Lighter Captains' L:nicn, Local 995, )
 I.L.A., AFL-CIO )
and )
 Erie -Lackawanna hailrcad Company )

 U'STIO'I:

 '0Interpretati.on of Sec. 1, of the Azre=mset of May, 1936, Washington, D.C., which states as follows

 'that the fundamental scope and purpose of this agreement is to provide for allowances to defined employ==s affected by coordination as hereinafter defined, and it is the intent thac the provisions of this agreement are to be restricted to those changes in employeeet in the Railroad Industry solely due to and resulting from such coordination. Therefore, the parties hereto understand and agree that fluctuations, rises and fells and changes in volume or character of emplcysent brought about solely by other causes are not within the contemplation of the parties hereto, or covered by or intended to be covered by this agreement.'

 "Interpretation of .Section 7, (c) 2, of the Agreement of May, 1936, Wa.shin.-ton, D. C., relative to an employee being deprived of his employm°_nt and entitled to a cc-ordination a11c:.-ance; under that portion of Section 7, (c), 2, which reads as follows; 'or by ocr.°r em_plot~-zL=-s, brcugl.-a abort as a proxiZ.ateconsegu-.^.ce of the coordination ; and ii ~: _is unable by the exercise of his seniority rights to recur= rc_h-r ro_iticn en his home read or a position in the coordinated operation.' - (Emp`lasis added by underlining.)

 "Interpretation cf Section 12, of the Agr-ement of May, 19 ?6, Washington, D.C., relating to a practice u;hereby the Erie R.R. Go., in deference to maintaining and repairing its own barges and lighters chose to lay up it; own floating a uipment; and did thereby lease, chart-tr, rent or acquire floating equipm=nC ro:n the D. L. & W. R. R.. Co. These D. L. & W. barges and scows were manned by D. L. & W. Lighter Captain ferres. This necessitated the furloughing of Erie Lighter Captain force;. Thos= men were denied work that contractually should have been thairs. However, in the rearrangement and adjustment of the Lighter Capt=in forces of both the Erie and the D. L. & W. R. R. Cos., Lackawanna C?ptains vere pressed in cc t!^e service of the Erie R. R. Co. aboard D. L. & W. floating equi-°_7t, Th-s joint action of the fcraer Erie and D. L. & W. R. R. Cos., deprived Erie Lighter Captains of active employment during 1959 and 1960. This w-_.s during a period when the Erie R. R. Co. and the D. L. & W, R. R. Co. were an·_iciparring m=arger."

 FINDI':^S : _

 (a) This case is a cor::panion to Docket ?to, 103 and should be read with it. W;at ::as said th~re al:.cut 0,c a11·;r~d violation cf Scct_ion 12 applies e--lnally here. While t'.·.^_,-e :,·-.. et'r._r cem:= issues, the d:nial of t!-e claims
 makes it unnecessary to dispsse of the-, a1thc,;p'.uer.a it otiern;ise :heir disposition in Docket t:o. 103 would gcvorn here.

 Claimants held rebular positions when in she Spring and Sum-er of 1962 (more than a year after the ampl=7ent;t:o^,) clay clair^_ to !lave been adverse ly affcctec? by t`:c cecrdirr:ticn =effectuaced in February 1961. The 0-9a-.ization s contention is that by reascR o_ t!.e verger of =eRiority lists'. in February 1951 ,.',he Clai-ants :;ere ad=ersely affected in their compensation in May, June -.rid ^.ugust '_962. Tha G~,rrier co:nters that for a year after the implementation their ccn.pensacion -.ct_~,ed or exceeded that prior to coordination (a fact oanerallv atte:tcd to by tl·eir work records arid the absence of clams under the :'ashin5`en .-ree7enti; 'ha drop in vjork is attributable, it ar.-ucs, to a de;.enstraol~a dr;~- in Lonnage handled. The record amply sup?o:-ts these con tentio-s. Claimants exPeri=:cod r.c ad,:erse affect for over a year during which the cocrl-ination and dovetailed seniority lists had been in, effect. the total tonnae handled ':y ligsters; barges; and sco'Js showed a deci:ad drop from 1951 to '952 when each month is co-,pared wit)-, the corresponding month of the pracedi-~ year. Moreo-·rar, for the mcnths for which claims are :, ode (`Lay, June a,^.d Aucu? t, 19:2,` tonnage fell off from the preceding merit:;:. These decreases nacre -,at slight. So, for example, in April 1962 tonne-.c totaled 69,'332, but in ,ay totaled only 59,939; the slight increase to 62,1,38 in June lid not r=ge:in the April level of activity, After a 71,995 ton r:.onth in June, there was a precipitous drop to 1,8,386 tons in August. Beat days cf ser-:ice fluctuated accordingly. These changes are sufficient to account in major part for t:ic diminished earrings of these Claimants in the months o: April, ?une and August 1952.




