PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 5108
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION (C&T)
-an B
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of G. A. Haggard for New York Dock
protection as a result of the implementation
of the UP/MKT Agreement of November 1, 1989.
FINDINGS:
Award No. 8
Case No. 8
On May 13, 1988, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), in
Finance Docket No. 30,800, approved the acquisition of the MissouriKansas-Texas Railroad Company (MKT) and the Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas
Railroad Company (OKT) by the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP).
New York Dock Conditions were imposed by the ICC. The Carrier served
notice on the UTU on June 3, 1988 of its
intent to
effect the merger
of the
mKT
into existing Union
Pduiiit,,
ujjtlaL1vi:s. N'egv%iatiovns
an implementing agreement began on June 20, 1988. And such an agreement was reached on August 25, 1989. The merger took place on
November 1, 1989.
The Claimant, Mr. G. A. Haggard, contends that he is entitled to
New York Dock protective benefits as a result of this November 1, 1989
merger transaction.
On October 31, 1989, the day prior to the implementation of the
UP/MKT Merger, Mr. Haggard held an assignment on the extra board in
Fort Worth. Subsequent to the merger, on November 1, 1989, Mr. Haggard
was assigned to the extra board in Fort Worth.
The New York Dock Conditions define a displaced employee as
follows:
(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.
Because Mr. Haggard held the same position both before and after the
transaction he cannot be considered a "displaced employee" as a result
of the merger and as such he is not entitled to the benefits he seeks.
Mr. Haggard was not placed in a worse position with respect to his
compensation and rules
governing his
working conditions.
Mr. Haggard was erroneously certified by the Carrier as being
adversely affected. However, once the mistake was discovered Mr.
Haggard was removed from the list of employees with protected status.
The Board recognizes the distress that this action caused Mr. Haggard,
however, there is no legal basis to require the Carrier to continue
his certification as being adversely affected. The Organization's
arguments based on "estoppel" and "laches" are devoid of merit. No
cases were cited whereby an arbitration panel has ever required a
carrier to continue an employee's erroneous certification or benefits
based on these arguments. We have considered all of the other contentions made by the
Organization and
we must conclude that no basis
exists to find that Mr. Haggard is entitled to protection. We must
deny this claim.
AWARD
Claim denied.
D vi P. Twomey
Chairman and Neutral M er
00,
W. E. Bied
enharn, Jr.
Organization Member
gz:~:Z
G. A. McIntosh
Carrier Member
DATED:
S6e,+
/ G1
l'/ 'Z