C:\AWARDS\OUT\WJPA-117-124.htm

_ DOCKET N0. 117 _-_ ;.;ithdrac;~ by Carrier

Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Rail<ray ) Southern Pacific Company ) Texas and Louisiana Lines )

Parties to the Dispute

VS. ) The Order of Railroad Telegrapher; ) QLBSTI0'_; ; 1. Would the arrangem;nt described in th-e facts which follow constitute a coordination within the nearing of S^cticn 2;a) of the Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D.C.?" - 2. If the answer to Question No. 1 is affirmative, what are the proper bases to permit the coordinaticn of the separate station facilities and services of Chicago, Rock Island a7id Pacific Railway and Southern Pacific Company, Texas and Louisiana Lines at A1=xandria, Louisiana, since the parties have been unable to ccmpose their differences? DECISION: Withdrawn. -------------------- DOCKET N0. 118 --- Withdrawn The Order of Railrcad Telegraphers ) ~a ) VS. ) Parties to the Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company ) UE ST IO`1: . Was D. E. Brighton the corner ef the a:olished agent-telegrapher position, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Minneapolis, Kansas, as provided in the letter of understanding dated ?`arch 19, 1.963, and is h°_ entitled to the protection afford^_d oy Section 6 of the c-Ja;hington PSreem=snt, May, 1936, as supplem=rated by the I'2-,orandjm of A=re-_!-,ent of :arch 18, 1963, between Union Pacific Railroad Ccmpany; the Atcbison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Ccmpany, Eastern Lines, and employecs of the Carriers who are represented b-y The Order of Railrcad Telesrarhers? DFCI~TO':: Wit"idr avn. ' Dorteld S.= ~:ia, ..,,".,.,._ve Secret,.:-Treasurer .1-, _ i /~ ~, '^ .C. " ~~ J L'_V ! - ., ~, -- ~.--_, J r-~-y\,7 _: CJ C C .~ w .- C,_ r-~__ .~ T t - __ ~ 1 L 1J ~ -. -_JV~.n J11~V t v~w.i'J_~W J_L - _.~ ~_ RRZPJLULIC 7.1 G1 400 1-== Strect, :,, .;., 1:ASHI\GTON 1, D. C. At St. Louis, Missouri September 22, 1965 AIR. :_.IL Messrs. Charlas Luna (10) President BRT C. L. Denni$ (--0) Gran_-' ?rCSldi:.^a Bu:SC Mich ael Fox (20) President RED Ralph 4. T'achowia'.c (10) Grand President RYA G, E. Leighty President TCU SUBJECT: Docket 119 A , 3, C, D; and E P'uffalc Terminal Dear Sirs and Brothers: Please refer to .-..y letter of SEptember 21, 1965; in which I in_or=ed you Referee 3er-.stei-.^. would rule -,Dcn the question of whether the ru-:ber of employees to man a coordinated facility or operation was bar.-ainable under the Idashin ^ton As the This is in connection with Docket 119 A, 3, C, D, and E, the Buffalo Terminal Case. I a.^., now attaching a copy o_' Refaree Bernstein's decision dat--d September 20, 1955 on this issue. It should be noted that he has ruled, that the number of E-,plcyces to ma, tile coo=d_nated facility a a mandatory subject of var~alnin,°, under the Washin,ton PZreemcnt whare it '.s pcrti-lent t0 t:^.a avoida^c2 o= worsE-.ed wOT~ing conditions but not for the purpose of achieving a greater measure of job security than provided by Section 6." This decision, as indicated by ?referee Bernstein, should sti-:,slate a L 7:CS1::.".ptlOn of 'J3r^o.^..i1in~ by the pcrLW :3 --O_ coordination or 1:R71E.'..E::i1.'.,^-~ aSre=ents. ~aH2 also States that t.^..: CG:.-:._ttee an0 Referee retain jl:_'iscicticn of the dispULes and they arc nOL _Lm~ndcd· to the parties. However, as E:ipIain Ed in ;.:y letter of Septe-.ber 21, 1965, 'c_~ree ern~in has Siven^. the --aitias ulltl7 October 19, -70] t0 ~ ....'_CVC _-.p1C-.=^,ti:1~ aree-..ents t nrousn direct n e::o tiatiO:1S On the property. .ailin- that OJjeC1:iV2 the Referee will c3nvene t:.-.E Section 13 CC=ittce with ..::grin, to c'C:-.e nca w=thin a waek after October 19 . . 1960. It 5.'.0::-:. --'-so be ncteC, i n t::^5 cvc-L, he will hold the CC.'.:-._L~E2 in as ni:zrl`J CO:ai:~;.',15 Sass-.O n a5 possibia ^1::t-:.l tile CO:.=:ittee and Refcrpa have 4:ritten a coorLinazion aZreement for the parties, t . -2- September 22, 1965 _"i After the Septe-:ber 16, 1965 hearin g, Chairman Macgill indicated that he would, upon receipt or Referee BCrnstcin's dczisipn on this issue, notify ..q 'l._ . _.. ~ 71 and ur;,e the Erie-Lac ....c.a....a and Nickel ate :.:... -Teats to promptly resume co^.fcrences with the several Organizations and endeavor to resolve the dis putes on the property. Each Organization involved in these disputes should promptly furnish their General Caii^cn with copies of ::e decision (extra copies are enclosed) with instructions to seen conf=erences wit*- Marag-m-:t and enccavor to negotiate appropriate implementing agreements. Tn2 Gen-rah Chair an 5.^.oUld also be advised that this decision which cakes it mandatory on the part of ::anagc-.ant to b-i-4n on the .number of employees to -an the coordintea facility does not give t ha Crani_zation the ri;ha to insist u:on a ?l.=z of coorc_-atio-. :...ici would., in effect, provide the employees with an a=,._ition agt_c--'.ent. The decision only co::veys this -.andatory o.-,-_~s Hon of 'sarjainin g cn numb_rs w here it .... ; erti_n a nt to the avoid:.: ce of wo-:'aned work_r.Z conditions and not for the purpose of achieving a greater measure of job security than is provided by Section 6. The General Chairr.en should also be cautioned when nagotiatino these implementing a,;ree::Ents to fully protect ·ihatever rights their :members have under the existir. stabili_sticn and/or merger aZrz_--acnts. For e::ample, the P:icl:el Plate cm-3loyeas should -not be ccD:ived of any benefits available Co the.-.; under the ::Cr e_ Aoreamant of Jan·,:_ry 10, 1962, and the Clerks. and Communication Employaos on the Lackawanna have the added protection of the .. , ^ - Lan^uaoa should be included in t 17 he ebruary 7, 1965 Stabilization ?-~rEE-~e..,.. itlplC.'.:Entino Lord::-.ants which will preserve any ri.nts and privileges accorded in the stabilization and merger agreements. Please note Referee Bt-nstein desires a report from Ca airman Vac-ill and n:C to be mailed no late- t ._._ Gctoozr 12, 196,5 on^. the bargaining pre,gress together with a statement o= w:Echer we e:%pect to resolve the disputes by October 19, 1965. In this ecnnecticn I '.._11 appi-ec-ate rcce_ving such a report fro.^. each of you not later than 'Monday, October 11, 1965, so I may cc-.ply wit:: the Referee's request. Fraternally yours, Attachment _ f J_ t Cha`-= ·Employee Members, JoiMt ~ Co_-.-relic- Agree::.E lit of 1!ay 1936, Was ninoton^., D. C. cc; "essrs. P. S. .Heath 1:. E. Gil lbert G. F:. Earris \, P. S?airs R. C. Courts P. L. SiE=~il1 er RUSSC-11 :i. ierG _, E. F. Ca.~OUZ.i Gorton :.. .. ee.-.:~:: t -3- Septe=mber 22, 1965 SUBJECT: Docket 119 A, B, C, D, and E Buffalo Ter.:inal cc's Continued - Messrs. 