available to the Carrier -.i;ht have fallen on different emol:yeas had there
 been no mor.ed seniority list. ;ut that is rather speculative. T-1here, as
 here, facilit'-e5 and rosters hc== -eon mar=cd and !:7 adver:°_ effect is exper
 ienced until sono time later when snare is a pzloc·ble and indisputable drop
 in the c/or,. ,. t'-.e Cerrthat fluctuation ;ray be taken as =he
_._ CanSe of e:.pl.:'ju^_s d1-`.1f,iia,:.~. i_u_r.n~. ~:a:v_ ',L-&e viaiMv·'.sti na'/2 lGt o.mv::R that they were ad,:ersely off-et-ad '·y the coerdinatie^:

 (lJ) Tae claim far Captain Dir_-20 is diff°_rent. Fe was the long t:r,= Captain o= l:c_wy hoist h'; ir1·_r ::c, 5c. At tt-: ~,r~t of ?uly 1962 h= was bumped from this fjsit.iun !~y ancct-.-cr form.--r Erie Cz,pti;n, Tho.ras Doyle c,ho Was
 "1






















~I

National :urine Engineers ?enefici_1 )
 Association District No. 1 )
 and )
The Long Island Railroad Company )
                            )

and )
 The Penn, ylva=:ia Railroad Company )

 QUESTION'S
    "Question No. 1. Whete°-r or not the arrangement made by the P.R.R.-

in letter -of February 19, 1953, providing ultimately for the abandonment by the L.I.R.R. of its floating equipment;aod facilities and utilization by the P.R.R. of the separate facilities end floating equipment in furtherance of the floating ep=rations or services to which the abandoned facilities and floating equipment had been devoted; constitutes a coordi= nation within the meaning of Section 2<<) of the SJashington Job Protection Agreement of May 1935? And, if so;

    ..

Question No. c. Does the proposed agr=gym=nt, pat forth 4y the. Organization, Y.E.B.A., in letter da,te~ tray 7, 1963, see exhibit ~`3 equitably dispose of the matter in accordance with Section 5 of the Uashington Job Protection Agreement of hlby 1932

 FINDINGS:

 Only Question 1 has been argued by the parties; in view of the decision on it, it is not necessary to decide Question 2.

 From ,$efore.1900 through the early part of 1953 the Long Island provided floatation service; for the Pennsylvania from Green·rille, Nei; Jersey to Long Island City, New Ycrk which is an interchange point beticeen the two Carriers; the services were rendered by Long Island orew.3 and equipment pursuant to a series of agreements, the last dated Octoar 30, 1951.

 The agreement prcvided for pay-=nt to the Long island on a "cost plus" 107. basis. "Seventh" provided that the agreerenc was terminable by either Carrier on six months' notice. Such a notice was given by the Pennsylvania in a letter dated February 19, 195: nocifying the Long Island that its right to terminate was being exercised to takc effect six months later on August 31, 1963. As a result, the jobs of some fifty Long Island employees were abolished, including chose of eig'.^.t r·.=nber= of 11.E.5.A.

                                                    ~.

The O:ganiz:,ticn claims th.:,t this ct:ang°_ in ep=rations constituted a coordination bet;men t`oe Ctro Carriers, butt; of which are individual sign-stories

                6 - 163 -

of the Iashington Agreement, and that the a.,=^ez-?-.c was violated b^c_sse the Carriers failed to give Section 4 ncticeas a.^.d to c-_nelude Section 5 Impl=_m=nting agTCe!'c?'?C3. It arE-,Ll-i t-at LcnS Island w~:k w~i tray.3ferred :O P2ansylvania facilities pursuant to joint actin by the t.v*e Cz.rriers, citing Docket \c. 71 as a ccn-,parable situation.

