"Interpretation OF Section ', (c), 2, of the 'Vashingtcn Agreement,' relative t= an e-,p loe_ b=ing depri-ed of !:is ertclcy-rent and entitled to a coordination al1owanc=_. Also, that portion of Secti3n %, (d); pertaining to an employee who is deprived of his _.rploym~=nt :;ithin three years frcm the effective d-at- of the cocrdinaticn. Further, interpretation of Seccien 7 (j;;, referring to the fi,>e specific contractual reasons for the cessation Of an established coordination allo·,ance. ' ~w






' This case mast S°_ read with Dock=_=s Nam--red 103 and 109.








January 1 through January 27, 1963. The Carrier denied the clair. on the ground that his loss of earnings ·aas du= to a strike by the IL? during that periqd. It argued that his tosses ::ere due to a reason other than tie coordination and hence Section 1 is aFplicable.

 In fact, Captain Highland had alr_e_dy received Section 6 aliowences for prior periods. (The Or=_anization's references to this as a "cocrdinaticn ., allo::ance underlines the cenftsed ter,i.^.oi_ty involved in t4is set of cases; that aspect is discussed in Dccket :;o. 1C3, and the discussion is pertinent here.) As Dock=t \o. 67 declares:

Ng contention is made that the strike otcurrerc? males this other than "the
ordinary case., But such a con=erticn would r.,._ :e psrsu_sive in view of the showing that ether Ligbter Captai:-s did sore non-_tr.ck work during the period and that Captain Highland's place on the seniority roster was substantially lowered by the merger of the raster;, to say n^thin; of the effect of the coordination itself. Perhaps it is Nor=h emphasi.!inc tbat t?:e ot'?er Claimants in this case and in Docker No. 109 had demonstra=_d n_ ad·'erie effect when the new factor--reduced tonnage handled bt=:°_ Carrier -coincided -ith the first months in which ad-.,arse effect was claimed. But Capt_:n a:s''land had already demonstrated adverse effect which tlmerea:ter pr=:u-ptively is accountable for diminished earnings for th= full protective period.

 DECISION:

 (1) Section 12 of the Agreemc-nt was not violated and the relief sought on that claim is denied;

 (2) The claims of Captains Rcbinson, Gicrdini, Ditt^ar and Murphy are denied bec,2We the. alleged worsening of :heir ccxpsrsation occurred a subs tantial uariod after the coordination was effect=d and Was directly traceable to decreases in the Carrier's ronnaZe handled by lighter, sco-j, and bare. Hence the coordination has not been sho--n to be the caose of the Claimants worsened position.

 (3) The claim of Captain Highland is sustained. Having established eligibility for a Section 6 allegiance, ch=_ January 1963 strike did not cancel eligibility for the reasons stated in Docket 1;o. 67 in view of the fact that others in his ciassification wcr'.sed durine ti:= >tri'sa petiod.


                      DOCKET NO. 1266 --- w_t~ldrawn


        Pennsylvania Railroad Cc^pany )

        Lehigh Valley Railroad Company )

                                          Parties to the Dispute


              VS. )


        Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks )


        L,rQ _STION:


        1. Should the Carriers' proposal for the selectl'.cn and assign7ent of employes sat forth in Sections 1 (a), (b), (c), (d) and 2 (a) of the proposed agreement (attached hereto as E::hibit "D") be adopted for effectuating the consolidation of Pennsylvania and Lehigh Valley accounting facilities, services and operations?


        2. In the event it is determined that the Carriers' proposals concerning the selection and assio mcnt of employes should not be adopted in their entirety, or if it is determined that other matters contained in the proposals of the parties (E :;hibits "D" and "E") must be included in the implementing agreement required by Section 5 of the ;Iashington Agreement, what revisions or additions should be adopted for effectuation of this consolidation?


"qi DECISION:

          Withdrawn.


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


                DOCFZT ?N0. 127 --- Decision by Referee Bernstein


        Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,)

        Ereight Handlers, Express and Station )

        mp oyees VS. ) Parties to the Dispute

        St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company )


        QUESTION:


        "(1) Shall affected employees who have insufficient seniority to obtain and retain a regular assignment in the coordinated operation be paid a Section 6 Displace -ent Allowance in these protective period months in which they perform service?


        "(2) If the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, shall the Carrier now be required to pay Claimants Carson Bell; J. C. Booker; Z. F. Burford;


                              - 186 -

J. E. Hargis; Jcl!n Luke; Sr.m Miles; 0. J. Peppers; _. ti. Rcdgers; G. B. Tillery, Jr., and J. W. West, a displacement allc:;anc^_ for the month of January 1962, and each subsequent month thtreaftcr in which they pcrforri service in the protective period, rather than a combination displacement-coordination allowance which is now being paid?"

