The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE Seaboard Air Line Railroad )

 QUESTION: Alleged coordination S. A. L. and A. C. L. telegraph facilities at Den
 mark, South Carolina.
 Conclusion: To be held in abeyance pending further effort to settle the matter.

 NOTE: Under date of March 23, 1939, E. J. Manion, The Order of Railroad Teleg
 raphers jointly advised Messrs. Geo. M. Harrison and H. A. Enochs that a
 satisfactory settlement of the dispute had been made between representatives of the
 railroad and organization and requested that the dispute be withdrawn from further
 consideration of the Committee.

 DECISION: Withdrawn by 0. R. T.

The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )
 vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway )

 QUESTION: Does agreement between the parties covering transfer of employees of Fort
 Worth and Rio Grande Railway to G. C. & S. F. Ry. when latter carrier pur
 chased former, satisfy the terms of the Washington Agreement of May 1936?

 DECISION: In As absence of language in the Agreement of May 10, 1937 that it was in
 lieu, or in satisfaction,of the Washington Agreement, the Washington Agree
 ment applies.

Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America )
 vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines) and )
 Texas and New Orleans Railroad Company )
 QU ESTION: Alleged coordination of car repair work at: E1 Paso, Texas. Submitted ex
 parte by R. E. D., A. F. of L., December 13, 1938. (Heard January 9. 1939.
 Sub-committee to investigate appointed April 20, 1939). Report of the sub-ccm.mit=ee
 was received and after review was found co conform with instructions. Upon mo=ion
 duly made and adopted, the report of the sub-conmitcae was accepted and made a part
 of the record in this case.

 DECISION : It is agreed that the management of the Scuthern Pacific Company be given
 ninety (90) days from this date to make reply to the joint report of the
 sub-committee and submit any supplementary statements or data it may desire. Twenty
 five (25) copies of such reply and statements to to forwarded direct to Mr. J. G.
 Luhrsen, Executive Secretary, Railway Labor Executives Association, Washington, D.
 C. and twenty-five (25) copies to Mr. H. A. Enochs, Chairman, Joint Conference Com
 mittee, Philadelphia, Pa. The representatives of the employees to be given suffici
 ent time to make reply, all of which data are to be considered at further meetings of
 this Committee.

 NOTE: Subsequently withdrawn.

Order of Railway Conductors )
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad )
 and Chicago and North Western Railway )

 QUESTION: Alleged failure of carriers to apply Washington (Merger) Agreement in the
 assignment of C. M. St. P. & P. conductors to yard service in C. & N. W.
 yards and on C. & N. W. docks, Escanaba, Mich. Submitted ex parte by the Order of
 Railway Conductors.

 DECISION : Under the facts presented we hold that the Washington Agreement of May,
 193~6t applies to the coordination of the Escanaba yard and dock operations
 as put into effect under the contract of April 11, 1935, providing for the pccling
 of certain iron ore and other traffic between the North Western and Milwaukee roads.
 To so hold is not to give retroactive effect to the Washington Agreement. The pool
 ing contract, while dated April 11, 1935, by its terms was not to become effective
 until after approval by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The report and order of
 the Commission authorizing the pooling arrangemenc was dated November 18, 1936, five
 months after the effective date of the Washington Agreement (June 18, 1936). The
 pooling contract specifically included the Escanaba yard and dock operations as well
 as road haul and Range operations, and correspondence between executives of the two
 roads involved and Director Sweet of the Commission's Bureau of Finance shows that
 those roads construed the Commission's report and order as covering the Escanaba
 yard and dock operations as well as the other features of the pooling contract. While
 there were certain coordinations in the operation of the Escanaba yard and docks
 prior to the date of the Commission's report and order, those were admittedly tempor
 ary, tentative, and experimental in nature, each being specially arranged for and
definitely limited to a single shipping season. The first complete, definite, and permanent coordination of the Escanaba yard and dock operations was that put into effect following the report and decision of the Commission.

 This conclusion of the Committee is rested entirely on the merits of the case. The Committee feels, however, that the cenduc: of all parties involved during the earlier stages of the matter was such as might well be held to be sufficient to estop them from asserting at this late date that any feature of the entire arrangement covered by the pooling contract of April 11, 1935, does not come under the Washington Agreement.

 In line with the foregoing, this Committee holds that the Milwaukee conductors are entitled to an equity in the Escanaba yard. The evidence shows that the ore tonnage handled from Menominee Range into the Escanaba Yard is divided on the basis of 66% handled by Chicago & North Western crews and 347. handled by Milwaukee crews. To the end, therefore, that this decision may be applied as intended, we further hold that the Milwaukee conduccors are entitled to man the number of jobs in the Escanaba Yard necessary to handle the percentage of ore delivered into that Yard by Milwaukee crews. This decision does not preclude any of the parties from taking steps at any time to make necessary change in the apportionment of the jobs in the Escanaba Yard to conform to any changes which may take place in the percentage of ore handled into that Yard by the respective railroads involved.