 The Carriers contend that the disccntin-ante of the contract arrangement was not a cocrdinaticn because no cor,binaticn cf services or facilities was involved a.^d that the action was not joint b,~t unilateral and°r the 1551 agreement, pursuant to which the Pennsyl-lania res,_.r.~,d ding its own work; they invoke Docket No. 38 as an applicabl=e preecedenc.

 Although the Pennsylvania c~:ns 100% of t;:e Icng Island's shares, there is no dispute that tl;_=. two are separace Carri=ers for purposes of the tjashington Agreement; morec-;er, there sears nc disputs that each operated quite independently of tl,e other at all ti^=s relevant to chic dispute, the separate management of the Long Island 'raving been mandated by New York legislation.

 - Docket No. 71 is cited for rl:e preposition that the 'joint acticn° re
 quired by Seccion 2 of the Washington Awreexant is inferable from the entire
 situation and need not be proved directly, ::ut it is not necessary to resolve
 that issue because I conclude tbat what was done here did not constitute a
 n coordination in any event. The %:cr!c perfcrr?ed by Long Island employees was Pennsylvania work which it was the Long Island's to perform only by virtue of the Pennsyl,rania's contracting e.:t of the v;ork. The Lcng Island could not in turn transfer it to errplc;:aes of another carrier; but the Pennsylvania could cancel the err>nr_.e :°e.^.t un==r ti·.e Carriers` agreement and the a .rid=_nce indicates that this was done f.-:r valid hJ5incss r°cison=, The resulting resumption of the work by Pennsylvania emnlcyees .as net the kind of combination of services and or facilities to which th: Wssi~.ington Agr=e-_i=nt is directed either in terms or intent. After the cancellation Pennayl-rania work was to be done by Penn3ylvania employees on Penrnsylvania faciliti=_--this does not come within the definition of Section 2. (Another issue WCJld be pre=_=nted w_ere the work transferred to employees of a third carrier.'/ Th: elem:-nts of this case seem essentially like thomin Dock=t. No. ?8, as the Carriers argue, Nor is this conclusion changed by the fact that a Long Island tug used for the disputed work was sold to t~ Pennsylva-iia in the a=lance of a snowing that this was anything other than a bona fide sale.

 DECISION:

 The cancellation of the c:ntract under which Long island em.ploy=es performed floatation cperaticns for tl:e Pennsylvania ea:p~oy=es and facilities did not constitute a "coordination."

 - 16+ -
    _ DOCKc-r n0. 121 - Wi t~drarjn


Joint Texas Division of Chicago, Rock Island )
 and Pacific Railroed Company )
 Fort Worth and Denver Railr-ay Company )
 Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Comp=ny ) Parties to the Dispute
 )
 VS. )
 The Order of Railroad Tel<graphars )

 QjIEJTID1~: Coordination of ststicn f;Cilitiss and services of the abo`i°_ carrier
 at Vox=.hackie, Texas entering into an agreement between the "ana.aemsat
 and The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the C_.rriers under the Agreement of
 May, 1936, Washington, D. C.

        DECISION:


    W i th d raswn .


                DOC6TT h0, 112 --- I?ithdrawn


Missouri-Kansas --Texas Railroad Company )
 Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company )
 Parties to the Dispute

          VS. )


                              )

The Order of Railroad Telegr-phers )

 QUESTION.-_., STION:..

 To determine the issue of Section 5 of the Agreement of May, 19?6, Wash
 ington, D.C. (Washington Job Protection Agreement) requires the Carrier
 to accede to demand of the Emplcyes that tha joint agent under this coordina
 tion agreement and who will ce subjr2ct to agreement rules of the Fort W=rth
 and Denver Railway Corpany's workiznl~ -a=r=eT.ent, the C2-=rating Company, that
 the existing payroll classification be changed from that of Star Agent to
 that of Agent-Telegrapher; thus; in fact, giving the Telegraphers' Organiza
 tion of the "1-K-T a right to particicate in negotiating a change in the
 classification rule no,; eyistin; ion. agr>em_nt between the FW&D and their em
 pivy:> 1 _tna ~l . rt.~ 2"rl~-D Chairman o- the Telegrapl--_--
      uC,7rc^ 3.' ~ - r.,Cl:Cral F _ .Ers~ Or~

zation.

