BEFORE AN
 ARBITRATION COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED
 UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 11 OF THE
 NEW YORK_OOCK PMPLOY7fi PROTHCTIVE COND T QNS
PARTIES AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS )
 ASSOCIATION ) AWARD N0. 3
 To )
 AND ) CASE N0. 3
 DISPUTE )
 CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. )

 GR,ANT'ATION'S Qt STTON AT ISSOfi:









(_'ARRIBR'S QQESTI(1N AT ISSQE:


H''AT RY QE' DTSPLTE:


CS XT) pursuant to the authority granted by the Interstate Commerce

 Commission (ICC) in Finance Docket Nos. 28905 (Sub.-No. 1) and related

 proceedings, 30053, 31033 and 31106 served notice under Article I,

 Section 4(a) of the labor protective conditions set forth in New York
ok Ry --Control--Rrooklv Raetern Dist_, 360 I. C. C. 60 (1979) (New

 York Dock Conditions) upon the American Train Dispathcers Association

 (ATDA or Organization) of its intent to transfer and coordinate train
 dispatching functions performed at various locations

 property to Jacksonville, Florida. The notice did no dispatching work or positions at Mobile, Alabama wher the position oz Second Shift Assistant Chief Dispatche203, would be affected by the transaction. The parti negotiations for an implementing agreement as provided

 Section 4 of the New York Dock Conditions, and such reached on January 9, 1988.

 On November 23, 1988 the Carrier notified the Organization of its intent to transfer certain dispatching work from Mobile. Alabama to Jacksonville. Florida and to combine the dispatching work remaining at Mobile. As a result of that action Claimant's job, Position No. ::03, was abolished. On December 6. 1988 Claimant exercised his seniority to the Second Trick Train Dispatcher's position. At the time Position No. 203 was abolished it carried a rate of pay of $147.99. When Claimant exercised his seniority to the Second Trick Train Dispatcher's position the rate of pay of that position was $146.52.
 On December 9, 1988 the parties reached agreement formally allowing the abolishment of Claimant's position and the transfer of its work to Jacksonville, Florida and agreed that the rata of pay applicable to the dispatching positions remaining in Mobile, including the one to which Claimant had exercised seniority an December 6, would be $165.00 per day effective December 15, 1988.
at Mobile from December 1988 until June 6, 1989 when that position and

 t e

 r

 es

throughout the indicate that Claimant held


, Position No.
 entered into
 in Article I,
 agreement was
 ail other dispatching positions at Mobile were abolished and the work of those positions transferred to Jacksonville. At that time Claimant exercised his seniority to a clerical position at Flomaton, Alabama at a lower rate of pay than the rate of the Second Trick Train Dispatcher's position at Mobile.
 On June 21, 1989 the Carrier informed Claimant of his entitlement to benefits under the New York Dock Conditions as provided in the January 9, 1988 Implementing Agreement. The Carrier stated that Claimant's protective period began on December 14, 1988 and would expire on December 13, 1994. Claimant disagreed taking the position that his protective period began in June 1989.

 The Organization grieved the Carrier's action. The Carrier denied the grievance. The Organization appealed the denial to the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes. However, the dispute remained unresolved, and it was handled to

 arbitration under Article

 Conditions. This Committee was created and heard

the dispute. The

 parties extended the time specified in Article I, Section 11 within which this Committee was to render its decision on the dispute.

 The question in thin cane in when Claimant's protective period under the New York Dock Conditions began. Article I. Section 1(d) of the New York Dock Conditions provides that such period begins on the date on which an employee is dismissed or displaced. Article I,
 Section 1(b) of the New York Dock Conditions defines a displaced
 employee as one who ". . . as a result of a transaction is placed in a
 worse position with respect to his compensation and rules governing
 his working conditions." Article I. Section 1(c) defines a dismissed
 employee as one who ". . . as a result of a transaction is deprived of
 employment with the railroad because of the abolition of his position

 The record in this case establishes that at the time Claimant's position as Mobile Assistant Chief Dispatcher was abolished in December 1988 that position carried a rate of pay of $147.99 per day. The position of Second Trick Train Dispatcher to which Claimant exercised his seniority on December 6, 1988 carried a rate of pay of $146.52 per day. Clearly, Claimant became a displaced amployee _r. Jecamber d, 1988 because he was placed in a worse position with respect to his compensation as a result of the transaction. The fact

 that a few days later the Second Trick

 Mobile received a rate increase to $165.00 a day

 fact remains that as his seniority to a

 Claimant's abolished position.

 Claimant became a displaced period.' All allowances are Award No. 66 of Public Law Neutral).

is irrelevant. The

 a result of the transaction Claimant exercised position carrying a lower rate of pay than

 Accordingly, it was at that time that

 employee which began his

 determined from that point i Hoard No. 3160, Sept. 20. 198

 n

 protective
 time. See
 2 (Dolnick.

Moreover, even if Claimant had exercised his seniority t.D to Second Trick Train Dispatcher's position at Mobile after the $165.00 per day rate had become effective, a different result would not occur. The temporary nature of the train dispatcher's positions remaining at Mobile, Alabama, the circumstances leading to the parties' December 9, 1988 letter agreement governing the transfer of dispatcher's work from Mobile to Jacksonville and the rate of pay applicable to the temporary positions remaining, all militate against the Organization's position. See HMWE and So. Hv. Co_, Oct. 9, 1985 (Marx, Jr., Neutral) and

Cannon. At a1 and So. Freirht Aosn_, Fe b. 3, 1987 (Fredenberger, Jr., Neutral).

In the final analysis we find the Organization's position in this case without merit.
 A1dABn

 The Carrier's Question is answered in the affirmative.

 The Organization's Question is answered in the negative.

 William R. Fredenberser, Jr.
 Chairman and Neutral Member

 14. S. Mul inax
 Employee e HVviedi

 Michael Nicoletti Carrier Member