kr71 tr at :Cn Between
~:NI -Tip = RI~sXSPGRTAT:ON UNION

 -and

 CSX ':RANSPORTATION, INC.

 aeeearances

 ?or the UTU:

 Larry R. Davis
 Virgil V. Elswick
 Randy Sargent

 Howard S . Emerick
 Patricia a. Madden

 For the Carrier:

 Questions at Issue:

 Carrier's Questions:

 Has the Organization sustained 'its burden of proving that:



7-mployees' Questions:

 1. Is the diversion o= traffic by CSXT from the former Chesapeake and Ohio Railway East/West route to a North/South thence East/ West route over from Ric=cnd, 'Fredericksburg and Potomac, Western marvi and and Baltimore and Ohio between Richmond, vircinia and Chicago, Illinois a TR.ANSACTICN pursuant to the authority granted by =1e - . Z . C . in Dockets 28905 and 31954?

 2. If the answer to cuestion Number 1 is in the affirmative, should _':q Carrier be =ezuired to restore the status z,-,o of 0ecember 12, _991, acolv the terms and =onditions =ecuired by -CC Finance 0oc:cets =9905 and 31954
 and :rake whole all Employees who were af~eczed by the rerouting of traffic -from c:&O to RF&P. :-TM and B&O routing?

 ,~,. If the answer to questions Number 1 or"~tumber 2 is affirmative, are the afNfected Emplovees' as asserted by the Organization and listed on Attachment "A" entitled to the orotective benefits set forth in I.C.C. Finance Dockets 31954 and 28905?

 Background:

 On September 25, 1980 the ICC, in Finance Docket 28905, approved the application of CSX to acquire control of the railroad subsidiaries of the Chessie System, Inc. and Seaboard Coast Line Industries (SCLI). The Chessie System included the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co. (C&0), the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. (B&0) and the Western Maryland Railway Co. (WM) along with other railroads. These subsidiary carriers were to remain as separate corporate entities. Although not fully owned by CSX, it also acquired control of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Co. (RF&P) in Finance Docket 28905 by virtue of the fact that Chessie and SCLI each owned 40 percent o= Richmond-Washington Co., a non-carrier holding company which owned 65.9 percent of the voting stock of RF&P. The RF&P was managed separately after the effective date of 'Finance Docket 28905.

 In Finance Docket 31954, with a service date of October 31, 199=, the ICC granted CSX Corporation a ccrrorace family transaction exemption for the acquisition of the railroad assets and operation of RF&P Railroad by the CSXT Loaned and owned RF&P Railway. In CS X' s aociLcation for this exemption it stated in cart:

 ... At some time following consummation or
 =::__ ?roposed acquisition of RF&P Railroad, CSXT and RF&P Railwav may seek to take advantage oz opportunities =or operating e=ficiencies or cost savings that may become :pore practicable to achieve as a result of CSXT's acauisition of 100 percent control of R.F&P's rail ocerations. These efforts may include consolidation of certain administrative _unct;ons, closer coordination of train operations, .--ainceaance of way, equipment repair and allocation, and other functions ....

...RF&P Railroad's main line between Richmond and Arlington represents an important component of CSXT's north-south rail operations. The proposed acquisition will enable CSXT to exercise its existing control over RF&P =ail operations more directly, and eliminate the transactions and accounting costs associated with its present exercise of less-thancomplete control through intermediate corporate entities having substantial non-CSX shareholders ....

as noted, CSX at present has not developed plans for implementing any significant changes in RF&P rail operations or employment condi,tions following consummation of the proposed transaction, but anticipates that some changes eventually may result from efforts to take advantage of post-consummation opportunities for coordinating CSXT and RF&P Railway operations and achieving cost efficiencies. Neither the scope of any such future changes in operations, nor the possible impact of these changes on rail employees, can be assessed with any degree of precision at this t=:me.