4;.'.i. Fredenberger H. C. Crotty Jesse Clark, Lloyd 4:. Sheidon Jesse M. Calhoon Thcmas W. Gleason Foward Pick_tt J. W. O'Brien J. W. Ra::sey T. V. Rc:-:.s cy J. B. Zink R. 4:. S^it'.^. L. S. Loomis Homer L. Ellis S. Vender ci W. R. :·:::; cr s A. R. Lowry Jack Flctch ar Elraer Thias Herman I-Icbb E. J. Haesscrt Ores :;crtz Melvin B. Frye C. R. P--.lcr.n in g D. J. Lytle Daniel :.. '.:urphy D. S. .~esttic (10) J. P. Ta....~y Wm. G. )::.honey R. R. Lyran L. P. Scho- ne R. E. ..att hews M.-J. Hayes t. 'Z'H :~ OYY__10 I i.rNr V ~ Z COT-LLGL 0: Li ' . 16551fO;:ii jfIC:::z"~.~. COLL`.~f-U5, 01:10 11,3210, Sc7vV._JOi 2 0 , ~:_9G] i:T. IT. S. i:2C,,,_1l, C::2i=G.n carriers I CG=:j.-~teE Ir7~r U..:_On JvG~_O : ~_Cp. CI:l1Cap^0, ,..114-::J:.. OOCvO :.;, :G CC _".iL~C,^ ;,=G_ '0='::v:=C U2iOn joo0 L.I:cel I Z!',-e.. St. I:ot1yG, .,cott'_i. Re: 1:.2 Iie-J Yo--k, Chicc,"o and S. LOU10 _1eR. CO. ....L _=e-LaC..:_Z.on`1G R.R. Co. and srot'rc=hood Of ail - T oad __ cin,-en, , e t al. Doc-l-e't Nos. 119 ?u-3-C-D 'and Gentlc-=en: At the aT~ur_e;=y o_ thi c sc, o=' disputes 2t lfashir_Cton., ~,G, on Sente:::be:: lo, ir the ..._:::bers o- rims Co=ai;;,ec cCreed _st I ciiouic r, r- Ge soon, as noss1-D1C 03 One izzue on Ni::.Ctl!''We _ _ u ,C£ :J::~.'. GC:~.C'.~.GC._EG u.lti_O',:E;:1 F.L:Ciu an i:i.G_ uCdiCi:C --U1 -nCy :S no',. ~:.., . :d :.... -J:. i._ ..~ .," -'-i""'v0:1 : -= c e- DL'~ u2.i: .::j Oy '0.'_c _DcT'vLu % :.~vT :. CGO:.'i:.Ln_.,._0-1 o-;.;_'02T_0::'0. LO'deVf_, the Q_::_^t;~d5 arc -W Ou'l':;;, "--.::Ed-:. v0 i:110 _J2=W03. T h e C o '-t- t- e e a r a --i a :~ e r c c -3-- --'n L!:.' df ct lo T., J2:'v7.CS have nOv ac*, 2.':C:. ·'..-i by Oc-l-o'ber 19; 19055) tfiJ CO~. -._ttc'`P. ..._~ TCCC :.s::_C ..--C C::C_GC' any iSGUes a': _ci:~o under 'y_~.' ;.2St:1.:1~;;.0'.`. .;,-e:.:..-..,. n--cczZ---y 'v0 ~'~.':. the CC:,..'C.'1~,.. ~-_on -n'co e=sec';.. _~ ';.==:. .-...- c::J ....feree is _o be 7_cvidsd i , t. _ `; ,O J_ ca., o ;,r :.=:e C'r:.-=icn t; ~h a ;;:^~ yen _ e7o=-., oa 'cc_ " _ ___~ _ - o= the C2__/l~eT and v=;;:.. -.__J = CJv::___~eJ., to be railec no 12i.2T ....::n OOT.OGG_' .:G, __J J` G00 :O r C: = CC-a . ~'co0...'u~_.._ 'J :~ CC-~G.^. ::_ '.1111 DO.'.7 :U~ In the interests of exncd-.:lion, this O-P ini On wi"_1 no-, set forth 'n full detail ,.:c =C~Cree's conciuSionc or _-eeSoninis ~ already -_ CCe--ccd orally to tae jar tiez i = mid-ruu-Ls t. ".': fhe viCCz I e:_nresed at that tim_e rC.'._in ny v-iev~ and Sill . DC set fOrvh in the final ODini0:1 in 'i.hiG case..' i1hC Views y expressed 1n this rUlinu c.rC~in GCid:.-uion ,`.OW those already communicated to the parties. ' In SUC::Cry) 1 have COncludcd that the iW71enentation of the coo: di na Lion of t_:e Carriers' new Bison yard i n the area of Buffalo, i~Ci' Yor-:, '.vas frust-fated .by the C=zaniZ2tionE' i, . . inSiSte:CC U:On^.. a1-,:r il:=Unu <^..rr:'.1;;::=C'ntS aS an elCLe'3v Gf COOT diva ~i~n^. CC:.,.:110. While such a aC_an d Poses a 1 e;Gi ti - La,. _ ve G.^_r;, in.z 1G..,..3, t.i ,.._'_ form C_ C:7_710yee nrOteCtiG: ~;GC_i beyond ~_:i: -J'=otection affG_CCd oy tie i:;.^._:1~'~.C- i:~T'CC~C:1"v. As Car~iC;.'s .. "-:C,.~:1C i.::G:.=:V'i.0n a~,rCC»C=t ~_O'J-dCS _0_ CO _=)C nUE'C,ion :~C.j'::;:n',:s as ..:1C .m » ...Cane O'= t^ mD10;;lee - otec- -.- lion -is -eturn for which carriC--.. are enabled to 'out in to effect coorin Lions o'~::e_ ;ria C Car. cd by _ ales a ;r eenen-;,s. The 0'r~sni -cions may no-,; nu-; ::' - ~ 7'__ca u-on the _,-lple`- np .C .' Jy:_w rcentation of a coo-c,=aat_on ii _n.: cha^_=e-s are uniiill=n I also conclud-d 'c'.^.at in a deadloc'c cituatian, thiG ·Comnl~ttee Ce:n write an a_Ce_:Gnt for the far ties. Docset Nos. 70 .;hick _onG (Jar·G (b)) cc_11d 51. 1:1-.en '2 Comm-it'-vCC task, 7~:rf0~3 tl:,^.'' _ ',; conditChore "_OVidCd ~'c nay no' _:.7eG,. , :teed · _. r in ollc. _"CC_.Crvj, G(.'r,.iCC c 1 .1 .^.uu__V:.C:14Vuu__V:.C:1 iz;_ee.':-,.y, V L'.^ j ^j not, and will no;;, be i-anosed 'f t11--'s co.---mattee is raq_uired to .:rite the i~olc~enti a~;r ec ~en-c. In the sub.:.issio::aild or-lo~na1 ar.-uaer.;a, bo';,:: parties put in issue ,.r_'he-chGr ..C dCCis ~On ...- GO ho'.; ::any e__.nloyeeS _ .r rt_... . ~i tr- a_"e to :_an "a COordina-,:eu f.^C--_t_ is n :_,T~e^Ch r~O,~ alive" or one .,,hich I's oub6ect. of 'Ca_ ~airi ~;, under "'is :.ur....-".C nt. _.. :rCOU~'.:;~ u.;/ V:SCi.'6 In L'__,.-.-'.i:;~US~, I E"i.aUCd 'v-a.t ^t SC.'..`.:Cd11=aCCC0:_"r to _'ule U-30..._a- `..iZue ecCUJe tnC _'CCor:" s..O.. _ _.._ V--: .C~ C.:.-.. _C.: J :.n -.:C',. ._,..._ JP.- ., _. " _ .~. __.r,r- -,~fC~ ,:C'_.CU __...0_...a·~:.17 '~ ~:i:..L::'~ On 'J. u V ... V v' ) ·JU Y .._. v~ .. . in the~ectlo·: ~· no-V-CCO O. V.,. ._ _.,.-.:s Os _i0s= _O- CV-.1..°.~ _. _-1 1 ,. n'! atod. ( Sco, -'or e::~:~w:.c, __:_.:.'Di-cc ,, c:.d 5 S D, _ . 3~ Dot=:et :;o. 119 ?) In ';;:1c :.cGG::ce o_ necess:L'cy fo_ w ~_i ny it SeC=Cd __a a n0z to _CCOIV;. -~::~L _>GUe i n V=ew o= :.ncon C~U,^.i'J,::::C3s O --f Car1iC_ CG-:'it-~Ce diciE'lons _Jut f0_'.:,~rd as v_.'.Cea~n-`vG. Howe%, C_ i t t ne :.U; .u-v .:.cGJr :1 °.:,10:1 Carrj.er rf:. re- 1:~1V'Vo~J WG ..J.WG t%.J .'~.. .L~`e one a:: a 0c C. -t vG ' u.v..»-:.'v. :.0, 7 a^ :Cd f0_ _CCi.'.l - --' Z; U 0 C'- Carriers ar.uc t;at vuSJ. as an attrition arranuczent exceCGs t:.e ?_Otection O; t.nC aasclin.-ton :~..~reC~.ent s0 any 7rovision _n ~. COOrd_.'..:.~ori a,~ri:;:~:etl~ '=i::i:.`, the nu=bcr of 'J3citiO:S F.1so VOWS^ue?~J:aC'i ~:.. .~=.S~CC__~`f CO::=ensato=Y scheme Of v he Air eC L2 nu. It is) they Contend, job fr ef:::e, jut as as attri~ion az,ree_:e::t is, e"ren if the _=,Ceze affects less than all tha jobs formerly ~crfora:.ed is the operations to be ~er~ed. ^::e arou::ent is pcrouasive--as far, as it goes. But it is li~:itec to 'oar~a_'::ing over job security and so does not fully diJVGJe 01 1;l1 e issue. ' The Or.anizations ,zGue t' a t Section 5, which r eauir es a cOOZG_ :at=On^. c:~r?C~,:n~ as a cone ;ion o_ =uttin..a COOrds~'LJ ;ion into c_1a~tr;hrov1CCS 10.: two rclated. but different t in~; (1) " t:=C SG_CC';a_On of for ces __ O-, the emv oas of all the Ca=r ia='f: invol\':;A o n b :. ;_;i acceylcd as a'.7.^.r C7- 1ate .. _, · i 1 it t. ( ) ~i^__t nor a=7___cat'_on n 'c:.e far V'_cu__._ case as 2 ..~J_~n=an;; of eaployeas . . . on ';,he basis of ..__ agreement bet:raen the carriers and the orbaaization s o= ;,he employees affected. Carriers a=due that both (1) and (2) are pretty much the sable thin;; and a formula for allocation of the work amoa.;.he gTou7s whose :.·or:: is 'oein s coordinated se.tisfieG both conditions. 3uv the or~n-an'_Zat_O_S argue, more perSU"Sively I believe, t:1at. -lle se:J; lately J,.atea COnC1`vLOns call for more t::2:.t one eie`:ant in to aV_..t_Cnt, and that a =erCent.