )
 DISPUTEa ) Norfolk and Yestern Railway Company
 OTHER APPURANCESi
 Or anlzation Carrier
 Ray Rmtler 'd. L. Allman
 0. Mier G. C. Edwards
 QUESTION FCR
 ARBITRATION t "Did the Norfolk and `destern Railway Company improperly
 fail to provide the protection afforded by New York
 Dock conditions to Canmeni R. E. Pound, K. P. !Pilderman,
 A. E. Kirkman, J. St. Hunch, and M. F. Peterson when they were furloughed
 February 25, 19827 If go, should the Norfolk and '4estern Railway Company
 be required to compute the test period averages of the aforementioned
 Carmen and apply the benefits set forth in Article 1, section 5 through 9,
 of New York Dock conditions and the elections contained therein?"

 The agreement establishing this Special Hoard of Adjustment was executed by the partisan members on November 12, 1982. On December 17, 1982 I, C. A. Peacock, was appointed by the National Nediation Poaxd to sit as Neutral Member of SEA No. 917.
 SBA N0. 917 - Case f2 Page two

 The Hoard convened on February 3, 1983 in Roanoke, Virginia, at which time the members were afforded full opportunity to pursue all arguments relative to their positions. Written submissions had been exchanged prior, in keeping with the parties', November 12, 1982 Agreement.
 Background discussion by the parties indicated agreement in so far an events occurring which led up to the consolidation of facilities. The Carrier (N&N) entered into a coordination agreement with the Illinois Terminal Railroad Company with plans to liquidate certain assets and other principle assets to be purchased by N&W.

 Organization's statement of facts reflects In part . . . "application was ultimately approved on or about July 17, 1981. The Commission imposea the protective conditions commonly referred to as New York Dock II for affected employees."
 Organization vigorously argues that the five (5) men in question would certainly not have been adversely affected in the absence of the coordination of facilities and the dovetailing of rosters. Therefore, these men should be certified under the protective conditions as set fortr. in Now York Dock II.
 Carrier counters by poL::.i..e out the men in cuestion were in fact employed when N&N took over on November 7, 1981. Jhila economic signs of weakness, continued to plague this and other carriers, it was not unt:1 the early part of 1982 this Carrier claims business continually deteriorated to such an extent their Decatur steel plant, a major boxcar facility, was shut down on February 25, 1982. Consequently, ninety-seven (97) Carmen were furloughed, including the five (5) claimants.
 SBA :;0. 517 - Case .f' 2 ,: a three

 In general, the nation was in the t:.roa_ ,f the worst economic times, experienced in over a quarter of a centurj.
 The thrust of the question before this 5onrd is; were the claiman,-; dismissed, or displaced, as a direct resuit of .i "transaction" and not other causes?
 Both parties presented prepared arCu.R:er.-s and were afforded opportunities of rebuttal. After careful consideration ana examination of the exhibits and submissions, the Faro concludes the ~,reponderaiice of evnaener in this record supports the Carver's Position.

 DECISICN t Question answered in the n~gat=ve. Deniea.
Organization Member

 February ~ 1983
.:r;2G'~ fr
 C. A. Peacock
 Chairman .~na ::eutrai r-,

 Shnri E. Cohen
 Carrier h:eiaaer