                        - 165 -

The question at issue also invol%e: :n inc-aa;e in the rates of pay for the forces retained at the coordinated station iacilities at Stamiord on the implication that the force: should share in any saving made :y such eensolidation of forces.

 DECISION:

    Withdrawn.


                      ----------------


                DOC~oT ?'0. . -11-,.. --- 144 chdravn


St. Paul Union Depot Company )
 Chicago, Milt*ukee, St. Paul and )
 Pacific Railroad Company ) Parties to the Dispute

        VS. )


Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks )

 QUESTION. (1) :Mould the arrangement ds>cri'~ed in the facts which follow
 constitute a "Coordination" within the .^_°-aning of Section 2
 (a) of the Agreement of May; 1930, Wnshingtcn, D.C.?

        (2) If the answer to Question (1) is affirmative,


            (a) should the carriers' proposal for the selection and as-

            signm?nt of emplcyes set forth in the proposed agree-.ent attached hereto as Exhibit D-1 be adco·ed for effectuating the coordination of th°_ mail handling operations at St. Paul, Minnesota?


            (b) In the event it i> determined that the carriers' proposal

            concerning the selection and assignment of employes should not be adopted in its entirety, what revisions should be adopted for effectuation of this co:rdination?


DECIS 70`;
    Withdrawn.


- 166 -
      - DOCKET N0. 111, --- Withdrawn by Oreenization


Railway Employes' Department, )
 System Federation No. 6 )
 VS. ) Parties to the Dispute
 Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific )
 Railroad Company )

 QUESTION: That under the terms of the Washingtcn Job Protection Agree.-.=nt
 of May, 1936, Firemen and Oiler Ben Becton, who was employed by
 the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, is entitled to r=ceive
 coordination allcaance, in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(a) of
 said agreement, as a result of the coordination of passenger facilities of
 the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company with the Illinois Cen
 tral Railroad Company, at Memphis, Tennessee on or about June 1, 1961.

        DECISION:


    Withdrawn.


                  ---------------------


        DOCKET N0. 115 --- Decision by Referee Pernstein


The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen )

          and ) Parties to the Dispute


The Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Co. )

 QUESTION:
"The 'Varrier violated the agreerent between the parties when it failed . to accord a displacement allowance as claimed by Griffith Davis for the months of May and June, 1962, as proaided in Interstate Commerce Cer:mission Order entered Sept=ember 13, 1960, I.C.C. Finance Docket 20707, which order made subject by reference to the employe=es' protective conditions imposed in the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal Case 222-ICC-271."

 FINDINGS :

 The Claimant, Mr. Griffith Davis, rams a Trainman on the former Scranton Division of the Delx:are, Lackaw4nna and Western Railroad. The wor'<, of his division was covered by an IT:plementing .kgr^ement which went into effect on December 7, 1961. The claim is for the difference between his test period average en rnings and the lo:zer amounts ~e earned in ".ay a.^.d June 1962.

                        - 167 -

          ~a) The E%rra Tsz--l=


        A main ground of =t-.e Caxrie_° s e:nial of ti,e claim i: that Mr. D_vi; worked "extra" before and after the rrergar, Ho,ce~zr, de=pit=_ an early Carrier denial that tl'?re '. s_s an `extra l;t·ard", it -.:as sstablisl~ed that them°_

                  , .

        was a rec^ulat--d textra todrd"c f.^.r trainT:=n wC·.t -~.-crkcx i"first in-firir out", i.e., without regard to t'ie relari·e :enicrity of tY·.c~s ca the board. In addition, it was a=_tablis=:ad that cth=rs wto `.>3 'o_an removed from su:h an extra board and reduced :o working extra without the aSsura--:ce of fairly steady work afford^_d by _ -=eulac=d txcrr-: boar:. '-'.a? rs=ceived allcvances from this Carrier. "or=ow2r, had 1,11r. D_-:is been rer;-;:i in that fa5'nicn; tte

        Carrier stated its willinF:i°.5_ t0 pay :an all='+a^ce. hence this gro'urd Of -.

        denial is wholly in;u_:t;~_rtial; ?:i3 "extra stars at the. ti.^e of coordina

        tion was not a proper basis for d=nyins his eiigibiiity. See also Docket

        No. 108.