°.ze .t . . it all OC.'.-..';,.t._O:1 of 1.'Or:S GC.',.15 CLiy 1'^'G.1 ' SC1CC'G_0 n but n0'u "assi;;n raent. " agree tha-~- "assi' m ent': goes.beyonc a aethod for COOSins.`vhe yr0_JOr'~i~n o:.' :r~r.i to be Given t0 "he a eL?IOj'CCS Of the Ca_Tic:23 ia'r0l\'GCi. If it' (-OeS, farr'_'rS arGue, it deals .^.t:1 D~IJ.Ctin':.:a~ o,': jobs and the rethoQS of avoi(ling the^,, ;hat could be -a 1_mit of the second clause of the first se:tence o= Sect_On 5. The Or ganization s a_ .,ue for a broader readin;,. They contend tat "assign=cta" necessa:ily co:::otes ';,'a e number of assljn-mC .Js t0 be L.a~e. iae'J W-I..^er Vn-a COnVC:aV-O:a '.a=Ju Vne ar J...rV (~) ..a. L7- nn_~V G. a ta ei I~VJ e.~_. ar.eet vor:Ci'a6 conditions, (2). J ,. ~;: :'i.ee of section C(,r) al s0 2r o-eec is e~a___., t .:csc·:.:. _ ^o= '" o_':._ :g con d'_'c_ono,''' a ::c (3) a rer_edy for *.:o_sancc ',;o_ _nd con~itio=s 1·'_cil only cO·Las 4f"VJ~ 1Iaa r4' G· t _J 4 V~..._ _ L .Gdy a'·.. V b-,s·V SG J'iaV^ .% --W~1 e L~ii·V_..j rl:.r.li.t isIV`C. ~G~er '.'ay to Vile lire to tLV 1 _ _ _ in t t Y G n =,A-r.-. V;.,:. l._.r_._C_J CG':,._V.;_ J.___t J~.;C .- 1 ;81=rC~V t ti M re_:AJ vCO ~L2C_L JO _. a: ':)_OVCCV-0.~ 2;~' 1.1Gt i.O_JC-l:W _ -lS nVr _ a~ CO __t C:.r" ._._C:1 pU.__anV.:E:o ..,r'J .:5 G1: ~O ._.:J- aLI._.t~.u.:v'VS. _...'V .r r_iC- V:i_.a in., __ are JrOJlieVVir _i A~ :ion eovar , Section 4 = ecuir es that carrier notices of an intend cc: coo rc-. na;;ion s'.-.-,ii., ...-:one other tain;a, incluee ~~2.n CS~i'.:.a~e of ~hC ..::%CC~ Of e.'n'_'_oyCCj of each C1a3s a -, c:.ec ted by t::. _ :te: ce3 c_:e.nCes. ,he : er.~ setwce r e~u_rea tat the caz=_crs anc orzen_cctions'aFree U_on mate an, dace :or' a an abou~ the a-reemert to she in ~C:1C~G C:.'-..n QCs. a::i.~'. SnCC=ilcit;/ about. numbers G·_° l e ·1)ieyeeu G__:!G VLC n- , caav-es ~.4 is an. Zu'-- '--c-V of barZ_cinin- and a" interpr C ~,.. _~On of .'~. eC1-O : 5. =he rieoiS_Ons '-n c^2='1 ier cases do no-, lead to a co n-rary co :clus_on, as I have here tofore _..~._C~.'.G~ ::hose cases will be d_r.Ci:SGCd in the final' o:Jinion is th~_s case. cor.Cl'-de, tICrcfora, tat the number of to l..an i.::C coord_:atCG ~CC'_l.:.ty _.. a =:,::dE.tor;y', a'1:blCC~ Of Car gu1i.1_:. j Li.^.i.er .-C T.v.S~i :,~0:1 -Gr eei.":c::W `.irter C 1.'V iS CTtl nCnt t0 ~: C E'JOiCanCC Oi ..Or SCnCC Ss'Or:_'O;=, CO.^_C.itlO."LOll'v . not for tiie "purpose of ach_evi nd 0 `T.98.`.f T measure 01' lob ` security than I)rovided by SCC'v'-On b. .,~ Sincerely, ,.Ierlon ton C. 3er n stcin, efer ee I.:C3:bb ?.S. On Septler_ber 21, _ a-~: neat=n:, with repreaentst_vcs of . the ~__e-:~sc::a·.ie.nn ` ~.:a ';,:-:e Brothc:hood o_' _,ailwcy G-~.S :.n C `.:i 1~. JL:`.7'3_~ COO.ieO O:f 'Va11S O V VOr ' O L!ICrim. 1 . ~ 14.CefJs ' L1~.L~C,iV~ Ci ~,_.h.C.~ VO :.-. IT. . ::uC`j i, 1 % 1 , DOCKET NO. 11_9_--- SJit'-.dr:~·~-· a··er interim d:cisicn cv ef.~,^---rein New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Com.p=ny ) Eric -Lackawanna Railroad Company ) VS. ) (a) Brotherhood of Railrcad TraAnmen ) Parties to the Dispute (b) Brotherhcod of Railway and Stea!rship Clerks ) (c) The Order of Railroad leII c,,r~plie (d) System Fedcrations Nos. 100 and 5%, Railway ) Employes' Dep.;rt.-eat, AEI-CIO ) (e) Raijroad Yardcasters of Amcrica ) Q UE S? 10 :: 1. (a) In the coordination cf The Ne·a York, Chicago and St. Louis Railrqad Company and Erie-Lackawanna Railroad C^mvany terminal facilities and services at Buffalo, `:ego York, pursuant tc the Crder of the Interstate Commerce Commission in Finance Docket No. 21820 imposing the New Orleans Protective Conditions for affected employes, -ay the reap2ctive C=n.-oral Committees of the respond-oat organizacion demand new and diff-=rant. employe protection measures and the retention in service Of un:ecess=ry e:rpieyes as the price for their agreeing to imple-Ientatio-i such as is contemplated under Sections 4 and 5 of the Washington Agreement? (b) In the coordination of The 2IOW York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company and Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Ccmeany terminal facilities and services and services at Buffalo, \Cw York, pur>u_nt to Order of the Inter- . state Co.-.:'ecrce Co-:nis3ic.^. in Finance D^c:-=! No. 21820 imposing ,New Orleans . protective conditions, for affected er^plcy=s, may the respective System Boards of Adjustment of the respondent organizaticn det-.nd new and different employe protective measures and the retention in service cf unnecessary employes as the price for their agreeing to implementation such as is contemplated under Sections 4 and 5 of the Washington Agree-.eat? A (c~ In the coordination of Th= ':ew York, Chicago and St. Louis Rail- ' 1 road Company and Eric -Lack>wanna ^ailroad Company terminal facilities and services at Buffalo; N.Y., pursu-nc to Order cf the Interstate C07:-,erce Com mission in Finance Docket ".to. 21;=..:0 ;^~esir.~ "New Orleans protective ccndi tiong'for affected e-pieyes, ay r 1c respactiv: Co=--,ittees of the respondent organization demand re-,y and dii~-e:e-~t ·=r,ploe protective measures and the retention of unnecessary employer scrvice as the price for their agreeing to implem:ntation such as is conte:.,lated urder Sections 4 and 5 of the Washing ton Agree.·ent to Xiich they are s:gr=tory? (d) In the coordin,,ricn of T'-.c New York, Chicago and St. Louis Rail- ` road Co-t?~:ny and brie-L=c::a::an^a rFailrc;:? C:mmparry teeminal facilities and services at Buffalo, .·;:·a_ork p:r~u,.._ t.o Order of the Interstate Ccmn^_rce Commicsio:- i.^ Fira..-_ Doc::et No. 2:520 :-,:stag .ec. Orleans p-otectivc con ditions -or aff:CleC: C!:'_71Cj'i-5, !','ay ti-,o rv`:irCClvG System ICCCraCi'Jn5 of the - 171 ' - respoldcnt cr-binizeirn d?^an~ n?w ,in! dlf--=rc'^.t C.T71oy- protective fruasur°i and the retention i'1 3.°7"I C2 2~f L-^.(l9C?3i~r,, G~'.,7I0)-.'-i a3 the price for their agreein.- upon inpls-,antaticn ;,ch as is con_cmplated by Sections 4 and 5 of the F?:.s::ingcon : -re~;.,ent? (e) In the cccrdinaticn of Vic %Leor ~crk Cbica_ao a^.d St. Louis Railroad Co7pa-V and ~1'i~-L~C:t.7r~:.nna Railroad f-c7pa-iy te5minal facilities and services at I'.uIfalo, i~,`.' , p utsL:an; Cc C~ra_-; of the Intcrttate Ccx_m_rce Commission in Finances DcC'·=t-Vo. L12K' 1-pC31n= "N?'·' Crl°ini protective conditions" for the aff2ctEC e~-plt·-%e-, !`__y the reip?cti-J: CC!t_;71ttra°.s of the respondent or=aniz:,tion ds1'and th= retention If unn-eded _mployas and different employe prct~:tivc r.=a;.rss as th-_ price fir ;heir agr?einz to imple7,=ntation, such a> i5 contempiat?d und=T S:-ct:orr= =r aid 5 of ttts Wasninggton A=rcen:2nt7 2. (a) In oitt=r t0 effectcat°. the coc7=lnition, what if any adj,i3t2°nt 1.5 necessary in tl:'- .... Cirri°-37 prCCa:eQ basis for a.