The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Ccmpany )

 QUESTION: Claim that H. M. Hale a regularly assigned telegrapher in the employ of
 the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad is, under Section 10-a of the
 Washington Agreement of May, 1936, entitled to $11.08 consisting of his moving ex
 penses and traveling time while going to a new location as a result of a coordina
 tion of facilffies at Palmer Lake, Colorado, between the Denver and Rio Grande West
 ern and Santa Fe Railroads. Submitted ex parte by The Order of Railroad Telegraphers,
 September 21, 1939. Oral hearing is desired.



                DOCKET NO. 6 --- Withdrawn


The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Wabash Railway Company )
 QUESTION: Claim for (a) any and all monies due Messrs. C. Chaney and F. L. Spencer
 account their positions of second and third trick telegraphers respect
 ively-at Carrollton, Missouri, Moberly Division, having been consolidated with the
 second and third trick telegrapher positions of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
 Railway Company at Carrollton _unction, Missouri, and (b) that these employees be
 returned to the positions to which =hey were regularly assigned prior to the consol
 idation. Mr. Chaney is entitled to the payments due from October 23, 1937, until he
 is again placed on the position of second trick telegrapher at Carrollton, and Mr.
 Spencer is due the payments from October 24, 1937, until he is placed on the posi
 tion of third trick telegrapher at Carrollton.

 DECISION: Withdrawn by Organization.

                DOCKET N0. 7 --- Decision by Committee


Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway).

 QUESTION: Claim that C. S. Scott, Car Inspector, New Albany, Indiana, was laid off
 and the job abolished and his work assigned to Car Department forces of
 another Railway Company, by the Management of the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville
 Railway in violation of the Job Protection Agreement of May, 1936, and should be
 placed back on the job and paid for all =i_m= lost until a coordination is effected
 in accordance with the terms of that agreement which they are a party to. Submitted
 ex parte by R. E. D. - A. F. of L., July 28, 1939. Oral hearing desired.

        DECISION: This is a coordination of services under the "AGREEMENT OF MAY, 1936, WASHINGTON, D. C."


                DOCKET N0. 8 - - Decision by Committee


Order of Railway Conductors )
 vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Chicago & North Western Railway Co. and )
 Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co. )

 QUESTION: Application of Committee's decision relating to the switching of pooled
 ore traffic, C. M. St. P. & P. Railroad and C. & N. W. Railway, and the
 placing of such traffic to the docks in the Escanaba, Michigan yard of the Chicago
 and North Western Railway--including switching incident to the steaming or watering
 process in extremely cold weather when. ore ladings are frozen in cars-- under the
 pooling agreement authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission in its Order No.
 26903, issued November 18, 1936. Submitted ex parte by Order of Railway Conductors, February 7, 1940. Oral hearing desired.

        DECISION: We have previously decided that the switching at Escanaba yard is subject to the "AGREEMENT OF MAY, 1936, WASHINGTON, D. C."


It is agreed that in computing and allotting the percentages of switching service of pooled ore traffic in the Escanaba Yard, the switching incident to the thaw ing of ore shall be included as switching service.

 It is agreed that the Milwaukee Conductors in working out the time they are entitled to under the application of the percentage formula, be permitted to perform any switching service in the yard regardless of the origin of the traffic.

 As to time claims of Charles Porterfield: Decision deferred. (See Docket 14) .

                DOCKET N0. 9 --- Decision by Committee


The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )
          VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE

Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. )

 QUESTION: STION: Joint request for interpretation of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washing
 ton, D. C." in connection with consolidation of telegraph facilities at
 each Brady, Texas, and Brownwood, Texas. Joint submission, February 29, 1940. Oral
 hearing waived.

            QUESTION (1) - Is the "average monthly compensation determined in accordance with the formulae prescribed in Section 6-(c) and 7-(a) of the Agreement, subject to change to conform to subsequent increases and/or decreases in basic hourly rates resulting from general wage adjustments?


            QUESTION (2)-'-` Are affected employees who have insufficient seniority to obtain and retain a regular assignment, but who revert to and perform services from the extra list, entitled to compensation under Section 6 or Section 7, of the Agreement, or under a combination of both Sections.'


            DECISION:


            QUESTION (1) - No.


QUESTION (2)- - Section 6~of the "AGREEr9,aT OF MAY, 1936, WASHINGTON, D. C." applies.

                            - 5 -