BEFORE AN
ARBITRATION COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED
UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 11 OF THE
NEW YORK DOCK EMPLOYEE PROTECTIVE CONDITIONS
PARTIES AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS >
ASSOCIATION
TO ) AWARD N0.
AND )
DISPUTE > CASE N0. S
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. )
ORGANIZATION'S pC1EST_jON AT ISSUE:
Whether Train Dispatcher C. E. McAbee was adversely
affected as a result of implementation of the
.January 9, 1928 Memorandum Agreement, and thereby
entitled, under Section i0ca) of -aid agreement., to
the protective benefits of the 'New '7.,:)rk Dock
~I;onaitions.
~;:ARRIER'S QUESTION AT ISSUE:
Should Mr. C. E. McAbee be considered a 'displaced'
or 'dismissed' ~mpioyee as these terms are def fined
by the ' New York Dock Protective Conditions' as a
result of the consolidation of train dispatching
functions at
Jacksonville,
Florida?
:rte T'J C(
J
t.)
n vuly ::~ , i97U t.131mant e-stablished seniority
3S
a Z'f31::
- -=ffice , it,
r.^~
r,n,
Chio then
oFer3te,1
::isFatcner in the Rispatcning _.r
predecessor to CSX Transportation, 7nc. 'Carrier :--r
s:iaimant sccurea a nonagreemenr. supervisory
,arric-r, and thereafter Claimant held varisus official ysit;nns
-:m ~ _rr i=~-. ~ n ''?9O ~_ laimant was workir.a at 'Eal timer= . 'aaryi.ar.;
:pUl_~ .-, aLions
-:,-)nsui ant with Chessia `omputer Services,
juosmiarv ~~,f the Carrier. t ail i:~as during which ('1aimBnt
t:a continued to maintain and accrue
as a Train Dispatcher under agreements between the Carrier and the
American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA or Organization).
On April 27, 1990 the Carrier terminated Claimant as an
Applications
Consultant with
Chessie Computer Services, Inc. On the
same date Claimant informed the Carrier of his intention to exercise
his Train Dispatcher seniority to a position in the Carrier's
Centralized Train Dispatching Office in .Jacksonville, Florida.
Previously the Carrier had notified the Organization it
~?yanned to centralize all train dispatching functions throughout the
System in Jacksonville, Florida pursuant to authority granted the
~arrl=r
-ty
the interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in Finance Docket
Nos. ::8905 (Sub.-No. 1) and related proceedings, 30053 , 31033 and
.s
.;ii;;o
~uo,iact to the condition for the protection of employees se,
forth in
New
York Dock Rl --Control--Rrookl_vn 'astern ')ist. , "00
y
_. ., . ~. ~. u \ ~J ' J ) \ dew
iC1
r
K
Dock "Conditions / . As provide in ar tl'::1? .
,_'~c=l.>ri
-c ;~t
theaw yIjrK
.r.'VCK
(.~Dnaltlons the
~~rt1Fri'~''lg'4t13tCd
:in,-;
.=f. t8?'~.., i:1
:o al impie-mentlng agreement pertaining to the transaction
~snuary :9 , 1388.
aide
Letter No.
'_:
to that agreement Prow=ces _n
d list will be prepared showing the names,
seniority dates, and seniority district
!)r
train dispatcners holding I-fficial and excepted
positions, r_n leave of absence, and on disability
retirement. Such train dispatchers may elect to
transfer their seniority to the ''antraiized
7z-3i n
vispatching Office at Jacksonville, or
to
remain cn
their pre-existing seniority district roster,
-t
one time they return from their status
o=
Fromotea.
tDn
l=ave,
--=tc. Protected train dispatchers
Jacksonville will not be deprived of protective
benefits as the result of such individuals
exercising seniority in the Jacksonville
Centralized Office.
When Claimant was terminated from his nonagreement position
on April 27, 1990 no Train Dispatcher positions existed in Akron,
Ohio. .ouch positions existed only in Jacksonville, Florida. Claimant
elected to transfer his seniority to .Jacksonville.
,.gin June '?1. 1990 Claimant inquired of the Carrier as to
whether he would be allowed the benefits of various protective
agreements applicable to the transfer of dispatching work from Akron
to Jacksonville. On June 2$, 1990 the Carrier informed Claimant that
inasmuch as at the time the dispatching work was transferred Claimant
had occupied a nonagreement position not involved in the transfer of
:,:.c
woe:.
.:= was not enti;,ied
to
any protective benefits applicable
,ne 1:ransaction and that Side Latter Nto the january 9.
-Q519
.Lnpi=iue::t.L.^.a Agreement provided only for the exercise of seniority.
iae Organization grieved the Carrier's action. The Carr.=r
ucniea the grievance. The ~irganization appealed the denial to the
highest ._.fficer ..,f the harrier designated to handle such disputes.
dowever, she dispute could not be resolved. and the parties submitted
she matter
to
arbitration under Art:.c~3 _. 2--action :1 -f
x:13
;'leW `(-rk
Liocx t..ondi ions. -.he dispute has been placed before this t,ommittee.