 Fh'DI';GS
Without dispute twenty-six employees who had held regular positions lost them due to the coordination of Cotton Pelt _nd Southern Pacific facilities at Dallas and were unable to obtain other regular positions. Sixteen of them elected to tal:e Section 9 allo':-anccs by resigning, an optic:, open only to employees eligible
 to receive a S_ "COO .- i 1 _ .~ p 1Ct;°_e= "deprived of _mploy-.ent,"
            _Ct10n 7 "coordination aS c'.^_ .,~3^.CC ~.

The ten remainin.- furlnugod'~ employees parforncd extra iaork as it became available,
 The controversy here revolves around Section 7(h) 'which provides:

    If an employee who is receiving a coordination allowance returns to service the coordination a11c·:ance shall cease while he is 30 rce!nploy,d and the period of time during t:hich he is so reemplcyed shall be deducted frcm the total period for which he is entitled to receive a coordination allowance. puring the time of such reemployment however, he .shall be entitled to protection in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.


The Organizat'_on claims that in any month in which the furloughed employees performed extra work they were entitled to Section 6 alloc:ances for the entire month. Howe,ier, the Carrier interprets Section 7(h) to mean that the Section 6 and Section 7 allowances are to be prorated and a combination of both paid depending upon the proportion of the working days of the month in which the employee was working and not working.

 Section 6(c) declares that "Each displacement allo:,·ance shall be a monthly allowance determined . . ." Cand the formula follc=as.3 In effect the employ--=_ receives a guarantee that his post-coordination compensation (earnings plus allowance) will be no less than his test period average compensation. Section 7(a) provides for a "coordination allowance . . . which . . . shall be a monthly allowance" equal to 60of the average compensation in the twel,re months in which the employee worked preceding displacement.

 The Carrier argument turns upon what it claims is the literal meaning of "the time of such reer,1pley-ent" in Section 7 (:h) which it takes to r_wan the days actually worked. The Organization counters t`.·at (1) both Secti-n 6 and Section 7 allowances are "monthly allowance" [s 3 and so cannot be prorated and (2) in Docket No. 9 the Committee, without referee, ..^_ld chit in these circumstances Section 6 governed compensation and rejected a carrier ccntention that a combination of sections was to be used.

    A furloughed employee, under tie rules involved here, is one who formerly held

    a regular position has c=a wor:: available to him); an extra employee is

    one who works e·:t-- as opportunity otters but never has held a re;:ular posi

    tion. Only furlouLhcd employees are invcl~ved in chi= case. The Carrier as

    serts that it h=s .no furlec='i cr ·_::tr.a iisr, Taut rule 15 refers not only to

    "fUYIOU~flva aP.d _..tr<: C::~,1C'yCCi UVC t0 fUrl;;ut;h and extra 115C as 11-011, (Sre

    Section 15'G a nd, 1~ -5) .


                            - 1H7 -

        The Carrier he__ ar=uas that Dock=t No. 9 ir:- ^1;:=j > r=gul=cod extra list and

      thus th cry thanof the n S, e r cf c

          e tale-.or__s is h s c5>e G=ere furlo:='-,d. r._a :tore

          r,

    regulated to CCniOr^ wit", :·.urlC ai'ei_3~1c. -Cr t':at rE::t^, It 1> 3r2j=d, the

    rt : .7 o rt ^ .-.

    Co;:.^.ittee ev_.._zt_y door'_..°_3 that: t~_ c·:ic,a,t, th°_e ";ere notrf de2ri-.ed ,.f em

    ployment. But neither party in Docket ?·o. 9 ad·;erted to the rule: pro-1:sion for

    adjusting the extra board to the ne=eds cf the service. On the contrary, _; a re

    view of t-a rcc~-d --f t^=t case sows, the Carrier in Dec' .et Nc. 9 arg,led tha_

    the extra list %.as unduly enlarged s0 as t.7 prevent ferteit'_rE of seniority; '>o,

    rr

    the Carrier dCC1a:Cd, the praCCiCe ~c.^.der t.^.5 C:.Cn fip?liC7'71°_ rUlC57 was "to :r.ii1

    tain a greater nu:::':ar ci e:7plcy-e> on extra lists than Kay necessary tz: prztect C^ a

    service . . . . Under this practice a Lei=grapher ctuid r-emain o1 the =extra list

    r;

    for months or yours wiLhe~t perfor-:in~. JPy -ervice. what=vet. . . Such a situation

    does not add u? to a regul_t_d extr= ;oard.