°.1°_Ctlon a:13 a=si?gnT.=at of employe- as :=t forth iri prcpo=ey a,·eement; attach~:4_ hereto, Carriers' Ex hibits 52 and 63? (b) In order to effect':_ate the ccordinartion, -0-at if any adjustment is necessary in the Carriersc p'_tcc:~:c b;si- for selection and assignTent cf emplcyes as set forth in prcpo.sed anreerrent attac'.lad heteto as Exhibits 24 and 25? (c) In order to effect'uace the c=ordination, what if any adjust:;=_nt is necessary in the Carriers' props-c,3 basis ftr s=lcccicn and assienment of employes as --=_t forth in proposed azrecmznt attached to Carriers' Exhibit F? (d) In cider to effectu=c= tie c-:crdination, o.-ha! if any adjusttent is necessary in the Carrier; proposed b_sis .-"or 3alecticn and assign,::ent of employes as set forth in agreement act_c?=d her=_tc a; Exhi.=.it N? (c) In order LC effectuate cccrdinaticn what if any adjustm=r_t is necessary in the Carriers' propC-fd basis for the :election. and aisignm=nt of employes as set forth in prepcs.°.d agreement attached as Carriers' letter dated June 1G, 1963? DECISION : --"he dispute in Dcc.-k.=t ?:c. 119 ;:_s =~u_mitte~ to Referee Eernst°_in who rendared ch= fcll:,alng inceri~ deci3ion·:j., , _., i: -._ _. Gt_the arg::ment cf this set of di;pu==s =-j.'as'-inttcn.-.D.C.,-:n.Sept=mber _. s..-I16~` 1965 the ::e,-.~=.ers of the Cc..,:.1:..-. ~7;=.._ tear I .shculd.rule as'. -c=n as b, _ ~,' .,. = w= .-deadlocked alth-.ic'~ such >.^. _;;possi_lc cn one is=~;_ on ni_., t~. r~rtl:s _ ;'Anter__eiat=_ ruling is not pro for in ':'n:. 4i,;.-'.Fi.^.~tc.n-Agre_m=nt...Ihis ~t_1!-.'-rulin., i5 ee51anci to stimm·llat? a .e-umpti-n.of ':)atgalnlnB ^y the parries for a coordination _ =e.''snC. ._,., s'i?t,utl'e di-=LCnj a7. n_^C be CO 'be pa.tie>. T^e C=.it-. and yF.==-___ ·er;in ;;:risdi=tic... If =he pa_ti?= have not'achic·7ed an a-;reer·~zt be Oct_.=. 19. 1r65,'ths Cc-'r:itt°_°_ will r=ro=I';en=_ ' _.·'.and dc-Cid°_ arty i-Sl-a ari31n= ':aG:r t~C Wa:nin='on tA=,c_'n=nt neceisa=V. _o pit -~-.thc coorciitatic_j in t_ ;:t:=:·. To ti·t en? =;~= i,=fe.tn_'Is to be or :-~Ide'? with Written reptrt c.n bar~ainin-l Pr,.;,-t:53 by the ch_1L-an cf 0e, CarrI'=r.and Organization Co-mi""eCS tc be cailcd n: .a'er tha·~'0.-.tcbar 12, 1965. ?f either Side -_Dort: ti'at it d=CS not: C-mL-Ct a rC57i::t1C'1 by OctC?er 19, 1965, the i;efcree will centac·_ Lhc respcc:_ _ c`=ir-m to set up a resured i'.cating ` t0 17e L)c -,:T1 'rilthlll a 4:.°_. u.:Cr u.CC.^.- C 13 , t965 naC hearing ;:ill 3'.i)' 11 a3 nearly CCntin;:Cjs sesiicl as p:ssi.llE _.'.til _.__ CC:laittc2 and Referee have written, a cocrdi-ation a=r___ :ent for t~;a psrzias wh:c- ,ill be issued forth with. In the :^terests of exc=5ition, -'his opinion ::ill net set forth in f'_11 detail the t.CiCrCV 'S G;WC1Uii.^.__^,S or r_uSCTtlag alr·'ady presented orally to the parties in mid~_ZZu3t. In°_ Jiewi i cxpresicd at that tie:: remain my views and will b°_ so- forth in rn= final opir'tltn in this case. The views cxprc__ed in this ruling are i1 a_4dition to th_3B alrcady cc!'anic_ted to tl:e parties, In suc:mary, I hs :.. conclud-d tl--at t:.= iT,plen:ntation of the c3ordina_icn n ;r- = r Buffalo. New York, :vas of the Carr_cr_ new _sor yard in the urea of fru; iT3tCd by the Cry=ni2at_CnS in_iSi=nCa ·17C^ cttTiLiCn arrln=e-2nCS _s an elC-Cnt of coordlnaLion cg.EC.'.._!aS. hhil-= -such a de'ani poses a legitimate bargaining issue, that form of °_mpicyc_ cCCLfcti~n gees icy-rid the p~Ct°cctlon affordcd by the Wa;!,i4tcn n_r=e.-cnt. -As Ca.rrhrs argue, the Washintcn a=rSe mint provides for ccmpcnsaticn paym-2rts a: th': maiCY CI=a^s of e:'p1C··E? pro' tection in return :cr which carriers are e:,ebl':d tc put into effect~coordina tion ctl;erwise barred by tules azre=:;ent_. 1^.=_ Organizations ray not put a high--r price upon the impler;?ntaticn of a coordination if the Carriers are unwilling. I also concluded that in a dea"lock sitaution, tbi3 Committee c-n write an agree^CRt for the parties, Dock-L i,'o?. 70 (part (t')) Z;nd 57. Wh_n the Comr.itte.e performs t!iat task it ray not i~7-se conditions ca1-tieh exceed those provided in the Agr=a.2cnt; renca an attrition ssre_r?.nt may not, a.^.d -,ill not, be imposed if this Co_Titt=E is required to write the. i ^plementing a=reement. In the submissions and original ar^:c,=nts, 1-cch p=rtic: pet in issue whether the decision as to huh' -._n;' Empio~2°_s ate to man the Cccrdinat_3 facility is a "man agemant prero=ati-%=" or c_._ --'-,ic` is a mandatcry subject of bargaining under t!-:is Agre^emant. In hr°__-'.ntinj 'fv Vi?·~s in ~lid'A:Iguit, I stated that it S:C-et unn°scC?_?ry to rule ':Don that issue bcca~_Se C- record " shD:>ed that tile Carriers in fact hid bar=zinsd yon that issue, favi^g given rather prLamPSe information in t1'.^ Sec-ion : notices on the aumbcrs c='positions contemplated. (See, for °xar..plc, rxh:=·:t> a arid 15 !p. 3) in Dcc!:t No. 119 In tile absence of necessity for a r..iln°, it ic=ed zjiie nor to re ?Cl':E that issue in view of the inconclu;i·jone_s e_' earlier Czmmit:=_e deci_icns pct forward as precedents. 11C'.:CVeL, at the August 1(/165 seislon Carri°C reps-'s°ltatiYCs i^.sist?d that the issue teas a live one and C:=~ri=~tic;: ripresa..tati'.es his: reported that it ..ad baco-..= a ::e" _.-.r=d:..=rat to -___...ent. ~D,1I asked for special argum_nt on that issue which c-as has at :he September 16 session. Carriers a'~':e that j'Jst <.s an a`_tCition -rra.^.=-t'R.t Cxeced- th^_ prC:cction o: the Was':inztcn <tgreenent so ally ;:ro·:ision in a tcordinaticn. grccr.cn= fixing the ..:..mbCT OG . ,"-tSitiOR_ _1sJ CG'S C=yC.^.j the basically co`.psnsatory scheme of the .force-.='l t. xt i°_, t^-:% contenC, o job freeze, just u3 an attrition a-raeme^t i-, even if t.-C tic22E ,;--cts ie5s than all L:?e jobs form=riy p2rfor-'ed in T::e ^e ratio^.: t0 be m=rze_3. The argomenc i- Fersuasive--a's far a5 it o~e>. Jut it is limited to _aT2aining ever job security and so does not fully _Aiszose of the issue. The Organizations -r.-u°_ that Sectier, 5, which requires a coordination aoreem=nt a> a condiiiori of p:_tti'g a OCOr6i:n=ti On into effect, DTCvides for two related but diffcrcnt things: (1: "the ~elccti.-n of fcrc~s frcfa the e:cploy_e3 of all the carrir5 i--Jo=vrd On ta3e- acc_pL·:.d as apcrcpriate for .. . application in the p_vr.ic_lar case" ---,nd .,2) "a-ignm=_^t of eeiplcyec.s . . . on the basis of an agrecm=nt b_rc=eon the carr:c.-s 2nd the organizations of the cmplcyee- affected. <; Carriers argue- that both (1) and :;2j -at, pretty m.:ch the sam.e thing and a formula for aliCCation -.f the 'SCrk iTO.