JAN 09 '9702:10PM HOUSTON OFFICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN

 P.2

 Jamey V. Nakich

 and

 EMPLOYEE

 Burlington Nattbesa Santa Fe Railroad

 EMPLOYER

 ARBITRATOR: Christine D. Ver Pfoeg

 DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING: Septembor 12.1996
 Otfiea of Leonard, Street and Deiaard
 St. F&W, Minnasm

 DATE OF CLOSE OF RECORD: November S. 1996

 DATE OF AWARD: Decannber 6. 1996

 ADVOCATES

 Wendell Bell
 BNSF
 777 Main St.
 Box 961(130
 Pt Worth TX 76161-0030

 Aw the Err aT
James Roth
 Leonard. Strew and Dalnsrd
 150 S. ft St.. Sane 2300
 Mpi.. MN ssroa

 lames V. Neklch. Grievant

 ISSUE:

 la latnea Nekich covered by the terms a( the Nm.Yusk.Dock coedititxu?
 JAN 09 '97 02:10PM HOUSTON OFFICE

 BACKGROUND

 This cane has been brought by James Nekich. who is employed by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (hereinafter "Carrier..). The dispute which gives rise to this Arbitration sterna from the Carrier's refuse! to grant Mr. Nokich berxftts provided pursuant to the New Yrwk Jock conditions. Mr. Nekich submits that this refuel violates the tenets of those conditions; the Carrier submits that it diva am.
 The parties agree wt most of the badcgtnund facts pertinent to this arbitration. It is undisputed that in IM the Carrier hired Mr. Nekich es a Dispatcher, which was a unionized position to 1991 M was prunaxed to the position of Assistant Chief Dispatcher. which was a supervisory but still unionivsd position. At approxiatately this acne time Mr. Nekich applied for. and was approved for. tbnsideratios for participation in the "This Way Up" program
 In May of 1994 the Carrier promoted Mr. Nckich to a new created position. Quality Coordinator, in the newly created Quality Department. This moved Mr. Nekich from a union to a non-union position, and in January of 1995 he was advanced an additional pay grade due to his "superior" performance.
 Meanwhile, in raid-1994 senior management of the then separate Burlington Northern, and Santa Fe Pacific railroads decided to merge. Both railroads filed their appliestion for this merger with the ICC in October of 1994. which the ICC approved in August of 1945. In its Attguat 1995 decision the ICC conditioned approval of the merger on the Carrier's compliance with "the labor protective conditions am out in NEW YarkDock gy~1.-Anr~k Peeem No 360 I.C.C. 150. 8'49!) (1979). generally known as the New York nwif Conditions:





The apparent intent of the New-York-Dock Cunditiuns, as determined to subsequent decisions interpreting its terms. has been to cushion the harsh impact of railmad mergers by providing special boaefits to railroad employees who are, for own unique reason, not represented by a union. The apparent purpusc of the pnxectuuta has been to at least partially protect employees whose skills arc narrowly specialized within the railroad industry. This rationale has been expressed as follows:
 JAN 09 '97 01:51PM HOUSTON OFFICE

 The rationale sari history of the benefits sea that they were to be extended only to
 rank and file employees because it was believed that railroad work was so
 spocWized and limited that those employees could not easily obtain work in outside
 industry If they lost their jobs as a remit of the merger. In the r d' w.hitrsties
 Between H 1 Min-e!r el 21 e,L (Id.n Parifir RR (`n _x_,21 (Seidenberg. 1

 Despite the literal language of the haw-Yolt 11,4 Cunditiws--which wnkl be road to mean that all railroad road employees not in a union are eligible for the same benefits PA the unionized employoas--subsequent decisions have established that:

It is against (his backdrop that in November of 19951he Carrier wrote to Mr. Nnkich advising him that it had eliminated the entire Quality Department, including hits position of Quality Coordinator. In response. Mr. Nekich eltercised his seniority to return to the positron of Dispatcher. a union positimt. That bid resulted in Mr. Neldch being required to rslowe to Texas, after living his entire life in Minnesota The issue currently in dispute is whether Mr. Nekich fell within the terms of the Nzav York eectc Conditions. so that the Cutter was obliged to grant him the associated benefits under those Conditions. The Carrier submits that Mr. Nektcb does not meet the New Yogi tests: Mr. Nekich submits that he does. The parties were unable to resolve their diffcleaces concerning this matter in earlier discussrons. and have agreed that this dispute is row properly before the arbitrator for resolution. The parties arid the arbitrator met fur a hearing on this nutter on September 12, 1996. This parties submitted post-beating briefs as well as additional submissions, the last of which the Arbitrator received on November 6. 1996.
RELEVANT CONTRACT LANGUAGE
Article IV of the New Ya<k.ntxk Conditions reads:

 Ernploywn of the railroad who ate not represented by a lsbur urpnustion shall be
 afforded substantially the same levels of proledioo as are afforded to members of labor organiiatinns under the= tortrw And conditions.
 JAN 09 '97 01:52PM HOUSTON OFFICE