    Nor is the-a any hint in the a_rc~;,cnt cf the parties or ch= Cermittec disposition in that case t;:--:t Section. 6 was applicable ,;ia Section 7 ;h). The Carrier's arguncnt here is that the forrcr reg'_l.wr erplcys.=s vhc were unable "to Obtain and retain a ra.gular asaign7_ent but . . re-'erC ed ) to and parfo:-n aar,a inom r,

    _.. service from the

    extra list" Section ? employees who '-_`.ere caked to service cams under Section

    6 "while actually ·.oLlcit:g.r`


    The parties in Docket ^%o. 9, in the agreed statement cf fact=_; recited the situation of ona empleyce whose situation was ·; illustrative of the principle upon which

    -o^ n , n rt F n ad t Ofor r,

    the parties are in di__~r_e.^.,_nt. the statement repent- that for several several oaths

    after the coordination no eT'.ployee ~as affected. n ptsirion was ;tolish=d and its

    holder bumped car. ELM; Mr. Hull cbtain~d another reR_--1_.r position for se:;eral months,

    but was bu:,ped and Tent to tht extra list in mid=Nc:a,:be= 1937. In mid-?antary 19:3

    he again obtain.Td a regular position fc'r abo;L a m:nth; again he went. to the extra

    list. The ag,r-red '>LaEem°_nt tecitc; that Cre parties agr~e~ chat Section 6 applied

    r

    50 long c.s Mr. 11U11 4?33 In 3 regular position; rLt:2y yr= 1R disagreement c5 CC ,'-=rher

    Section 6, Section 7, or a combinatis: of loth sections, =pplies during the period;

                                                            r

    Mr. Hull c:as una_le to retain a r:;e_ul.ar aositicn and reverted to the extra list.; It was this disagrecmm=-nt that was resolved by Lnn_ CC^nittee's decision. that Section 6 alone applied.


    Section 7(c) may sees to have applied, as the Carrier argued, because Mr. Hull lost a position when bimped by a senior _-plcyee, But it was held that Section 6applied; tha only--possible explanaticn is that by virtue of his status as an extra employee he was-ovtegarded as "ccntirued in scrtice" and therefore cooing within S-ection 6.


    Carrier members argued here chat the record in Docket ::o. 9 dces net show a month which is commpa table to the sicuaticn here: wrier, S^_^°_ days were worked ii an extra a.^.d other days the employee was ic'1c and thus arguably in a Section 7 status.

                                                              .

    However, in Deccvber 1937 ::r. Hull was in the extra cat==cry for the entire moats.,

                                                            .,the docision _s clear that for that co=t'- a Section 6 allcnjanca and only a Section

                    : ;. s,n - the o_-

    6 allowance was ,.~_:: r._ The prob,:!b _, did sty is _-:ar _ __ = c .·~_., d~_i:.5 r ._

    as an extra and that is the implication cf the agreed state-,eat (see p.2).


r''1 _
        The r.ajor difficulty in Carrierrs position here is that, des..,.ite the apparent

    agrce,:,._nt of the Carrier and Orzsni_acicn that 16 cf the 26 min :.ere within 5cctlcn 7


                                ., lag _

when parted frc.7 t:icir re~·_l:,r OJaitiC~: ~t:ltt'C~;':i in ar^,~ment the Organization casts ac.me doubt as to hour -- teabla -_ .., tc this _',aractcrizacion), ~_n::er the precedes^t esta.Aisnc·d 'y DJ~.:t :1C. 9,the _',,ploy=~itrio-bts .;ere not gcv'crned by
 it but by Snct:on 6.
 The Carrier ar.,les, in this case an:l DCCI:et :c. 1:9, that
 cn 9 which
 t0C 0-,'2n-2a71'Cn
 cannot L- alie,:a~..es .<.'·'e t1:C :.,.:3.^..`.ao: C_ =_1aBeR Teii"._l,iCi.^..^.o v;lt`: Scct'ic n
                                      _ ,