          (b) Wi~eth ar Th= =cordinaticn C;yu==~~'.An=.r; Di~Tinished Earni


        The Carrier also contend= that '!r. Davis' less=n_3 earnings were caused by decreased Carrier basin=3s math=r than any ctanee lnvol;Ved in the merger. It adduced e-~idenc= of a constant incline in c>rle_din,s starring in April 1950. 1J0-Waver, it 13 appropriate t0 lock 3t C>-? !Lcntl!i foll_--.7ing the merger to ascertain what i.^.f1::ence that faccor had; psr-t:aLs it also is useful to

r~ look at the carlcadines for the mc·'·.th: in the prAceding year comparable to
        those for v·hich claim is made. A11 sl:c- a steady b::t ncc a drastic decline

        in carlcadin-3. However, thare ii data for O^lv tn_ 7f the months i=°_diately

        following t"e AaffecT~upticn of to m?rZ_r until the claim vfa> cede.


' The Carrier repres=nratIlvee; 3r-buc.l that in vi?4 of rh13 decline and the
        fact that there was 3.n arrarizem_n- for the dCC·^:ti^n7.enL of vor1C among Dela

        ware and Erie Trainmen in proportion t0 carl-adlnis prior t= merger, merger

        was excluded as a causative factor. Lit that c,:nclusi^n does not fc11Cw be-

        ' the -erger did occasion eco.-,enies which rsdacsd work opportunities (see Docker No. 1z,6'~; th= possibility of prcpcrticnal =haring in f=ewer job opportunities does not negate the im,-_cc cf the T:_reer-made efficiencies. Coming so soon aftsr merger, t~:e r=duc.ticn of C1:im_~,r°a earnings below his test period average made a prima facie case of merger-cau>si ad':er<_e effect which was buttressed by tb,= chservablo _ccncmias made p_ssicle by the verger. The counter-prccf of leisncd buiin~s5 :as inconclusive on this issue and insufficient t0 overc0':°_ t1ie OO;-gani23cicn's sh0'~ing Eat the ClaiG:ant's compensation had beer: lc::er=d by the marger.


        DECISION :


        Contrary to Carrier's contention., Claimant's extra status at the time of coordination doe: not disqualit-'Y him. fro,-, a Section 6 a11o;:ance. Not did the Carrier o~erce^.~ the Ciai^·.ant's prima facie showing of merger-ca-used adverse effect by _nC·c:1Cll~i''C evid2nr? art,erptirlt to Sh--J that his lessenc^.d 23rnings were caused by :s d'=Cline in car-i=.15 7·)>in?is. !-he Carrier violated ant ACrcc_n-'i'. 1:; fail in=, to nay clai-_at Criffi_r. D;.~is a disul_c=_T,ent ali:-~;.^.ce for the ...~^C~.iS Of Iv. ay :,Ri Junc 1362. a'.',1 it ii dirt`cted to Day sjca allc,:a^.c_ as cc-:ptited i:nf, r ~'_c'~i'~n (cj

1

          - DGCb3;T NO. 1.15 --- wit'~dratan


      Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship C1erk3 )


                VS. )

      Parties to the Dispute

      Detroit, Toledo and Ironton railroad Company )

      Wabash Railroad Comapany ' )

      Ann Arbor Railroad Company )


      QUESTION;


      (a) The transfer of Ann Arbor accounting work frog: the Wabash General Office at St. Louis, lf_ssouri, to the D1&I General Office at Dearborn. Michigan and the transfer of Ann Arbor work from various stations on the Ann Arbor Railroad to various stations on the D:&I Railroad, is a coordination of setarate railroad facilities and subject to the terms and conditions of the Washington Agreement of May 1936, Washington, D.C.


      (b) The Carriers violated the terms and conditions of the Washington Agreement when they failed to furnish a Section 4 notice of intended coGrdination and failed and refused to apply the terms and conditions of the Agreement for the protection of the emplcyes affected by the coordination.


      (c) The Carriers violated the terms and conditions of the Washington Agreement when they coordinated Ann Arbor work with DT&I work without agreement as contemplated by Section 5.


      (d) The Carriers shall now be required to restore t?ie status quo and apply all the terms and conditions of the Agreement to the coordination involved.


      DECISION:


          Withdrawn.


J

                              - 169 -