 DISCUSSION AND DECISION

 It is undisputed that the ICUs approval of the Carrier's merger in the fall of 1995 was subject to in complying with the New YMkClodc ConditioOa. it is also undisputed that the N&w York r-eeac Conditions provide rennin benefits and guarantees to nun-union employees who an affected by margertelated transactions in the railroad industry. The question this case raises is w1etha Mr. Nekich, an employee affected by the Carrier's merger, falls within the coverage of New,GlkDmk so that he is eatided to its benefits. To answer this question it has bean neesaary to address the following underlying questions.

 t. ttrhn lA Covered rthe Near Yod ) rnmAtrinM~
Although New York t%oolc could he read literally to aimed benefits to off non4afion employees. the reasoning and holdiagtt of subsequent decisions intetpmting its terms persuasively demonstrate that its coverage is not so unlimited. Rather, the hey distinction appears b he whether an unrepreseeted railroad employee has occupied a "labor" tee a "management" position. The former would qualify under the blwYortc 17oclt Couditiuos while the lout would teat.
 Although the distinction between "labor" and "management" a self evident with respect to many positions. that is not always trop. In such cases, such as this. "It bas left to arbitration the cva lira w be drawn between those Categories." lath- "s" ~ a t" Arhitmrinn Between elar<d T Hutting dt at y Norfijk A WnnrP~ 1995, Harris).
 Thus. this case requires determining whether Mr. Nekieh's now eliminated position of Quality Coordinator was more dearly a labor car more clearly a management position. Titan finding will. in turn. determine his eligibility for coverage under NEWYME DOW-
 In determining whether the QWlty Courdiroux position was a labor or a management position. I have weighed most heavily the evidence concerning "the level of responsibility that is inherent in the position..." Id. This weighing process has inducted exesidoraboa of "the level and the amount of supervisory authority" held by Mr. Nekieh. as well as his policy malting responsibility. See In the Mauec.pf tho.Arbitct ,V-jtWjwa=AjA K.e~" Rv .., (19136. O'Brien).
 IAN 09 '97 01:52PM HOUSTON OFFICE

 2_niA Mr Mwkirh'. kith et, Lug.ihililiw.,;ULQUaLiAY,CQQWi",,f fie ~~.jlutp tw.n.g t~" w~1
fasponi itilfcs?
In determining that Mr. Nekich's job responsibilities as Quality Coordinator were more clearly labor than maratgeateet responsibilities. l have been most persuaded by the following evidence.
 AM it is undisputed, and highly relevant. that Mr. Nekich had no authority to supervise, evaluate, hire or fire any other employm. Rather. he appears to have worked largely under the direction of a higher level manager, serving as a liaison between the scheduled and the management employees w identify and facilitate ways in which in iaspnrve the Carrier's overall levels of perfumiutee. Simply serving as a laison to atanagement~ and to the Carrier's shippers. did not make Mr. Nekich a manager.

 Second, tot qtly did Mr. Nekieb have no supervisory authority over other employees. he had so authority to other changes in policy to intplermt the methods he identified for improving quality. Hs was not even invited nor did he attend Division meetings.
 All of this evidence suggests that Mr. r*kich's job responsibilities as a Quality Coordirutor did not rise to the level of a management ptwitioe.

 rmrdin.mr cwenmnlw nr bolenra riaMn

In reaching the above fladiag,1 have tux been persuaded by the following evidence:

 o. W Nekfeh ntnmtasd a dwa patylsg saember of dke VW0Jf. The evidence is undisputed that Mr. Nekich voluntarily remained a dates paying Union member. apparently in order to preserve his seniority Maw within the Union. However. the Carrier did not require Union membership as a condition of his employment a Quality Coordinator.
 b. A tutloa organi;tr sqsgerred argasluoR MW (Inaliry toardiratorrs This ha alone is nor proof that the Quality Coordinator position wan, in fact, a union-type position.
 c. IM'. Mich won /roar to worst. The evidence is undisputed thnt some management personnel also wore jeans tat work.
 d. T7w Carrier did nor par J6r Mr. AfeklcA's ehltisg torts upon his move to Temr. The evidence eamblishes that elaaing costs were not part of the relocation package given to management personnel.
 JAN 09 '97 01:53PM HOUSTON OFFICE

 a W. Netkh claim that the G'arrler'sfa(lure ro inform him o/nr rp par hfrrr ersrabr
 benafitt has bees rerdlarory. There is rtu evidence to support this daint
AWARD
For the above reasons 1 find thin Mr. Nekicb'a position as a Quality Coordinator was mote dearly a labor than a enapaiptnent positions. Tow. he fdl within the etwenee of the New Yrrlr Dock Cauliuons and should be given the appropriate beosfits sunder its tarms. i; wilt stain jurisdiction of thin aortas is the event that the parties cannot aan coneasnina the impiotnaalatiwt of this award.
Decanbar 6. 1996
Christine D. Ver Plies