went'' pr-per e.:~1y if the e~p1CTe'.'.s i'·erc el!;_'Jie? for SS=ttion 7 allowances, and -eject Section 7 as _napplic.bi_ tc these to .;1`c^. "e very s:~c:~e thin=. happened -loss of a re.-ular pc-ition and rcoersicn to the f_rlcach list. Without contradiction tl:- Carrier paid a11c-.-=nccs of 593,00D to t_`cs= it and the Organiz:_ion agraed could be scpar_,ce~_ un",_r Sccticn 9. 1 :.cold al-re= chat. if th, Carrier 5,_-_`Pred financial de tri; a it by t:7is 7r_'=n=c..-nt n-y c.ices: :17?n--i might be re tur:.able or
 deductib: t._ _, n.e Ot1'r pb __ a,:a=:c und·:_ t'a:: - _
 f" e -ne is i_: kzrGc:CCnt, 1 iRVlt.-'_:1 t:'_ Car
 rier t0 present evieence ·Dr _ __ ...._^.t O.^. t:'.is point; but aft=r 1 aC'.lised it that 1
 would not overruic Doc'.:Jt . _. :·7(as it sjn-,ested in Doc~:?= _:o. 1:9, it di& not d~ so.
 It seems rather y::esticnanl- that such i -~Cwin= ·:?n Ile made in this case. The
 Section 9 allo'.;::ntes are r,._..: eluivale.nt of frc;·. three to t~.'cl-;e months' pay, dep.nd
 ind upon the ir.ct;·id"al 's 1=ngt'^. of sere%=' _- i.n CC7:arison t;ith the Secticl 6 Suarante?
 o _ .._1 - - .
 of 1007 ccmpcnsation fcr fire years. To be sure, the latter is reducible by actual earnings. Judgin- from the fact that the ten e-:plcya_s =xl'-J retained their employment relaticnship have suo-tncial cl_aim.s r.nd that apparently there were many days when they did not work, Section. 5 claim., ale substantial in this 0-cup, 1'd this group been twenty--ix rather than. tan cr-,loyees, Section 6 allcwances would be quite large fee the sixteen and larger "or of least so^:e of the remaining ten than they have bean.

 The Carrier -ay feel that inasmuch as the parties seamed to be prcceedinS on a mutual aZree::ent that. S·Jccion 7 was IpplfcaDle it is entitled to insist upon the application of S=ction 70-.). 1 am insure :^at the agreerr.ent was so complete. BU t, Section 7(h) c-curd seem not to yield a dii`erent result. All c: the for:-ulas for benefits in this ~.-ree^ent are cast In teL-:s of ·tmontlily allc-:iance" or 7 Ont~ly payments. The formulas: especially for Section 6 allowances, indlcat-_ that cenprcc.ises were struck and that the allccaances are at best an approxi-tion of what each eTployce should get. So, for example, the schedule of cli.iniliry and benefits under Section 7 are:

        l.t cf See=rice Period of Payr-nt


    1 yr. and less than 2 yea. 6 months

    2 rs . ~~ ,~ t . 3 .~ 12


    3 If It 5 1$

    S If ~~ ·~ .~ 10 <~ 36

    10 It ~~ ~~ t; 15 ,~ ~g

    15 yes. and over 60'


                            _ 1,.59 _

The grossness of these cats=ores .ir~ues a._r:in;t their being subdivided into fractions x=a>ured in day;. Given the termino:o:,y and the rough justice the allo:.·ances were to perform, it seems qu-:t: unlil;::1v Mat there was any intention that aljc_anccs b_ made on a daily basis. :lc nee-.-r, Carri°rs produced not one instance .:here such an appcrticnmnnt has Sea-:: .;:ad-_ during th.e almost three decades of the Aorecment s existence.
DECISION: .

 Tha Claimants, re.-ular pcsition holdars -:ho re·ierted to Carrier's furlough list by virtue of -he coordination, are eliible for Section 5 benefits and not a combination. o° Section G and Section 7 benefits as a matter of interpretation of Section o (a) and (c). If Section 7 (h) were applicable the result -would be the sam-.

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


            DOCi'1:T \0. 128 --- Decision bv .re:eree Sernstein


Brothbrhood of I:ailway and Steamship C1srks, )
 Freight Handlers, Express and Station. Eriployees

            and ) Parties to the Dispute

Joint Texas Division of Chicago: Rock Island and )
 Pacific Railroad Company - Fort Wcrth and )
 Denver ~aili;ay Co7pany and Houston felt and )
 Terminal Railway Company )
 QUESTIO`:

    "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood rhat:


    "(a) The closing of the .Joint Texas

~ Division of Chicago, i'.ock Island and Pacific railroad - The Fort Wort', and Den-r-er ~aile:ay City T!cket Office at Houston, Texas on Tune 30, 1963 and the transferring of the work involved thereat to the Ticket Office of the Houston 3zlt and Terminal Railway is a coordination of separate railroad ftilities and subject to the tern- and conditions of the Agreement of May 1936, Washington, D.C.

