Is the Carrier's notice of January 8, 1997, appropriate arid to furtherance of the Surface Transportation Rnarti'a ("STPI") decision rendered to Finance Docket 32780 with respect to Field Engineers. Chief Draftsman,
Draftaut4ia. Assistant Engineers. Detector Car and Assistant Detector Car Engineers?
STS approval of the Union Pacific 1-1117")/Southern Pacific (mtl?") merger occurred by order dated August 6, 1°98 (Finance Docket 32780). and imposed New York Dock wuRiVuu%. ARTS (which merged with the Organtsatinn), n·pr~,"ntrri Draftsmen, Valuation Clerks. Detector Car Operators. Field Engineers and Chemists on the SP (Western Lines) under a separate agreement. Those positions on the UP are represented by TCU. ARASA or are non-covered.
By letter dated January 8, 1097. the Carrier notified the Organization of the following:
... !?lursuant to Section 4 of thr New York Dock conditions, notice is hereby given of UFO* intent to abol. ish and transfer the following work and positions:
All workperformed by and accru ing to "ARTS" represented em ployees of the Southern pacific
various locations throughout she UPRR ovltent. Such cnsplw· ees electing to transfer will as· ctmu tlu repnsentatloesi status of UpRR employees performing comparable work.
For the treatment of certain ARTS represented positions from the 31', ttcgotlaUuun belwcnn the parties were sitrter..~W 1 rrnulttng to rn lm plementtng agreement of March 7. 1997. However, the parties sere unable to agree upon the treatment of Field Engineers, Chief Draftsman. Draftsman, Assistant Engineers. Detector Car and Assistant Detector car lrngineess. The parties agreed to submit the treatment of the outstanding classifications to arbitration, agreeing further that a an
system wide which will ei:mir:ate uvcilaYpt,ig func;lluna. Again, the result trill be more efflrtrnt operations.
Third. the Field Engineering persortnatare charged with developing
c,irvey data, supervision of construction forces and inspection of contracted work. The Carrier's plan is to use these employees system wide which will give increased mobility and i7eadbatty. The Carrier has thus sufficiently shown that the combination of these individuals will result in a more efficient use of their skills.
In sum then, the Carrier has shown that by combining the forces as piatuica. Vie rasull w111 be the ability to use these. indivirluata nn a system wide basis without having the boundary restrictions that might exist by keeping the former 3P and
separate. The bottom line is therefore more efficient operations. The Carver has sufficiently shown a transportation benefit. The treatment of these employees as contemplated by the Carrier will thug be lei furtherance of the ST8's order concerning this merger.
The ARTE represented employees' objections are understandable. Reallocations may well be the end
product of the Carrier's actions. The representational status of she employees will change. However, it has been demonstrated that by not permitting the Carrier's actions, tae former SY and UP boundaries :=rill remain and the Carrier has shotvn under the degree of its burden required in these cases that without the changes it will not be able to operate as efficiently as it could with the system wide fladbility it seeks. A transportation benefit has been shown.
The Issue is answered in the ;,f flrmative.