^.g. t!'e group: 'jt~oi= York is being cOOTdinat_°d iatisfi·"_5 both -CRditiors. But the organALiticns argu3, more persuasively I b=liC'ic, that the separrately st=tad conditions call for s.cr= than one element in t~ >~r:e~:.nt, and teat a ptrcencate allocation of work deals - ., , . , Only with "selection" but ^OL "assignment," I agree that "assignment" 8023 beyond a mcthcd for chocsin-2 the preporti:o of ;:ork to =e given to ta= employees of the carrier- in-~-el_vE3. If it dc=s, Carriers argue. it deals with bulletin ing of jobs and the methods of avoiding them: That could be the limit of the second clause of the first sentence of Section S. The Organizations argue for > ',.)road--r reading. They contend that "assign- ment" necessarily connote: the nurl_=r of a3sigr:7·_Rt3 to be made. They but tress this contention ; icr the ur2um_nci :hat ~':1) the !-amino of a facility can affect working ccndicions, (2) t:n;=_ guarantee cf S=cticn 5;a) also protects <; , against worsenin7z of working conditiJo=, ant. .s,31I? _ _ r=medy for worsened work ing conditions which only cc-:es after the fact is a partial remedy at best so that an implementing agreement is the grog^r way to give life to the guarantee, Carriers counter that such an intcrpreLatich r-ay3 too !PUCK into t!:°_ protection .- governing 7vor4=n5 cnditicn 3" which suarantecs that against wJ_sar.ed "r~1es _ rules will be n0 less advzncage-u3. BJL T_ find this iRLerpretiticn too riarrCw. The rules_.awe for the c,;rpo-a of prttecri-g agalnsr adverse working conditions; it is the latter which are protected if Section o(a) is to serve its real pur pose. Moreover, Section L reyuile- that c rrier notic°3 Of an i-nteni^d coordination Shall, c'.C?OTlg other thl?lb,i, include -:1 °_3t:maC°_ ·^.f th°_ number of C!np101·'eCs of each class affected by t"e intenti:d chafes." The n=ext sentence recuires that the carriers and or,-a:-,4 zatio^.s .r.= :pen date and place for a conference about appiyiap the arceme--,t to the int<^ded changes. This -n:cificity about numbers of emploveei affected indicates tho% this ~leme!.t of the cbane is an approprite sLbjCCt Cf ^ar?aif!iR; c:^.3 affCCtS the int°_rpretatic!1 Of Section J. The d2ci5iens in e~rlicr cases do pct le<:=. tc a ccntrary conclusion, as I have heretofore i:;cicat-ed; those cad^- frill tc disc,_ssed in the final opinion in this case. - 174 - S I conclude, therefore, that the nut:ber of employ-as to man the coordi nated facility is a mandatory _ubj:ct cf barg_ining under the Unshington Agreement where it is pertinent tc the avoidance of worsened working condi tions but not for the purpose of achieving a great=r measure of job security than provided by Section 6. (Note: Following Referee Ber,stein s interim decision, the parties reached agree-ent and the dispute was withdr=wn from the Committee.) DECISI01',.`:0. 120 --- Decision by Ref_rea Bernstein William F. McGraw, Individual ) and ) Parties to the Dispute Erie -Lackawanna Railroad Co. ) QUESTION: "Respectfully submit that I, William F. ?:cGraw, was adversely affected as outlined under the term; o. the :;_shington Job Protection Agreement wren my position as Assi_-tant Supervisor of Statistics, Eastern District, ErieLackawanna Railroad, was abolished when office of Assistant Vice President and General Manner, Eastern D_scricc, was discontinued." FINDINGS: The Claimant was not represented at the oral hearing but copies of correspondence she,,; that he was given ample notice and decided not to be present or represented because of the cost involved. In such a situation the Referee should scrutinize the record with special care and m.2l;e inquiries which the Claimant or his representative might have made if present. This I have done. Mr. 7TcGraw claims that the Washington Agreement applies to him because his job was abolish=d when c:·._ o__°ic= to which he was attached was discontinued and its operations consolidated with those of another office as part of the Eric -Inclcawanna .merger. The difficulty is that both the offices which were combined were former Erie off_ces. The work done '.:y Ciair:ant, formerly an Erie employee, was not combined with the work of anothar carrier; his posicien was discontinued a;:d what re-,;.ined of :::c job ::as d=e h·, a for^=r Erie clerk. The entire than=e was effectuated by a,reement of the.Cler'.:s and the :arrier pursuant to Pule 11 of the Cleric's agree-:_nt and not t::o Wash`n"I .'.greement. Hence neither joint action nc"r consoiic:Lticn in ro~ard to '::.~ work is made out by the record. Ile sugsests thct the capti %' CErif--1",cl;,:,·'anna Yerger") used by the Carrier in corrosponC:1,1ce wi·':. '.i' has so7c siinificanc^, implying thzt it may - 175 constitute as admissioe that to was in fact ac.=-=ely affocced by the carger. llo-,,ever, it seems r°-asona~l°_ f-r t::(: ~arri=r tC .:se that deslg:atiCn =C=',.Se of the nature of the claim; it c.=no= be eN-:c7-=~ into an ~C-ll»i~l. Nor 15 it-helpful to :... :I~G:a:,- tl;at t.lc-`:c^e -pera-ors who fcrr~ar:y appeared on the sa^e roster were accord=d b::-.,.iits uncc- the - z_hingtcn Aoree7ent. I::e distinguishing factor is t-__ their -.,rk was consolidated at Hoboken with the work of fcr~:.er Lackawanna operators. DECISION: The claim is denied because Cla:m_nt's displacement did not result from the coordination as alleged by him. -------------------- DOCIT,T NO. 121 --- Deci sion by R=sferee BernsreiR American Train Dispatchers Association and ) Parties to the Dispute Eric -Lackawanna Railroad Company QLMSTIO"S (1) Claim of F. L. Spratt, R. Cisco, H: C, K_ufr.·ana, R. Id, Ravels, E. T. Berrian, C. R. Wallace, F. A. Bcol:sts-~er and R. L. Id=nds, emplcyces who were continued in service but were placed in a ·aorsc . ._._on with respect to compensation and rules go;;crning working conditions in the rearrang=_ment of forces as a result of a coordination, for a DISPL'ICECIFNT ALLCWa_;CE. '~(2) Are employees who are continued in service who are placed in a: worse position with reipect to cOT:D=nation and riles 20verninS'S t~Orking conditions, as a result of a c:crdination- entitl_d to protective benefits provided for in the ~~GREE'.Y\i OF ~u1Y 19Jb, :%.~S!!I':G=0.:, D.C... specifically a DISPLlri MENT ALLOU"Cf under Section 5 of said Agreement''. FI\'DI\G9 An Imple^enting Agre:-_nt was achic-cad or. F=_=ruary 1, 1951. under which seniority rosters of forr~cr Erie and Lackawanna dispatchers were dovetailed. There i.s no disoutc that there .'as -i ._=get of for.-,.=r Erie and LacI:.a::anna Dispatchers 0=fic:s at I:obo:-Cn,.~ -ersey in :.:na 1951. Prior to the consolidation, moth office:: had 27 pGBltlcns ~i.^.Cl'_'~.i^5 r°-li-af); aft°-r cite co'.1solidacionwent into effect on Jun,--. 