 "(b) The Carrier violated the terms and conditions of the Washington Agreement when it failed to furnish a Section 4 ;;dice of intended coordination and failed and refused to apply the terms and cond-:tions of the Agreement for the protection of employces a`ected by the coordination.

    "(c) The Carrier shall now be required to apply all the terms and conditions

of the Agreement to the coordination .nvclved."

                            - 190 --

FIB-D?`.:GS:
      The Carriers operated a City Ticket Offic= is =o-_isron which it closed on

.Tune 30, 1c,V-3.. AS in DoC,=t 1~'U, there was a TCt-^1-:=1 Tickct Office Jvhich i'··-. =
 diately shct:ed a -^-rcat intr=as°_n _-, sales = ~.. t C_7.;~;1 th= Cnrricr5- to t11 sales
 in llou;ton d:clincd in cem=:,ris3nuith t::=ycorc_s~tndina rcntli of the preceding
 year. The sole difer=nce b=t··<_en thi: case ,..-d Dc-,- ;:o, 106 is that the Car
 riers had no tic-ct faciliti>a a-iailable to it in Houston other than tie CIO and
 the Terminal T_c',ec Office. Il:e disposition of this case is govern-ad by Docket
 \'o. 60 and Doc'.;ct No. 105.

 DECISION;
(a) The discc:tir!ucnce of the joint IC-<~3 Di:isi--n of the Ch=Cafe, hCCI: Island and iacific "n.1roa^-d - Tl:e Fort Uert!7 aid a~-'·':r_r Rai,-:7y City T-?Ci:et O'~ric°_ at lloustc)n, Texas and tt)e transf=r of its cpardtizns a:,d servite.s to ti°_ 11Oiston Belt and Terminal ^ail,,ay T_cket Office cc7,sticutea _ "cecrdinaticn."

 (b) The lack -of a notice ef cocrdi^atit-n and an a=r-ement batc*een the Organization and th: non-applica;ien of the ben=fit provisions of the Washington Agreement con-sticuted viclations of the Washin_ton Agtea-ent.

 -(c) The Carrier is directed co pay full bit': poy k'i:a. based upon the average of compensation earned in the 12 mcnt'.,s precodin: the dat;> of the changes and including all frin-a benefits a-d impravC.'n=·-it? in pay a'-'d ir'ihges since that. time),
                                                          _

less actual wa-cs and/or ben=fits receiied, to all employees affected by those unauthorized clla1CS until Section 4 notices a!·_ 5_r'r=-d and a Section 5 implementing agreemcnt is achieved. The protective ccnaicions ,:nder the W'ashin.ten Aoree:-ent shall be in force through Sepcenocr 29, 195·S.
    The Carriers are furthar directed to serje the required notices and negotiate

the required agreement..

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


Lighter Captains'- Union, Local 995, )
I.L.A., AFL-CIaa )
                                Parties to the Dispute

        and )


Erie -Lackawanna Pailfoad Company

 QUESTIOV:

 ~Interpretatien of Sec. 1, of tam ?.ree-ent of '?sy, 193, Washington, D.C. relative to th:, termination of est;blis~ed ccerdinati-n allowance dcrina the protective period
    FIS DI`:W : ~ ..


      The 12 ClairnantS, ~i._^.ht-=- Cznttin-, first ,jerz _u'~=r3C:y affected in April

    and June, 1961 Shortly uftir t`° imp1Cm-.'.-nta~i-_n oftnE CC::~i.^ati.._.. ?4_ C-rri°_r

    paid th-(' Section 6 diS'pl--,C°_-·_nt ~l.lti~unte> 'C''.'_ aC31.'. ^..c~trl=Gd^cs ~,c:^

    tion allo-rances" in ti;_ beta:.. - _ _-_ _ _adina-

                                                            ,

    0_~anizu_·c=.~ suc.:>- ^.,, : ti:_y lost rcular posi

    tions and rcv=reed to cxtra staEt_s, In any r-,CthCrC_f=Cc 1n wnic-n t;.eir earn

    ings fall ..=1C tl:=it test period monthly uve:a~c.. :!.owt·'er, th2.se payments were

    discontinced in Junc and July- 1963,


    At issue is t4:et-_r the Carricrwas i_stifi_d in r;-t continuing the nayr°_nt of displ-=cer:~_nt ailc.;anc^_s on tt.= !rc.:nd ::pat t:-_ vecr=a>es in