 Nonetheless, CSX and its affiliates acknowledge that any present R_r&P Railroad employees (or CSXT employees) who should be adversely affected by such potential future operating changes will be entitled to protections under the New York Dock conditions to the extent that the averse ez ects are proximately caused by the transaction that is th.e subject of this Notice of Exemption.
                          (page 1 6 )


In Finance Docket 31954 the =CC provided ;few York Jock protect-=

 as follows:
 As a condition to the use oz this exemption, anv emplovees adversely affected by the transaction will be protected Zy the condi-
 tions set forth in Yew York Dock Rv.--Control
 --Hrooklvn Eastern DisL., 360 I.C.C. 60 (1979)

 Some three and one half weeks after the service date of Finance Docket 31954, notice was served on RF&P, B&0 and WM general chair-men oz the intent of CSXT and Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railway to coordinate the road fright operations and services between Richmond, VA, Philadelphia, PA and Brunswick, MD and all road territory in between on or after February 1, 1992. The notice stated that this transaction was covered by ICC Finance Docket Nos. 28905 and

 31954 and related proceedings.

 Six weeks after the service date of Finance Docket 31954, on December 12, 1991, CSXT' s General Manager-Service Design, Mr. J. R. Bradley, sent from Jacksonville, FL to operating officers the fol=ow-

 ing memo, which stated in part:

 Per the conference call held yesterday afternoon,.below you will find proposed profiles for the first_phase of. the CSXT merchandise reroute that will begin with-class tracking changes going into effect on Monday, December 26 and the profiles starting at each end of the railroad on Tuesday, December 27. In this phase traffic between Chicago, Michigan, and Willard pin to or from the Eastern Seaboard South of Potomac Yard will be route via Cumberlan an the former RF&P rather than via Russell and the oTd C&0 main stem. Phase two is planned to start in mid-January and will move traffic between the Northwestern part of CSX (St. Louis, Louisville, Chicago and Michigan) and the former Clinchfield and the Ohio River Chemical Belt via Cincinnati rather than via Russell .... (emphasis added)

 On December 13, 1991 the Operations Center sent the followi..^.c

 notice, which stated in part:
 Reference c:zrresnondence in last several

days ccncerninc ~Ierczandise reroute affecting

R~a_sil. There ^ave been proposed schedules
 sent, however, there were some mistakes in
 times as well as a change or tyro in the block
 ing. These have been corrected and actual
 schedules and class tracking changes will be
 in the S&C chances `or this week. The =ollow
 inc are some points that may be helpful next
 week in implementing these changes:

          8300-17 -actual operation should be from Chicago to Columbus only with Russell block moving on 8691. However, R-300's schedule will stay in effect for several davs in case it is necessary to operate the train on thru to Russell or Richmond. Note.. there will be no cars schedule for R-300 south of Columbus and this train will only be used as an over=low.


          R-301-17 -actual operation should be from Columbus to Chicago with connections from 8690 at Columbus. R-690 from Russell will be handling blocks that R-301 handled previously from Russell. These blocks will be made up from connections of 8303 which will include the auto parts from South Charleston to Janesville. Note.. R301's schedule will retrain in place to operate if necessary, but there are no cars scheduled to train.


! ! ! ! Next week for a few days is may be necessary to operate 300 and 301 all the way between Chicago and Richmond to get the traffic cleaned up and be ready for Holiday. Supts and Senior Managers Perf watch this c'ose and as soon as traffic drops off annul these trains between Columbus and Richmond and a:_e_ the Holidays if all is ok then we will take them out of system. I do not want 300 and 301 operated between Rocky Mount 414-412-413 and 411 can take care of this traffic!!!!...

 As information, the above is only the 1st phase of changes that will eventually result in t-he manifest hump at Russell being closed. The 2nd ohase will not take place until about mid Januarv and will involve =ur_he= changes to 300, 30 I, 690, 691, 405 and ;06 (these two trains will operate via Brunswick and t::e Old Main Linel,~696,697,316,317,509 and 408 ....
      The General Chairman of the UTU-C&0 Proper Committee was :.,=.,r-e~


of t^e contemplated discontinuance of T=ainc "os. R-300 and R-3C_ i:: a

 telephone conversation with the Carrier's Senior Director of Labor

 Relations on December 13, 1991. The General Chairman wrote to the

 Senior Director, CSXT on January 2, 1992, stating in part:

 As you are aware this traffic was formerly routed C&O (Proper) between Richmond, Virginia and Columbus, Ohio thence via the CSG-P/B&O/ C&O-N coordinated territory between Columbus Ohio and Chicago and operated on a daily basis.

 You should arrange to provide this office with the following information:

        I. Total number of cars handled by Train R-300 each month beginning with December 1990.


        2. Total number of cars handled by Train R-301 each month beginning with December 1990.


        3. Total miles paid to former C&O Proper employees operating Trains R-300 and R-301 between Chicago and Richmond beginning with December 1990.