10, 1951 there were 25 positions. No dispute exist=_ ever the loss of t`=sc t'.,o jogs. 01 July 1, 1901 form^__- Eric ''t Chief Dispatcher D---:a retired; his fcr-C- d--ti=s -:ere combined kith forr·_- Laca:a::anna C;mf Dispatcher Coy=os ~r~.. 7~e 0_yaniza:ion clai,-~s that this .. 176 - .-1 constituted the loss c.° a third position du= tc r.: :rger; the Carrier genies this. In June and July t-·;c ethtr positions in t':: ccnsolidated facility were abolished. The claims at iss~:e concern Train Dap atcl-.ars and Icwermsn who had full time positions prior _.. tt~c c00rd1-ati_-n and ;'.a3 full. time p:sitiols in the same categories after the coordin:cion. F:o;;e-~e_, they allegedly had lowered compensation in some post-cccrdinatien months due to the s:nrinkaga in oppor tunities for extr= work crhich C1:_^in=s p__fora:=3 as substi·u=es for Chief Train Dispatcher ...-,d Assistant Chi-: Train Disp=ccr=_r (;,:hen -;lose in that , . r C1a55if1CatiOR '.lore off Or iC1..n>tlr_1t=ti ICr _ Ch..1=..f Train Dispatchers.). Not UR importantiy, the extra work carried hi=ker rat-s of pay than t''eir regular positions. n The O;ganizaticn contends that Claimants are e:r:plesees continued in . service, eac?, cf c.:!;psa position wa; ;-_rsenod in regard t: cea:pensatien by the merger and they thereby f!e.C:_O= eli`:b=°_ for J'c;ction 6 allowances. OR the. property the Carrier rejected the claims on the _erocnd that the employees continued in the 510:3 pcsicicri of Thai?? DiszaLC1,ars hid TOwermcn tr.at they held prior to coordination and hence ij--ire net displaced from their position. '(For the reasons stated in Docl« C No. 131 this arguxcnt is rejected.) In argument before the ~emnittee, ho·ic--er, a mot- sLbtl=_ argument keyed closely to the following lan:u:.oe of Section 6 was made. No employee of any of the carriers involve: in a particular coordination vho is ccntlnced in =_rvice shall, for a period not exceeding five ye^rs following the effective date of such coordination be placed, as a result of such coordination.; in. a worse position with respect to compensa ticn and rules gol.erning working ccn.=itions then he occupied at the time cf such cCOr6inaricn s0 10^g as !'? is unable it. the normal exercise of his seniority right; jndcr cxisrin·= agreem.=nts, rules and practices to obtain. a position prod ycinS CO!npensation eq=al to or exceeding the co-np=nsaci-)n of the position held by him ac the time of the particular coordination . . . . This language, it is argued, precludes a finding of worsened position "so long as ,the claimanp, is ... able .... to obtain a position producing compensa tion equal to or exceeding the co::.pen;;.tion. . . of his pre-coprdinscian po sition; he'r`e the "positions" of Di;p::tCli°_r5 a?'u TOS=ermeR have produced 2C least equal compensation and so, it is conten-ed, valid claim can not be made. This ingenious reading seeks to cvcrcc..! tie basic guarantee set forth in Section 6 that "no employee . . . . cencinue3 in service shall . . . be placed .< in a worse position wit!: respect to compensation . . . . for the period of the guarantee. In Docket No. e62 it was held that an e,:ploy=c can be adversely affected and be elinible for a Section al!.-,.-_rlc^ -.:l:erc he,el:)tain.s a position with a pay rate cqual to that of hiscce-ccordi^:,ticn job but his total ccnncnsation falls bolo^:. the guaranteed ear n·' ::s (the test period average) if he is within, the ambit of ehc coot.'ir.ation, IU:023s the Carrier mckes to affirmativ- showing v - 177 - that the diini715~ed cc~.penzatit^ 5t°ms irc'l a cau~°_ --then than rh°_ Coordination). There it was poinr_- cut that "tr'c f:r-wl_ is to reflect elem=nts of ccc~2easat:on is a3diticn t= toe tat: of pay;" and an illustration was overtime for a sixth day's vcrk. Essentially the sam= r_=asonirg applies hsre. The guarantee is directed to the emplcy^c°'_ "Co=pe.-at1Cn" ,-_ d^t~r:`.i.^.:d f:1' a comparison of the test period average and -.`s earr,4 guarantee is gi~.en for lt==__ _-at ara res,ilt o such coordination. were the diT.inis~ed earnings wc't= a direct r=5':lt ,^-f tl',-- 3hrinkag-e of employment opportunities ~rc.lc~t c,l ty the elimiairiol '_f jct_ in the cocr'dination. in pocket 'No. ''JZ tlla iliuztratic'.1 :,an~ It was only an ill-5tration, n^t a limit ing holding.) was of ovcrtl.'`_ cn tf:' same p=31t-..-.. Bur it is aizo Co'7:_T.cnp_Sc_ for position llcl~::rs to cttain cxcra ~:~rt~. _ith~r'in tl-e sa^= or a related class if ieitic^ fe.'., a5 n-rc. --1-erelelr_._rapF,eCS L15c qualify as hisratcl~ers and work in. bcth clan=ificaticns): Three into-rpretati=ns of Secticn 6 throuA"rth= quoted proviso are passible: (1) such extra work is part of the position, realistically viewed, although not part of the bulletined description, and so the proviso does not bar the claim; (2) the guarantee of Section 5 runs both to a regular position held, to which the quoted proviso ap~li=5, and also to extra work to w^ich th°_ proviso does not apply because. ne "position" is cbtainc-d producing compensation equal to what that work protuced; and (3), ., position_ in burl: plat=s !z2an_ sit.ation and not bulletined position and as the new situation does not produce a;ual cc~r.oe::>sti^n, the claim for lost extra work is ;cod. All three interpretaticas s:;ppcrc Claimants. In addition, this fact sit'_aticn <enphasizes the weakness of the Carrier contention, in other case; in this group, chat tlcae working extra prior to a coordination can not =.__ eli;i.bl=_ for > Sects=n 6 allcr;_ace unless that work constitutes the equi·lal=ent of a full cir,c pssiticn ,;if Section 6 is not 1 m ited to byjjetincd pcsitisns). For here are. full tie:e POSiticy.1 Dart of whose total pre-cuor-;in_tior co'-.p=~:5arion was deri·Ed from extra work. ;hat part of their co-per53ti^_·n was di7,ir:is,'d a_ a direct result of toe cecrdina tion. The policy undarlyin'- Section F e5 well as its la^=uagle, i5 to pr^t=ct against such a rz~Sult; the .=nJLage 3~o'_ld and C_n h°. inter='r=t?'d to fulfill that policy. Moreover, this case underscor,~5 another weak-l~ss of the Carrier position on the eligibility of [r--Se perfcr-:^g ::;rya `.=rk .-. Section 6 orct°.cticn. The extra vor:; is of t'-,= s---_ class as t--.a_ of the'posi=ions in;olved in coordinal:ionS and m'_ch of it. T?,~cssiaarilv f:Jli. _ tt·_ positions (as h-.el. Commonly ncithor can bt trans.