    tr::ere uttr~.utl_.eC1_i·=.a_.a' compea

    saticn:a.ut. rte- rrrr: » ·hand' i:,

              ~.}_1l_.e to d:a.^sclc 1: ;:ec__._scs -1ig.,___l=_ .onn_gn _ 1_-.:c

    New York h=--her by tCC ~i`~rier. t1 .s in DJCac'.C - ... i 2J, it cl-.-.^..i t.nac SCCtion 1

    permits t~.~ '- beca'JS_ t~;C 1C;3C> _rS C5'·_s_ - C th_. Cc's-es ;tntn

          .._ CiSCCntinua^__ t~ -

    coordirlati- Ci nzt ~~ltlan t*ne ccnte-~litlc·n 2f the parries" In makinS t^-= Ua>1':inZ

    ton Agreement.


As noted in Docl:=t ,;o. 125, the ratlcnal.e of 1:ccl<zt ?;o. 67, decided in 1951, is at odds :jitn such an applic: tion cf the Agree.^=a=.

    The iJaih7ngCOn AzL=G.n'_Mt Strii`CS ... b_lanC°_ Cc :WE en the interests Of carriers to mergge facilities and 3srvi-es s0 as t0 CffECt_zt° ^CCnC'Ties and the int°c'esEs of employees ncc co hear the full brunt cf 3·~ch ch_nx~=;. Althoug:i the :_reement is remarkably well conitr_;ctcd, 1: ..eCCss_r il.v !'stile CC- :..iS-s in order to m?~ie the Ag"r'Ce·-tent workable, scm·? gsnerai categcrl2s "ad tC' be cen3tr_CteC ·: nice would cover a variety of situations.


                                                  .

    At the eut3et in Secti.cn 1 ti;. parries declared chest inccnt to ,provide allowances" to employees "affected ty cCCtdtnaticn" Cur `.Eat the benefits "=r°_ to be re.strict_d to tbose char^-~c> i'1 :mpl^vmcnt . . . solely due Sad rcsa:Cingg fro.:, such coordination."


      It also declares in Section 6 that.^,~ er.~pl:.,·ee . . . who is continued in,

service shall, for a perisd not eX_Ceedinfi'v°_ yeat3 IOllowin= ih° effective date
 of such cOO:dlnatlon, be plac2C, as n re5'·ilt cf 3..·Ch CO·nr~lnaticn, in = `~Crse po
 sition SltiOn t:itll re_;pect to compensation

 I held in DtItl<et N c. 67 that cr,ce to _-rPloec i3 d=_-.orstrably a:iv_rsely affected the protection of Section 5 rrCtaln: as for the c:l3ulnZ period ,',-:p to the close of the fi·te years .specified;.

                      .

      The reaseni,.g ma; that , the fW a y·:ur rrcc=trice pt-rind for a displaced em-

ployee t;o'ad na,.r C little sens_ and pr; ,-c:r. little prorscticn if each su~scquent
                                                          "

loss of carni::=sin the period had to t" ?irectly _·=iatEd co the cce:di.^,ctien, Impliedly o7".ce a., emplojee -3 azv~rsely __:ect=d ch_ fit's year vi_r=ntee -_pflies. Any othc: ccnstrtz:tiz:n ,,,cj1d -..~e t:?2 <t=r_~.^n^,t ~C-.lnstratl~:Ely aiin,arC and perhaps un~:0:%a'hle, if eVEry s_b3=:~;._^t i.:si C'.:ri^~ _..:. fi,'^_ years had t0 b:: traced strictly t0 th= CCCLC?.^·r.tiC!1, a l0=iCal n_-_Ss:t'i '·~D,:la be n s^C::in_3 is _,, the. position t}:^_ _r·^ln·.C_ ._'..ld __~_ t^__',. 1'·l (:itf1,t~t t^n CCO~C~.inzlti01. JO '-:'^,=Y°_ t'.:O / carr._ts -._ ___`sc-litics --d-.>eni_rir; ii;"_, a shc:l·-; of .a~'ers_ Efft..=c_ld