        4. The number of regular assignments abolished and the employees displaced and/or dismissed as a result thereof.


        S . The number of pooled assignments abolished and the employees displaced and/or dismissed as a result thereof.


      6 . Route that traffic now traverses

      between Richmond and Chicago.


Furthermore, this transaction has resulted in the displacement and/or dismissal of employees and the rearrangement o= forces throughout the Chicago /Richmond Route and you should arrange to furnish this office with a complete record of all displacements and/or dismissals of the employees affected ....

      The Senior Director Labor Relations responded in a fet=e=


January 18, 1992 that the discontinuance o_ Trains R-300 and
 .not the result of a "transaction," but caused by a general

 merchandis-& business that the Carrier is suffering, assoc

 the recession. He further stated

 ... Trains R-300 and R-301's discontinuance were part of an overall effort to utilize excess capacity on existing trains. The excess capacity resulted "'ram the loss of traffic, not from any effort on CSXT' s part to effect any new consolidation or coordination of its business. All traffic is moving by preexisting rights of the Carrier and we have, therefore, not violated your agreement or taken any action requiring notice ....

 The Senior Director explained how the freight is to be handled; and
pointed out:

 ... Additionally, :such of this freight going through Willard can be t=aced to historic 3&0 traffic patterns. Therefore, this activit=y cannot be considered the rerouting of Cs0 freight and in turn a transaction as you imply in your letter ....

 He declined the General Chairman's request for information as follows:

 There has been nor direct and predominating relationship between this activity and the cited Finance Dockets that would either recuire the Carrier to serve notice under an I . C . C Finance Docket or establish a basis for protective benefits for employees who may have been involved in the discontinuance of T=sins R-300 and R-301.

 Your request for certain data is also inappropriate ....

 In CSXT's Employee News Service, Midweek Report, July 22, 1992 it

 was reported:

    RF&P INTEGRATION ALMOST :IVISiiED: Integration of the 113-mile RF&P Railway into CSXT is virtually complete. Merger of the RF&P, strategic line between Alexandria and

Richmond, Va., provides CSXT with an imrnediate i.'npact of nearly $25 million in revenue and coat savings, as well as significant operating ef=iciencies, said Tom Schmidt, RF&P Railway president and CSXT's vice president-engineering.

 The RF&P was turned over to CSXT April 1, providing an important link between the northern and southern halves of the CSXT rail network. Schmidt directed integration of the RF&P beginning in late 1991 and completed the merger in 5 1/2 months. Acca Yard in Richmond, a major interchange point between RF&P and CSXT for northsouth traffic, will continue to be used. CSXT also plans to consolidate its roadway equipment repair facilities at the Bryan Park Terminal Shoos, RF&P's locomoative and car repair shoos in Richmond.

 Findings and Award:

 Prior to Finance Docket 31954, traffic heading north -rpm Richmond and south through Potomac Yard had to be interchanged with the RFSP, a railway which CSX acquired control of in Finance Docket 28905 in '_980. The RF&P, however, was under separate management; and there was less than complete control because intermediate corpozate entities had s:iastantial non-CSX shareholders. CSX had to pay the RF&P overhead trac:cage rights: and interchange points were at Potomac Yard and Richmond. As a result of Finance Docket 31954, with a service date of October 31, 1991, CSXT began the integration oz the RF&P into CSXT in late 1991, and according to CSXT's Emalovee News Service, the merger was completed in some five and one half months, with an immediate impact of some $25,000,000 in revenue and costs savings, as well as significant operating efficiencies. Presently, =or the first time in the histor=r of CSX, former B&0 crews can be brought into Richmond and
 orner RF&P emolovees can operate on the B&0. The B&0 and w'M never
 had trackage rfights between Washington and Richmond. ~.~.m--
                                          hmORd. AS 3 "°_5::

of =his coor~in anon =nit'_ated under authority of : -nance ~oc:ce_ ::cs. 38905 and 31954 with initial notice riven November 25, 1991, per-; significant new operating rights and efficiencies now exist =or CS X'='.

