AIRH"RTATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SECT:LN _'
 CF THE NEW YORK DOCK AND OREGON SHORT L:NE
 EMPLOYE PROTECTIVE CONDITIONS
 AS PROVIDED Its ICC · =NANCF_ ')nC;;rT !an 10 RO
PART:nS BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE )
 OF WAY EMPLOYES )
 i
 TO AND ) DEC =5 :oci
 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD )
 DISPUTE COMPANY )

 QUF.S7ION AT ISSUE:


H'ST',RY or DISPUTE:

On May 16. 1988 the Interstate Commerce Commission (iCC) issued its Decision in Finance Docket No. 30,800 approving the application of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) to ac-suire the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad (MKT). The ICC imposed condi.ions f-:~r the protection of employees set forth in New York T)Onk gv_ -Con·_rol-

9rooklvn CARtern Di. ; - . 350 I. C. C. 60 (1979) (New York Dock Conditions) . In the same uecision the ICC also approved aband-znment by the MKT .Df its 43. 3 mile line of railroad between Grif f in and r'3rsrns, Kansas. The ICC further approved abandonment by the MKT of a 33.6 mile portion of its line between Sedalia and Clinton. Missouri. ;uthuri·_v to =if=czuate the abandonments was made subject to the conditions for protection of employees set forth in rason Shat r, i-a nfi_ ~_o_ -Abandonment-Lo~hen, 360 I. C. C. 91 (1979) (Oregon Short Line

2

 Conditions).
 On September 30 , 1988 Claimant was furloughed from his position as a track machine operator on extra gang 164 on Se.^.=oritv District No. 1 in which Claimant held senioritv_.sas a section foreman, machine operator and track laborer. However, Claimant was :;nab_= to secure 3 position in aenioritv District No. 1.
 On October 1, 1988 Claimant filed for protective benef _·_c under ti:e New York Dock Conditions and the Oregon Short Line Conditions alleging that his furlough was due to the UP's aequisit:_n cf the MKT. The Carrier responded on November 23, 1988 denying Claimant's request on the ground that Claimant had provided no i .i"orma-~c,n to establish that his furlough was the result of a
 .n t,r ansac .ion.
 'the Organization appealed the Carrier's denial. The Carrier denied the appeal.
 in February 1989 the Carrier recalled maintenance of way employees in Seniority District No. 1. However, Claimant was not re-caiied. An employee junior in seniority to Claimant was called.
 On November 1, 1989 the Carrier abandoned those positions of trackage the ICC had given it authority to abandon in its Decision in Finance Docket No. 30.800. The Carrier afforded protective benefits to employees whose positions were abolished as a result of those abandonments.
 The Urganization continued to appeal the Carrier's denial of Claimant's request for protective benefits. The Carrier continued to
 3

 deny the Organization's appeals. Eventually, the Organizaticn appea':--d --e matter to the highest officer. of the Carrier designated to handlJ such disputes. However, the dispute remained unresolved.
 The parties created this Arbitration Committee and selected r.:1e undersigned as its Neutral Member pursuant to Article :. Secti-:,n :: of the New York =ock and Oregon Short Line 1onditicnr . :?Paring in his matter was held in Reno. Nevada on November 15 . 1991) . 4 t parties, including Claimant, were given an opportunity to present oral testimony as well as written submissions. The parties waived the time .unit for Decision provided in Article I. Section 4 (c) .


h-,NDT_NL~On the entire record in this case this Committee finds that
 the parties have complied with the requisite procedures of Article I,
 Section 11 of the New York Dock and Oregon Short Line Conditions. that
 the dispute in this case is ripe for determination by this Committee
 and that this Committee has ,jurisdiction to do so.
 The answer to the question at issue in this case depends upon
 a:;~ther Claimant's September 30, 1988 furlough was the result of a
 transaction. That question in turn is governed by Article I. Section
 _:ke) of the New York Lock and Oregon Short Line Protective Conditions
 which provides:

 In the event of any dispute as to whether or not a particular employee was affected by a
 4

transaction it shall be his obligation tc. identify the transaction and specify the pertinent facts of that transaction relied upon. It shall then be the railroad's burden to Frog=e that factors other than a transaction affected the employee.



rz qui_ ed ef an employee under Section 11(e) is considerabi-.- less than what ~~rmerly was required under ICC labor protective conditions which predated the New York Dock and Oregon Short Line Conditions. See

_.~.- : -xt,,a -;,_-ther,n RR. & Pro_ of Ma: ntanance of Way F-mr_^veA-, june 9, 198." (Kasher, Neutral). Nevertheless, it is well established that the burden of proof required of an employee under Section 11(e) mandates that the employee establish a causal nexus between theadverse effect experienced by the employee and a transaction. See M i a fur- acifis RR- Co_ & American Tra;_n 1)iwpatchar_· AQsn_ , July 31, 193 1 (Zumas, Neutral); M; eaour; a ; ' R- R-Co- & Rro f v Car en . July 30, 1982 (Sickles, Neutral); Ameri_,can Rv Su=rvygorZ Assn- & Ch;,,aan N--~ tawestern Tra=o_ Co-, March 15. 1980 (Kasher, Neutral) and _ o,-o - of ~t,~r.±..-; r·~l Wnrkera & Union Pacif i^ RR_ Co- , Jan 5 , i989 ( Peter soil. Neutral).

Analysis of the record in this case forces us to agree with the .'arrier that neither Claimant nor the Organization has demonstrated that Claimant's furlough was the result of a transaction. Although Claimant and the Ortanization allele that Claimant's furlough was the result cf UP's acquisition of MKT. the allegation is

5

unsupported by the record in this case. while the record demonstrates teat Claimant was furloughed a few months after the i,:C's Uecisi,:;n approving the acquisition. that fact alone is insufficient to establish the requisite causal nexus. Claimant and zhe Organization would have this Board draw the inference that Claimant's furlough was due t;, the UP'3 acquisition of the MKT. However. the faragoing authorities make it clear that we are not free to draw such an inference.

Moreover, even if Claimant has sustained his burden of proof under Section 11(e) we believe the Carrier has met its burden under that section. The record demonstrates that for some time prior to his furlough Claimant was not able to hold a position in Seniority District No. 1 except the one from which he was furloughed which related to a special project. When the project was completed Claimant and otner employees working on the project were furloughed. Thus,

Claimant's furlough was the result of the termination of the special project-and not UP's acquisition of MKT.

Apparently Claimant could have worked a position on Seniority District No. 1 beginning approximately January 1989, and if he had done so may have been afforded protective benefits when all positions w?r: abolished as a result of the abandonment of part of the MKT line which occurred in November 1989. However, claimant in fact did not work such position. Whether that was due to some improper action or omission by the Carrier or Claimant is in dispute. We believe the Carrier's point is well taken that such dispute is not within the

6

 ,jurisdiction of this Committee and must be handled under ___ appropriate procedures of the Railway Labor Act. _45 J. S. C. 44 15 _, ~.~;.

 We understand Claimant's frustration at the fact that

 employee was recalled and may have been afforded pr'JtectiJ? as a result of the line abandonment. However, that matter simp17 is rot within our ,jurisdiction.
 In the final analysis we must conclude that there is no basis upon which to award Claimant the benefits of the New York Dock Conditions or the Oregon Short Line Conditions.

The question at issue is answered in the negative.

x-,441-

"William E.

Chairman and Neutral Member

 D. J. S
 Carrier 'iember

 L')A'ED:

1 P4,~ 71


a junior

 S. A. flAmmons, Jr.
 Employee Member ,