                              - 19L -

require proof as to what e3Ch car ricr'5 }_.J3i.:1C3S WOOld h~v33 been i,?.5., hcc'J the.
 leS5C-,,=d LC^^age wojld haw e di'vi;leC! b_c~.·Cin L1:°_ . _^ f '.:er~d cacri:rs), i';ilat tl:·Cir
 Cethcds .7f operation T-·-.^,L1l'.1 5,1-je b,:c=.T: i: :yet cTm^.lned 2nd hot; thesrc w-culd have
 affectea c_ch clai'`lt ~^
 v .~,., :,acre t:-=_ c_a:mant st:rd In his for..^·er senicri.ty list, hc'- it would li:-Jc Ol:nCed d,1e. to ecoth;. retir'-.-^ts, res=~nati·'.n;, and discharg,es, and what his emplccr_r= and carnin=; ·;cel? la~re be^n, taking into account the rate; it :;c~:ld lave been paying if tn> rer_tcer had not taken place;. Of ceu-se, th'a ;5~ree-.ant dccs not require sjc:.. ir:c,;s-:ol° showings. Rather it constructs a CO-yaraLivOly S1.^plC tc;t: dl;plac'.:r~eta (not just any ci;plae^cm:nt, but one brcur;ht on by the coc:dlnation~ ar.d impai!~d c-ape ;saticn (as mcasuled, rather rcu;lAy, by comparing test period avcr:~= n~ntbly carnin7s with those for the maenth for :·!·ich c1,3im i; made.)'. the bcne·ic is thdifference betc;e_n the old average and the pose-cccrdination actual earn=n= if the latter falls belca·.

 In this case, tho Claimant; d.^cnstrattd =dvarsc effect ic=7ediately after the
 coordination Ca-,= into effect. ?hair impziiec e;rnings stormed fro:" two Causes:
 meteed o ;era tie ns e:hich reduce= ti:-= o~'~._- ' .,w.,-s d perscnr.cl reqj_red to par-
 form ,·~ , - r '·~ ;
 the real cork of the cambihed Carriers _r,d, for some, the loc.?ered seniority
 position brc,u3ht on by including Captain; fro-r. the oty.er fcrmc·rly _epara'e Carrier
 on ehf nevq d0-verailed seniority list ::ith the r?sult tnar their relative opportu
 nity for er-.ployr^_nt -;as reduced. This situati0-: :cntinued throuoncut tae ensuing
 two years and Section 6 benefits l-=re paid when=per their ccmpensaticr, fell below
 the tesc period average.

 The Carrier shows that reduced tcnnaoc (ahcut 25:4 as compared with the sam= months in prior vears) reduced wzrk O-DOrtvniti-. Fur, i.t does not ;h0'.; what the effect on r`:ese claimants :;already si·cz;n _,. ^e a3·lcrseiy affected by the cocrd.i.nation) would have been as ccmp=r=d virh the "urcccrdinated operation;. For the ccordinatien .-educed work eppcr:~_nities m;r_= than the i3"=-- drop i·^ tonnage and the relative work opporr_unitics cf sc,.T,=. or, t,`.^_ senlnriry lie: was reduced 7.ore than 25e depends^1. 'epon how many Captains frG~, the other Carrier were inserted ahead of them on the Seniority list.

 Having already established their Section 6 eligibility, that eligibility.can be presumed to continue for the duratic~ of the protects:- period, (A total lack of work for cause; beyond the control of the Carrier sa~?:r present a differ=ent case --but that issue is not before me.) As z practical matter, whet=--as in Docket Nos. 109 and 125--the first claim of adverse effect occurs a subst_rtial period after the coordination and ceinci_es rich t;,c demon;tr_ble detrea-a in tonnage handled, the policy of Seccion 1 seen; tc me tc require = finding tat the e..ployees' reduced c0:-=ensation is not due t0 tfle cCOr.inatioh b'it stem; from the Carrier's diminished bLt;iness. -Such a scheme seems to rar.resize the competing purpcses of the A_reet7e nr in a practical. manner. Altcrna:i-;es to this method of applying the Agrcer=nt .-ppear to ma!-.e it almost i7?ossible for one party or the other to prove its case because c:mploym=nt changes are affected by so mary factors. Thus if Section 1 is rc=:1 to preclud^_ benefits anlass 1007: of the erployees' loss can be shown to stem directly from the cocrdins.ticn, _mplcya~2s c--uld almost nc··;er establish eligibility. On the other hand, if at any tire foil.-wing a coordination an employee who is coat-.iuad in service has co-.pensaticn belcl= the test period ave-age he ch2reby estzblis'-.cs Section O Cli-,ability, a carrier coin-d ne·~cr successfully assert Section 1. Both sections mast be Liv^n r·~:n!n~ in a re=scn.able and unrrulging, way
                                                            1


if this A3reerlcnt 1s to serJC its pl:rposcs vif n=i1C tell.z boo--d da·'n i=1 len'thy proceedings.