,''he time specified in rtici= 1. ':.ac-ti_~n _i for :hJ- Co.;mmittee t--)
renaar i-s aacision was aNtended by the parties.
r
INDINGS:
the Organization bases its position in this case upon Section
1J (a) of the January 9, 1988 Implementing Agreement which provides in
pertinent part that "[F.]mplovees adversely affected as a result of the
implementation of this agreement will be entitled to the protective
benefits of the New York Dock Conditions . . . ." The Organization
contends that Claimant was adversely affected by the centraliZstion
7.4
,;ispatching work at Jacksonville, Florida, the transaction which
;:.3s
the subject of the January 9. 1988 Implementing Agreement, inasmuch as
no dispatching jobs existed in Akron,
Ohio when
Claimant was
terminated from his nonagreement position. Had the transaction note
Waxen place, the Organization emphasi-es, Claimant could havF
exercised seniority to a dispatcher's position in Akron. Instead.
_-a1:nanL was forced to exercise
his
seniority to alispatc'her
vsition in Jacksonville. Thus, the Organization urges. Claiman:
w-3
~u'J~r5vl;: aif=cten by the transaction.
he claim in this case
1.3
governed by the burden of proof
-rovisions of Article 1. Section ii :Df the New York Lock Conditions.
:nose !::,nditions have been interpreted consistently as reqijiring
`::3r
.1G
irganizatlon or Claimant establish a rat~onal or causal
:':::'.'.1S
uc cween : ne transaction
which
1.S
subject
:J
the clew 7:.)r _~
~~I11i:.1,~n~
D .2,
and
tale
alleged adverse effect. See UTTJ y N&W
warn oo. :. Aug. :~9 , i?86 ( Peterson. Neutral) and GRAC
i`dti
~eLcrson, Neutral). moth eases stand or
proposition that where at the time of a transaction an employee does
not occupy a position directly affected by the transaction, in this
case a dispatcher's position in Akron, Ohio the work of which was
transferred to Jacksonville, Florida, such employee cannot show or
establish a rational or causal nexus sufficient to sustain a claim
under Article I, Section 11 of the New York Dock Conditions.
In the N&W award Claimants were furloughed employees who
argued that as a result of the transaction there would be no positi_,ns
i:r them to occupy when they returned from furlough.
T
_n the Southern
case the Claimant occupied a nonagreement position which the Carrier
apparently abolished as a consequence of the transaction. In both
cas4s there was no rational or causal nexus established sufficient
.:;atisiy ;.he burden of proof under Article I, Section 11 of the New
'iork Lock Conditions.
We find the fr~regoing arbitral authority instructional and
persuasive with respect to the dispute in this case. :'.laimant '',st
::c:nagr =ement Pos~ition apparently as
.3
result
~_z
unsatisfact.;:r;,
i~Cr--JrfiancC. The loss of that p,,sition in nn way was related t-~~::tia~iT,3L~n of train dispatching work in Jacksonville. = icr
id3. 7'::3
i 1
~Uation in which Claimant
dispatching
him3,--
1f w?
±h
r°-SPect ± _,
..:i7.3~31~:C~liity
(_'= dispatching work a~ nkrsn. Ohio '!n April ~~ , =990
_3 ~i.3tLf3_Us
:o the position .I :he P'11'loU$:1ed empa~_yaf3 ::: :n;-
`,1.-yt
arol-~tsc.ion uecision noted above. The lack ',?f work .;it Akron and
`..'1e
aa~C~3~i' ~_
- xercize =eni~r~ty '.'.o a -4ispatcher .-.
-O°i..l~n
'.._''~
.a::t.3t~i~vlil~ In ~)raer :u .)btaiin work was :imply Loo tangential
'3nQ
indirect an effect to satisfy the burden of proof under Article I,
:3ection 11 of the New York Dock Conditions.
Moreover, as the Carrier emphasizes, Side Letter No. 11 to
the January 9, 1988 Implementing Agreement specifically deals with
employees in Claimant's situation. The Side Letter affords such
employees the right to exercise seniority to positions in Jacksonville
to
the
extent such exercise does not impair the rights of protected
drain Dispatchers in Jacksonville. The parties obviously contampla ted
:,re ~~ ~u.ation in wizic:z Claimant found himself on April ;7 , '_990 and
determined to afford such employees limited protection as set forth =n
-:-de Latter Jo.
11.
Claimant seeks :sore, but applicable agreements do
not afford Claimant the benefits he seeks.
in the final analysis we must find that there is no
contractual basis for the Organization's position in this case.
AWARD
>=oth Questions are answered in the negative.
/-a
r,
~4e-,
e
rlil lam E. rreaenbarger,
u
i "hairman and N=utrai Member
.
::1~t132i iilCGier
:err ier :1=meer
;i . E. :"u 1 sirrra-~
r
mpioyee :Iember