 On December 12, L991, some six weeks after the service date o-f Finance Docket 31954, the CSXT spelled out the Afirst phase of its "merchandise reroute." Traffic between Chicago and Willard, Ohio, going to or from the Eastern Seaboard south of Potomac Yard, was routed via Cumberland, :Maryland and the former RF&P rather t::an v·_a Russell and the old C&O main stem. Finance Docket 31954 provided t-at as a condition of the use of the exempt'-on, any employees adversely affected by the transaction will be protected by the New York Dock conditions. Finance Docket 28905 also provided New York Dock protective conditions. The UTU-C&0 Proper Committee contends that its C&0 Proper employees adversely affected by t'.^.e transaction involving _::__ diversion of traffic over the RF&P, WM and B&0 from the C&0 ?--ooer route are entitled to New York Dock protection. The Carrier disagrees.

 Exhibit 1 to this award sets forth the routing of Trains 90 and 91 between Chicago, Illinois and Ric^.mond, Virginia, with this "historical" routing between Chicago and Richmond being over the C&0 through Cottage Grove, Cincinnati, Russell, Clifton Forge and Richmond. Effective January 13, 1986 Trains 90 and 91 were rerouted between Chicago and Russell, operating in part over former B&0 territory through Willard and Columbus. Emmlcvees represented by the UTU whose positions were abolished or who were displaced as a result of the L9°5 transaction were given test period averages, and allowed to file cla_as under applicable protective conditicns. Trains 90 and 91 were renamed R-300 and R-301 respectively in '989. Trains R-300 and R-301 we=e

 cancelled in December of 1991 at the same l:.-ne the
 Richmond-Chicago merchandise cars via Cumberland, Haryland and

 .. F & a~ -her t. .. e 1 and hen over tne

 former ?. = the

 yh than .~.'.^.=cug^ Columbus . Rusc 1

 "-old C&0 main stem."

 The Carrier, on pages 15 and 16 of its Submission, states:

 The movement of certain freight through Willard, thence over the RF&P, was a preexisting right of the Carrier. There is no freight that belongs to =he former C&0 for its exclusive handling. More importantly, there was no joint action between CSXT and the RF&P to effect the change. CSXT and the predecessor roads had used RF&P as a bridge route for many nears. To route the cars over RF&P did not require any new I.C.C. authority as UTU infers. The "transaction" contemplated by the parties in I.C.C. Finance Docket 31954 was not a prerequisite to the merchandise freight restructuring and, therefore, was not a factor entering into the Carrier's decisions associated therewith. Finance Docket 28905, forming CSX, likewise did not serve as the means to effect the merchandise freight restructuring. The Carrier's right _o ;hake changes pre,dated that matter, and furthermore, no former Seaboard lines are involved in the rerouting that UTU argues provides "New York Dock" protective benefits for train se ^zice employees.

 1. The Carrier states that there eras no joint ac=ion between CSXT and the RF&P to effect the change. In =!:e arbitration pursuant to Section 11 of New York Dock conditions and ICC Finance Docket 28905 between CSX Inc. (C&0) and LTTU and E_E ~CIuster) dated May 26, 1988, substantial amount of traffic was _`_-;e:_ed or rerouted from C&0's mountainous western corridor from =:_=:on Forge to Doswell and/or Washington, where it interchanged ::=_z R-F&P, to its water-level eastern corridor from Clifton Forge to ?tic =-ond, -here to be interchanged to the RF&P for delivery to Washington o- -^ssun Point in order to save

 uel and for greater efficiency c_' _=_:mct=ve usage. The

 saw the issue as follows:
 The issue is whether the "action" - in his c=se, the diversion of traffic - Haas taken because Cn, and RE&Z' ca,-..= under the common control of CSX as a result of ICC Docket 28905, as alleged by the Organization; or whether the action was an independent decision of C&O for reasons not related to the ICC authorization, not planned by or participated in by CSX, and not taken in coordination with RF&P, as alleged by the Carrier.

 The Arbitrator determined in part that:

 Other than the fact that RF&P is a subsidiary carrier of CSX, as C&O is, there is no evidence that RF&P acted jointly with C&0 to bring about the rerouting which gave rise to this disoute. Nor is there evidence that CSX exercised its overall control over both subsidiaries to bring about the rerouting as part of a plan to benefit the CSX community. Statements by RF&P and C&0 representatives are. to the contrary ....

 And, the Arbitrator concluded:

 There is insufficient evidence in the case at hand to show that the rerouting was planned and implemented by both the C&0 and the RF&P, or by CSX. Since it is not established by substantive evidence, as contrasted with mere inference, that the rerouting was a product of joint action, taken pursuant to the authorization of CSX control in Docket 28905, the rerouting was not a transaction within the meaning of Paragraph 1(a) of the New York Dock Conditions.