 As noted in DCc'·.:.Ct : o. 100, Carrier: art~e `fit the decision of C.^.`- Cc!fmittee in DoC'et N0. 1% we_::c?ls, inuCCd C_?CT~YS, Cue rrcel--nt val~_= of the holdin& in Docket No, E7 (point 3). ?s f-_rc'°_r I?etc'.C t:)Crc, I agree that Cc-..'lot=a eecisions without* a refcroe CCnst-it;it= e':e~ strcrlr prt.C^dtnt: than ;.'eCisiC~s :y referees. (Perhaps it should =-- obserucc tn-t I have no roc-l!.-c:.icn, end nothire in the transcript _-cots, tfia t Dcc:;et ='c. 17 r;as clii,ed r_; to pertinent when I c:as con$1deI1^` the 15=Ve In DOCi:=t \C. 77. Had 1t been ;.%;t~ l!1 1s5uC, I surely -,.-ould have ccn3idere_3 ar.d discussed. .. )

    The Ccmmitcce i'a13 in Doc::=t t·o, 17:


    Neither tha clo3ina_ c% -ho a=n7.e; in ui·,~--.rd nor the tra7sfer of the telegr--pier pc.sicicn at `·li:.e·.;:_r= tc t'-:` _c:oraao and So._t`C:rtevents subscq:._nt _ the D:...-:? an: San:- Fe coce.a4l-.~t:rn ac issue in tt:e case] Was the result --f, or relat°_: tc, tb~: -al^..=.. Lake cOCrdination and they will not enter into t',-a CC-:pC~,>;C10'i C~1C'~la~l^^ :ii Used by either party.


Larriers contend that this n_ans c!-.ac ::.her:: Secci.=n b p-;ymen!s are being paid any rod,:ctiers in ecmp:.nsation attrlL;ta`_1~ to e_~e~ s.-oseq.:enc causes are not to be included in the comp_.tation of the Sect:.cn 5 ,Ilc7;ar.cs5. (They argu= that this reasonir= also applies in Deck_ts -:u-,tered 12:, 1?5, and 139.) T1:= derailed explanatien of now the decision i-as -.e:,,C to 2pply ro e,id=nee :;as pres,:ntecl on hev it was applied) is mere inoenieus t!~an cen2~_ncin~.

 The holdin., of Docke_ \o. 1'% q_ot=d acove is nor entirely clear by its=lf. the record of the case reveals that the CC_rl?I ccnte-ded for th= very proposition it
 urges here that the Claimant f s i:
 to ses .:ttri_ur.~t _ cc. the subsec,uent non-ccordlna
 tion shutdo:m -at Howard and tl-e cr-n=.fer of cla ''als=nber:= second trice: positicn
 should be excluded from th: cemp.;tation cf tl-.e alicv;rc?s governed by Section 5.
 Twice in its sub'-,issic-n t:~_ Carrier aze:ed chat the co.pe_nsation losses caused by
 those tu-O Post-ccordinutien occutrenC^s "'=st be tikC1 into cen51deraticn."° (TS-2
 Carrier argued that the la=ua=a ,of Section. . called for such a ruling.) Sur.-the
 ..
 Committee held i;'at tr.ese occurrences c:i11 n:t c^teI into the C^,.:'..peRSation calcu
 lation __ used by either p.yrty. i:hC.^. th? ce'.t=-nti:n is r'.arc'Lc.d with the. decision,
 the decision secm; to rsiect tn.,- Carr-_~,2r cc,tenticn. Hence _-._ Cc.-..,-..ittae s holdir.o
 in Docket No. 17 does not w.^.=ermine tl:_ .r.c;d:-, in Doc:cec :;o. 17. lo the extent
 that it can be -ciphered, it prebcblv su?p=.-is Dca et Nc. 67; at any rate. the
 effect clc..i-ed for it by C_rrie-._ is ~lous, at best. Pence DJC::CC No. u` applies
 and requires that the claims b. ;astained,

 DE CTSION:

 The Carrier violated the ?,:tee:-.2n: i.hen it discontinu°d Section 6 s11c·::;~cec
 for whir`. tl,.c^ Cl=im-nts had c5.=_::te:___ est~'ol~.>':=d elii~illty ci t%t: insuifi:-_:.c
 ground t'.-,t: a later c..~urrin~; __ctc=, a drc? 1-: `asin=ss, ~:as the cause of the drop
 .~
 Of C11ii..a;1_ S Car; iz le;j tan.. tCSt peil.',y a;°_ri2i:.

 * Carrier Submissio, d;t=e l~j ; L, 192, _. F_Ee. 5.
                            - % -