BEFORE AN
 ARBITRATION COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED
 UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 11 OF THE
 NEW YORK DOCK EMPLOYEE PROTECTIVE CONDITIONS
PARTIES

 TO

 DISPUTE

 AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION

 AND

 CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.

 C)RCANT.ATTON'S STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
AWARD N0. 4

 CASE N0. 4

 Claim of Train Dispatcher R. M. Cummins nor entitlement to the protective benefits of the New York Dock Conditions as .3 result of being affected :;y implementation of the August 15, 1989 Agreement.

 CARRIER"; QUEST ION AT I JSUE:

,s claimant entitled to a 'displacement allowance' resulting of the 'transaction' (as those terms are used and interpreted by 'New York Jock') that was implemented on February 1, 1990 pursuant to the provisions of the Memorandum Agreement signed on y1agust 15 , 1939 as claimed by the Organiza tion''


-~iSc'GTE:
l;'1 JeptCmLer

 interstate Commerce ':ommission c iCC> in c inance Doc::=t

 and related proceedings. :005" 1033 tend

 :937 purusuanc :o autcrori ty grant

 ;:.3rrier began implementation of a multiphased project `.: ~:=rt~-:i '_=_

 train dispatching functions throughout the C:3rri=r's prcrert

 : '_ in

 arrier 's Centralized Train 111sp3tCZing enter ioriaa. 'i lie uJC conditioned the authorit- granted the arr4-

 p ~ 1 f p1 ~ : , , s?t forth '_:: Ne-G7

 application of -he labor protective _ondi~_ns

Dock Conditions). As the result of implementation of "Phase I" of the transaction Claimant relocated to Jacksonville in April 1988 at which time Claimant became a displaced employee as defined in Article T.

erection 1(b) of the New York Dock %onditions and began to receive
 displacement allowance under Article I, Section 5 of the conditions.

3y letter of May 3 . 1989 Claimant was notified of the compensatir_-,n ;n'? :ours upon which his dismissal allowance would be based and that his protac tive period began ~-~n April '?? , 1988 and would end ;_ n April '_ _ .


On lay !8. !989 the Carrier issued a notice pursuant to
 Artic~e i, Section 4 of the New York Dock Conditions :o implement

"Phase il" of the transaction. Further pursuant to Article I. Section the parties entered into negotiations for an agreement to implemen-, -,:he proposed transaction. An agreement was reached on August 15. 1989. On October 13. 1989 the Carrier issued 3 noti,::a to





arc=nent part that

 ~::anzea, ,:r :erritory added _,~ their =-urrent rositi:Ln.

 :uzi 3tiected are entitled to an e-.v.ercise of Seniority."

 i-;rl~ner states that incumbents _f Euch p~:sit_~ns ~a~i ':_ .-ta== :gin=T..=r
 t:~=~- .;ii:aa to remain :gin the =ositi~_n :with the new ,lays :ff :r
 sdai-Lionai territory .added or to -_.,.-erc_J:3e their Fenir.)r it; :o
~:~Siti. :,n. _iicyudea among sucn positions was the "AQ" ;esk :n she :~rcin Division.

 certain positions will cave their rest «_--.;=

"iosed and its functions transferred to the Corbin Division A9 desk in

 ~acxsonviile. The incumbent of that position. L. Stalcu
 p exor C ise-d

 seniority to displace a junior employee, C. D. Keys, from a relief

 train dispatcher position. Dispatcher Keys then elected to displace

 Claimant from his position of Assistant Chief Dispatcher on the Corbin

 .,ivision effective February 1, 1990. Claimant then e:cerciZed -:iE

 Z=niorl-ty on iarcn 16, :990 to displace junior Train Dispatcher D. L.

 'i~ung who held the position of Second 'Shift Assistant -nia.; r`ispatc:.=r

 c n ;,he Florence Division.

. ... . my 1 'Z month test period suarantee under New York Dock

 piote,:Li,-n from Feb. ist, 1990 thru Feb 1st. , 1996. " On February 11,

 .?9U one Carrier declined Claimant's request stating that Claimant' 'had

 _=cn .~a~==tea ~~ _;.e iap.L

-:,.at ::~s rrct=ctive period for purposes of New York Doer, ^r_te.=Li.-

 ~na~ L._~rs pagan -n npri i ::7 , 1983.

        :'he !`rganication grieved the Carrier's .action. 'she Car-- ier


~~,a :.he grievance. The Organicati,~n .appealed the denial to:, r:^.e

 ..-.finest officer ~f the Carrier designated to handle such-=isp~ite.--_.