 The instant case is not one based on inference. The evidence :s

 crystal clear that CSXT, in the

 of the overall control over

 the railroads, planned and directed the diversion of Chicago merchandise traffic from the C&0 main stem to the former RF&P, the wM and the B&0 for the benefit of the CSXT community of interest. (Please see the CSXT's General tanager-Service Design's December 12, i99'_ notice.) Absent the control by CSX': over the above stated rail==ate=
 contemplated and sanctioned by Finance Dockets 28905 and 3195 , diversion of the Chicago merchandise traffic would not have 'ceen cooperatively carried out by the above-mentioned carriers.

 An assertion that joint action must be established between CSXT and IRE&? in order to have a transaction is rejected. CSXT exercised its overall control over the railroads involved in directing the diversion in question, an action contemplated and sanctioned by the Finance Dockets 28905 and 31954.

 2. It is recognized that RF&P was a bridge for north-south traffic for many years and that certain fixed costs existed for c5X resulting from shared responsibility for the operation and maintenance of Potomac Yard. The record does not disclose that CSX routed Chicago merchandise cars over the RF&P through C=Lberland to Chicago pier to December 1991.

 The operational rights and efficiencies accruing to the Car===r as a result at Finance Docket 31954 are substantially improved from the rights existing prior to Finance Docket 31954, when the RF&P served as a bridge to north-south traffic and where CSX railroads had to interchange with the RF&P and pay overhead t. ackage rights to that cr.rr ie= . Operational efficiencies stemming ==ca t::e integration of the R.E&P _4=3 CSXT under Finances Docket 31954 , _nc! udi:;g the right to initiate coordination pad later the coordination itself of `tee RF&P, 3&O and "4'H road freight: operations between Ric:.nond and Brunswick, whica rights ac present fruition allow for the 1.1rst time in the history o. CSX _-O:o__^_e; B&0 crews to be brought into Ric^.,mend and ?,F&P crews t;3 operate cn =.-.e 3&0. The CS X'. General Manager-Serv;ce -'esign ad to have knowledge of the ooe:at_onal ef='___e.^.c:es, both ac=ua; a.-.c
 potential, in the planning and application of the diversion or re-

 routliael of the C-hlcagv -erchandise tars is question. CSXT -:hen, the exercise of its overall control of the railroads in question, the
 RF&P, 'AM, B&0 and the C&0, planned and directed the diversion of the
 Chicago merchandise traffic from the C&0 main stem to the former RF&P,
 WM and B&0 for the benefit of the CSXT community. Without the con
 trol by CSXT over the above railroads contemplated and sanctioned by
 ICC Finance Dockets Nos. 28905 and 31954, this diversion could not
 have been carried out. Such was a transaction under Paragraph 1(a) of
 the New York Dock conditions.

 Answer to Employees' Question 1 and Carrier's Question 1

 The answer to the Carrier's Question 1 is in the affirmative in that a transaction as defined in ICC-imposed protective conditions has occurred.

 The answer to the Employees' Question 1.13 "yes." The diversion
 of traffic by CSXT from RF&P, the WM and the B&O between Richmond and
 Chicago is a transaction pursuant to authority granted by the ICC in
 Docket Nos. 28905 and 31954.

 Answer to Employees' Question 2
Employees' Question 2 asks that the Carrier be required to restore the status quo of December 12, 1991, apply New York Dock terms and conditions and make all employees whole who were affected by the
 transaction.