-'err~d frc;l t;i~er a -rule= agreer_nt to oe perform-=d by empl,oycec un(~:r a'o=i'=t a'r'rtr=.nt. Only jV '!irtU- of Chi t'·ashi,jton <<=rce- ment can th_ , -- of full _ _ pc.iticn ho: tiers and extra nt-n -° be so _ l~S _ trans_`erred. It follows that the guarantee should be coextensive with both the original prohibition and the etception to the prohibition provided by this Agreement. For all these reasons it fcllc:as that for any month after the coordination in which Cl:.im;nts had lowered cn.7pcnsation due to the diminished extra work, they crore adversely affected and eligible for Section 6 displacement allowances . As to the issue of timeliness of the claims, suffice it to say that they were made and denied before the supplementary agreement of December 20, 1962 first introduced a time limit. D°CISI0V : Claimants, who occupied full time positions before and after the coordination, were adversely affected by the coordinaticr. because jobs were eliminated in the merger which decreased their compensation from extra work on the positions eliminated or ,;he positions of those who formerly performed the extra work on the positions eliminated. They therefore are eligible for displacement allowances in any month after May, 1961 in which their compensation fell below their test period average. Their claims were timely. DOChTT N0. 122 --- Decision by Referee Bernstein Transportation-Communication Employees Union ) ) and )Parties to the Dispute Southern Railway System ) QUEST1O" : _ . "Did the Southern Railway fail to cc,-.,ply with the provisions of the Agreement of '.iay, 1936, Washington, D.C., when without notice and Agreement it effected a ceordi_nation of its facilities at Fa=r Street Tower, Atlanta, Georgia, with thi South Tower of Atlanta Terminal Company commancino December 14, 1961?" FINDINGS : i In early November 1961. new equip-gent in South Tower, a facility of the Atlanta Joint Terminal, bcgan to p0rform functions formerly controlled by the Fair Street T_c:er, a Southern installation. (Both carriers are separate parties to the ;,as;:ingt~n `.3rC-_=1t-; By mid-Deeeml,er a Fair Street Tower position was abolished. Although earlier t.i= claim that this saquen:°_ of events constitute;) a coordination h'~s contested, that issue was withdra~rn in argum=nt before ra. - 179 - Also removed from the Cad°_ i6d> the CO!1tE·iCl^_..^. that toe national c£r_etT=nt of 1954 imp CSing tire 11Car~ upon tI`e pre:=r~`.a!i-n ci grievance clai%.3 applies to disputes arising under t`.· Uashi nett. Aa~E--_nt. ' The sole issue is ;;`ether the Organ. iz=tic-n s1epr or,. its claim under the Washington A,re_ment s-- that it is barred from pressing it on the merits by the doctrine of lacaes. On Novcn-:-_r 30 and again on D=cem~_-et27, 19=1 the General Chairman pro- tested that these e~ients ':ere a cocr4inaticn ~llich, in rl:e ab3~.nce of a Section 4 notice sad a Section 5 i'pi2·menrii, aprFCm:rtt, ':iolatee the hrs'higrtore c _~m.~r_n Acres - merit. O~t·icusly thC:C P=Ct=sts G=re tit7,ely: ccmirtg about a? early a3 possible. The quesci-Dn then b,CC'.;S ~'C:etn=r fail_re to LrC_?s rne ciai7~ under this Agree ment enables the Cacri_r to invoke t;ne dcccrin= of lacha;, i,e_ that tie claim became stale for la-k et prcsccuticIn :ant that tl:e Carrier beca.:1-= lulled into believing that the class: had been aband^-n=d. On January- 11, 1952 th.e Carrier formally rejected the claimed I,i--Iat;-on of the llashin=ten ?gr=emcnt. On February b, 1982; the Organization alleged a violaticn of its rid=_s a -r-=eT:=r.t; t7;t clsin ··a- rejected by the Carrier in -. August, 1951 and reaffirmed at a confer=rice in Septe:-:ecr, 1951. In October the General Chai-.an indicated the uracc·:pt_ztility cf the Carrier's final decision. ?lay 2:, 196? t:_s the deadline for s%ib_mii;ion to the National Railroad Adjustment Board of = grievance based upo-i a violation of the rules agreement. On January 23, 1964, the O_ganizatiOR mid- it; ·3X porte submission t0 this Committee, formally in·Cking the :Jashingrol Agrieme"_:t. This action caT= roughly tc,o y%ars after the Carrier fi.rSt T=j_Cted t^e Was,,in_ton A2recm2nt contention and about fift°Gn months after tl-.e Orzaniiation indicated its dissatisfaction c,itl: the Carrier's disposition of its claim of rule.; violation. o a The Carrier's contention that b_y precessin_.= a ru1c_3 a:;ren_n..._nt grievance the Organization ab.s1d=ncd it: Wa;hilPt:n A'reer;rnt claim i, 1s not persuasi-.,,e. This Agreement, if adl-ered to, per-its carriers to transfer work covered by one rules agreement to aneth=r. Usually wen Sec=ion 5 of this AgrEcment is violated the same accion also will breach ch= rules agreement. There is no inconsistency in pursuing a _rie;iance invoi·:ing bcr.h the roles agreement and the Washin.-ton AgrcCm=nt. ISee di;c'1>;ien in Docket :`lo. 1010'.. CTncertainty as to whether any or adequate relief could -cc prccur=d in =itcet for-in ar~u-' ably made it-advisable to pr=_=3 one claim,. in addition to the ether. We are long p-cast fiC com-con la's notion th:7t a ,^.a:'" ^;:St m3~-e an "election" of t^°_ remedies available ro him se that ~;t;=n 113 choesc;, or appears to oho^9_°, Gne he is taken to have ab=ndened the otv,.er. Such fcrT:ality and conceptualism make poor law and t:orsc labor relaticni for it would p=rmit the p_rretuation of unresolved ccntroversie_. The Carrier points to inrum=rahl·: opinions in D'MB Third Division a:··=rd; on the issu·- of laCL=_. of t}'Co_ .t ~.;0=__ ':!'ich menticn a sp^scifiC ~^_ri~d of delay as censtitutiro lche;, pr:,cticilly all involveo delays of three years or core !in ore the delay c;;s .`.ere than five years). I.^. Aware. 5_'89 a delay of eig teen re:.ith5 led the B-~rd _noc to i7vo'ce the doctrine; the d=lay was ciccd _. indicative ef t!-_e clai;-,:·tt's b=lief thtie it had a weal: c,-,.se on .. 180 _ the merits and an additional re_scn for reachin; that conclusion. In Award 6229 a delay in riling for apprnl,imately" tZ.;O ye-s fro.^.. the carrier's dCnial of the claim strut; ch= referee as "unreasonable and not within the purview of the railway La-or Act." However, in this case no such period el_;-sed b=tsYe.en filing of the submission here (January ·t?, 1900 and ch_ 1a;t <xchan-a on the issue betsacen the Organization and eh'~ Carrier (Cccobar 11, 1962). Although in-r__ation of the doctrine of lacb=s may be appropriate after a given period s7here the claim is really d« atabl·e, where, as h-ere, the violation of ti`.ia t1~rCCi.'.=nc wi :;·~it,°.C1?aT (S ConClUSiOR I reached aftCT t}1C first arour·=_;c cf the case, b=fore Carrier r_presantatiaes ·~ithdr=s~ th.= merits at the second Coc_-ut=ce discussion; Cie sa7e delay can be regarded as not .oo extensive. UnC-r t::... cirri-s=ance3 Of Lhi2 C3.°_ the Carrier could cypact that a claim would be pr-os5ed whereas _,, y r..cre de b:,table case delay might lead to a conclusion that the Union w=s abandonin', its gria-ante. I conclude that the: Or=anizatioa neither slept on its rights nor ;gas the Carrier misled into beliavi-ng th&c ..