 :~w~var, -.he aisputa remained unresolved, and the part-4--s detarmin=f1

    ::anaie :he matter through arbitrati,~n --Pursuant 6,:,


.:e~___a ii .t ~...: :s.ew rk Dock Conditions. '."his (I`ommittee '.:.a= =r==_cec

 3na ward the ii-spute. The parti,=s extended t=he time _ _r

 __c~m~tte= ._ yssue its :ecision provided in Artic
                                          l= i, ~e=ti_n : _.

The Organization's theory in this case is that Claimant was in the chain of displacements initiated by implementation of Phase T= of the centralization of train dispatching functions at' Jacksonville, Florida. Specifically, the Organization maintains that Claimant was covered by Section o (a) of the August 15 , 1989 Implementing Agreement providing in pertinent part that "[E]mployees affected as a result __ the implementation _.f this agreement will be entitled to the protective benefits of the New York Dock Conditions . . . ." Pointing to the (larrier's October 19 , 1989 notice, the Organization argues that the addition of the train dispatching functions formerly performed 3t k:oiumnus, Uhio to the AQ desk on the Corbin Division caused Trair.

'ispatcher Staicup to exercise his seniority which eventually result=d in .1aimant being bumped from the position he held. The Organizati,_n .;rgues tnat Claimant begame a displaced ampi~yee at that ti.^..e -._ :~Linea in the New York Dock Conditions because the position fr=m wnich ne was displaced produced more income i.^. the =~rm ~f ve.·._T:= c,nan T rye position to which lie displaced even though the latter rrsiti.:~n carried a higher rate of pay. Accordingly. urges t*!ie jrganication, %laimant is entitled to a new six-year protective p~rl~:u 3s a result of his displacement on February 1 , :.990 and ::-) a dismiss=aii-.~wance as a result cf the loss of overtime.


The Carrier vigorously contests the Organization's positi~=n. :~i: ,arrier ;maintains that 'rain Dispatcher 30talcup voluntari:
 exercised his seniority pursuant to Article 5(e)(4) of the January 9,
 1988 Centralized Train Dispatching Center Agreement which provides in
 pertinent part that a Train Dispatcher may exercise seniority rights
 when ". . . additional territory is added to his assignment . . . .
 The Carrier asserts that Dispatcher Stalcup was not required by the
 transaction to exercise displacement rights, but elected to ~.D -_.
 Accordingly, urges the Carrier, the exercise of such displacement
 rights was not a result of the transaction. MoreoverMoreover. not :~nL-,.,
 .,iaimant failed to show that he was affected as .3 result of :::e
 transaction as required by Article I. Section 11 of the New 'fork ock.
 Conditions, but he also has failed to prove his status as a displaced
 employee under Article I, Section 5 of the New York Dock Conditions.
 Finally, the Carrier maintains that even if claimant has satisfied his
 burden of proof under Article I. Section 11, he is barred by the terms
 ..t Ar -:, 0"etL-on 5 from receiving a displacement allowance beca:ae
 he failed to obtain a position .available to him in the Corbin -:°i·.·i=_::
 waica would nave allowed ?aim the same opportunities to earn oc?r tyTa
 .as ze nad in the position from which he was displaced.
 'rte aeiieve that on the record before us the Organizati,_,n as the superior argument that (',13imant was affected within the mean __^.A - _ -:Cction d (a) of the August 15 , '_989 'Implementing Agreement :,`~! Phase of the transaction. While it is true :,hat Dispatcher Stalcup-::erc_==~; ais seniority pursuant to Article 5(c) of the appli,_-able- schediiI.-ragreement, the Carrier's October 19 , 1989 notice dead:; indi.:a`'z5~ ;Ln3L 3ucn actin ties anticipated to be 3t 3 iesult. -i
 implementation of Phase II. If Phase II had not been implemented the
 dispatching duties from Columbus, Ohio would not have been placed _n
 the A9 desk in the Corbin Division at Jacksonville and Dispatcher
 Stalcup would not have exercised his seniority to another positi,_r.
 Accordingly, Claimant was entitled to a new protective period
 beginning with his displacement on February 1. 1990.
 However, we believe the Carrier's point is well taken that ~~lsimant is not entitled to a displacement allowance as a rssul :i.aisplacement 4- -bruary :.. 1990 because Claimant did not secure position in the Corbin Division which would have entitled him to the same ,~pportunities for overtime work he had in connection with the position from which he was displaced. While it may be true that Claimant exercised his seniority to a higher rated position after h displacement, the fact remains that such position produced L---=ss
 omperisation which is the basis for his claim for -a dispiacemenT syi~wance. ~:laimant cannot base his ::iaim upon a set of facts aria `_:-:=:: ,~ciiy c:ze consequences of those facts with respect to other per r i.^.e.^.L :::at ters , _n this case the actual compensation produced by zhm= ?~s L· ;:n ~C, wni,.:a .:- -:;ercised his seniority. Here Claimant rail=d -_o _ L-.c= ::i_useiz .:,n a position where his opportunit:r for =rertime .:~_;~.::.a·-c=_~: .:quay toy that ne had in the p~ositi_n from which he was dis^ia==~.

 .~rci_ie -, Section S of the New ';.:r~ lock C.)nditic_ns i,--p~.ac=meat ali,~wance Claimant se=Ks i:1 :his case.
 AWARD
The Organization's claim is denied.

 The Carrier's question is answered in the negative.

 Z~Ize~ - ~ I
 William E. Fredenberger, Jr. ~® Chairman and Neutral Member

 -1
        e 1


ic~aC~ :Nicoletti

 DATED:
        e-


H. ".. C 1 't13x~ Empi0y ee3 Member