 Under Section 4 of the New York Dock conditions, notice should have been posted on bulletin boards for employees to see and Union representatives should have been sent the notice by registered mail. And the parties should have negotiated an implementing agreement or obtained an arbitrated implementing agreement before the changes took
 place. In the context of the record before me in this case, where
 avoidance of
 there has not been a demonstrated pattern of^ obligations under ICC
 Finance Dockets, and a good faith dispute existed between the parties,
 the answer to the Employees' Question 2 is that the Carrier need not
 restore the status quo of December 12, 1991 during the limited period
 of time during which it is following the procedures it is obligated to
 follow under Section 4 of the New York Dock conditions, including the
 notice, negotiating and, if need be, arbitration process to reach an
 implementing agreement. The resulting implementing agreement must
 contain a provision making whole all employees who were adversely af
 fected by the transaction retroactive to the first date of the reroute
 in December 1991; and such affected.-employees shall not be deemed to
 have forfeited any rights or benefits as a consequence of decisions
 made prior to the effective date of the implementing agreement.
 Should CSXT itself decide to return tae Chicago merchandise traffic to
 the C&0 main stem rather than pursue an implementing agreement under
 Section 4, then all employees adversely affected by the diversion of
 Chicago merchandise traffic in December of 1991 shall be made whole
 for all time lost as a result of the Carrier's having affected a
 transaction without following the provision of Section 4 of the New
 York Dock conditions as was its obligation; anti standards applicable
 to the resolution of New York Dock condit_ons shall apply.-
 Answer to Emolovees' Question 3 and Carrier's Question 2

 Carrier's Question 2 asks has the Organization sustained its burden of proof that employees have been adversely affected by a transaction? The Employees' Question 3 asks are the affected employees as asserted by the Organization and listed in Attachment "A" entitled to protective benefits set forth in ICC Docket Nos. 31954 and 28905?

 Both parties cited a UTU and SSW (2-2486 O'Brien) arbitration award in their Submissions. The Organization cited the case to show that the Arbitrator stated that the "transaction" in question was the diversion of trains froze one route to another. (Organization's Submission at page 20.) And, in that case the carrier itself served notice under Section 4 of the protective conditions in question that it was contemplating a diversion of two trains daily from one route to another~route. CSXT submitted the case as authority for its position that the Arbitrator lacks authority to certify any employees who have neither filed claims nor explained why they have been adversely affected by any transactions in question. (Carrier's Submission at pages 21 and 2 2 . )

 This arbitration was set up by the parties to answer the questions set forth under the Questions at Issue. The parties did not develop an Arbitration Agreement for the instant arbitration: and the Arbitrator's authority is limited to resolving the Questions at Issue.

 The Organization sought certain information from the Carrier in its January 2, 1992 letter. The Carrier declined to provide that formation. Before the Arbitrator, the Carrier asserted that the
 Organization had access to most of the information, but
di=at=s t -t cne so,_rce re;ied en by the Carrier for its

 computer, only goes back some ninety days. The parties must now meet and obtain an imolementing agreement under Section 4. It is anticipated that the requested information will be provided in the Section 4

 process.

 After the implementing agreement is in place and should a disaute

 arise under Section 11(e) as to whether or not an emelovee is

 by the transaction involving the diversion of Chicago merchandise traffic from the C&O main stem route to the former RF&P, WM and 3&0 route then, if the matter is taken to arbitration under Section 11(e), the organization has the obligation of specifying the pertinent Laces of that transaction relied upon as to each individual claimant. And, it is then the burden of the railroad to prove that factors other a transaction affected the employee. Many arbitration decisions se:

 forth the obligations of the parties in this regard. In the 0

 award, cited by the parties and discussed above, it was stated i1 Via==:

 ... This Committee subscribes to the reasoning pronounced by previous arbitration committees that have been called upon to resolve disputes under the New York Dock conditions. For instance, it has been held flat loss of earnings and/or abolishment of positions, by themselves, do not entitle employees to labor protective benefits. Rather, it must '--e established that there existed a causal nexus between a "transaction" and the adverse impact e.cperienced by employees who are claiming .'.:e protective benefits set forth in the New York bock conditions. In the absence of such causal nexus, the employees are not entitled =o the New York Dock benefits even though they may have suffered some loss of earnings: or that their positions were abolished subsequent to _^e " Transaction" in question. The test is pct whether the emolov_ ees were in the service o= the Carrier on the date of the transaction, gut whether they
 can demonstrate that they were adversely affected by it.
                    (0'qrien, ^a?es R end


_ In the context of the lack of information available to the Or7anization and the unfulfilled obligations under Section 4, and the lack of ripeness under Section 11(e), no determination can be made as to Question 3 on whether the employees listed in Attachment "A" of the Employees' Submission are entitled to protective benefits as asked by the Organization nor should a determination be made as to the Carrier's Question 2 on whether the Organization has sustained its burden of proof that employees have been adversely affected by a transaction.

 S igned: u-^~c~ ~/ 1
 Davi P. TwomeJ, Arbit=~tor

 Dated: 7- 1 A;z2 ?