-_ claim of violation was abandoned. Die remedy follows that. prescribed in Doc:<et \c. 106 for the reasons set fcrrh mere. DECISION: (1) Southern violated the Washington Agreement by failing to give a Section 4 notice and to ne;oti.atc a Section 5 i-plemant_ng agrees=nt before coordinating Southern s Fair Street Io:rer facilities and services with those at Atlanta Joint Terminal's South Tower; it is directed to serve the requisite notice and negotiate the required d ~~!racmenr; (2) Southern is directed to pay full back pay (,i.e. based upon the average compensation e_rnred in r_h~, 12 mc^,rrh;-cr2ceding the. dates of to changes and including all fringe benefits ar.:: impro~.c-^arLs in pay and fringes sine= that time), less actual 17a.-e$ anN/or b-cnefit_ received, to all employees affected by the unauthorized ctI_n2s until Sccticn 4 notices are served and a Section 5 i^plcmonting 3,rec-.cnt is achieved. the protective conditions under the Washinoten Ag-reement shall be in force through February 196?. -------------------- DOCKET :;0. 123 --- W_t~f4rcc;n Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ) VS. ) Parties to the Dispute Gainesville Midland railroad Cor1psny ) oLr;srle·:: 1. Claim for 'i:e diffc.rcnce S=t%.^e^, ;he coordination allo-~ance and t`·e amount ear:·rd for else mcn~ls o: '.uaus t 1960. - 151 -- 2. Claim of 5650.0 for expenses incarrea during the pericd of :fay 7, 1960 throu.-h July 23, 1960, due to being forced to t-1:= a position as yard fireman in Atl_nta, Gcoryia. D-_ CIS IC):,: Withdrawn. ------------- ------ DOCf,t:T `;O. 124 ___ Dcision h~ ..°,eF~ree ~er-~stein Transportatio:i-Con-unication D.^plcyces Onion ) and ) Parties to the Dispute ) Hissouri Pacific Railroad Co. ) Missouri-Illinois Railroad Cc. ) QUEST 0`-S 1, Does the arbitrary ccordinaticn of service performed by train di.spatcher-car distributors employed by the Miss=ari-Illinois Railroad Company at Bonne Terre, Missouri prior to ?une 1, 1952 with the services performed by train dispatchers employed by the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company at Chester, Illinois, without agreement, ccnstitute a violation of the agreement of Play 1936, Washington D.C. rr . 2. If the ansa.=r to Question No. 1 is affirmative, are all employees adversely affected entitled to the protection set fcrth in Section 5 through 12 to the extent applicable'." FINDINGS At issue is (1) whether the transfer of dispatching won.:, governing Missouri-Illinois trains performed at Bonne Terre, Missouri by Missouri= Illinois et~loyces, to Chester, Illinois where it was combined with dispatching work performed at the Missouri Pacific facilities was a coordination of services and facilities and (2) whether the alleged coordination was pursuant ., . _ _ "coordina tion" to point action by te;o or mgrs carriers, a necessary elercnt of a as defined in Section 2 (a) of the Washington Agreement. Since 1929 the liis=_ouri Pacific has e::ned a controlling interest in the Missouri-Illinois and for many years t~,c t-.~o Carriers have had comm=n officers and direction. .=onactieless, each =s a scpar,~m carrier under t-a terms of Appendix. D of the ::as',:ingto.^. "Sree .=it. In 1932, the Carriers declare, "the dispatchin,^, of :I_ssouri-Illinois trains and car dis=ributina work on tha cast side of the Mississin-pi Riv--=r was co^solic!ated with the Nissouri Pacific dispatchinoffice at Lush, Illicwis, a^,d th. disp-tching of Missouri-Illinois - 182 - trains and car diotri^attin.a WCrri; or, the w2;C side :f the r2-jer was consolidated with :=issouri ?ici:ic disp~tc;-in cific:_ at Poplar Bluff, :Missouri." In -1943, traffic Prow=h nacessirnrid r::e eirat.i5~'.7anr of w'73t the Carriers call aDranClt office" 3t =OPnrrelf'i- ' LC dispatch 'i_ssJ'uri-Illinois .iCCr. T. .ar_ _, a~Uri trains west of the it_ssissippl. Il?~t facility was manned by 1iZ~:isscuri Illinois dispatchers; the Carriers ass.art that they operated under th= su pervision of the Missouri-Pacific Cr.ie` Lispatch ar Az Poplar Fluff, Ibis arrang=-went continued until June 1, 1932 :,·t·c-n :he °_onne Torte dispatcl-::rs office was abolished and its work censclidated .:it'.: the Missouri Pacific dispatehin., office at Cl;=ster. In essence the Carriers ccnte-nd that the ..n.^.°- Terre office was a Missouri Pacific facility s0 tat vhcn its wcr1C':as co_~sc;lidatsd v'ith that of the Miss^_'.:ri ?acific i.^. 1962 sopar=:te fa.Cilit::s of t?~O carriers uere nut involved. Dot this _-haract°rization S=.> _.- C~14Gs with the fact that llissouriIllinois dispatchers 4'ere c0'trcllin2 7!issouri-Illinois train movem_n_-s fron Bonne lerre. This aspect of the case shades into the Carrier--' other contention that joint action is not ;,solved because of rh, cc!-=-cn airecticn and operation. of the CTVO railroads -wince 1932. M:- asl'cd :;%lether this state of affairs made it ir·possible for joint action e-vc=- to -_ :ffectuated by these two Carriers alone the Carriers' representa=i-~e w_s alrcst unabl^. to give an example of such a possible combination which -ou'_ come within the definition. of 't coordination" under t;, A.rcement, the lone lllustracicn - the combin.-ticn of sir.gle Pan Missouri P;cific and `I-:ss:uri=Illintis a=encies - is inccn;istent with the argument that joint action is net possible because the. Carriers officers are the sa-_e. The result c;.^.t=nd_d for t;: the Carrier=_ is :;holly inconsistent -with tie separate carri=er stars of the llisscuri Pacific and the Missouri-Illinois under tie A;rce-cnt, which cage into being several years after the supposed final ccnsclidetlcn. While the dispatchers are nor Governed by any rules asrcc..-.e-,t they are carried as --plcyees of on= or to other railroad. (There i3 no disp~:te that if tl-:ac= was a coordination. Section 3(a; ma::e.s the Agree:nanr applicable to employee; o_tside the crafts- and classes whose -.:embers are re?resented by the organization sianareries of the 47ashingtcn AZrcernent. j For-Ol the foregoing reasons I concludc~ that separate operations or facilities of trio Carriers :were cozscliaat=d pursuant to joint action by those two Carriers, effectuated by their c0'.'=n officers. P-_CISTO` : The tran~f°_r of disratch work performed by Missouri-Illinois employees at Bonne Torre., Missouri f_= Chest=r, Ills-Ois 'Ah°_rE It WLs combined vi-h .I Missouri PLCifiC C_D°_ra`it'15 and faCillC1=s CCRStiv:t0d 3 CCOrGlr!2C1C1 -~711Ch cam? .about thr='=g~h the j,i't nrrirn of tf`5'- "G-- Carriers. P,s a r°s'jlt adversely affectcu cm~;loyoes.?r2 °_ntirl.;d -~o C?- p:ntection cf th°. WasainttC- ?.=reerent in a-CCrd:.nce wit tl:^_ pa"."._rn and I:r th= reason; set forth in h..,cket No. 100. - 1S3