Transportation-Co=!unication Employee; Unien )
 and ) Parties to the Dispute
 Eric -Lackawanna Railroad Co. )

 QL'G ST TO;: : -
 - - -
 'Are employers !.ho ware auvarscly affect=_d by the change of employ.-.=nG wren the Erie-L_c:awanna ..^,a ilr:ad Cc..Pany ","solid=rod the fcr=r DL and II Railroad

 WF _,


DL and 'vr . Gnst r_::.-a--eon Yard 0;._ice, si1~--a-_.en; :'ew Yor:., into a r.=-7 ccnmr.ication center l;n~:.., as 'QD: ',arC Office locate= in ti`.a form-r Erie Railroad Company Freight Yard Officc at Bin`.:--..,con encitlea to tl:e protection afforded employees by the 1:enorendum Agreement of September 11, 1951.,"

FI ND I;GS
      (a) The 1.'^rits


In Finance Docket No. 207C7 tire ICC imposed the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal Conditions when approving the ^erger of the Erie and Lachawanna in September 1950. Tho parties to this case cxacutod nn 1^plemranting Agreeme-It on September 11, 1961; chat Agrecmicnt ma3-= specific hoc; the 4?.:ehington Agrec^-ent was to be applied. The- controversy here is ~aheth-:r that Impleeencin., A&re°_mcnt governs the elimination in late 1963 of the for7er La^-cka%·anna BBi.^-bhamion Pass^en3·:r Station
 WF.c Office and t::e former Lacl:a;.:anna B'~har,ton Yard Office w"ich ;:e-re consoli
 dated and relocated at what had been the Eric l:reiohc Yard Office. In accomplish
 ing this change the Carrier abolishe·dl the positions at sotl: d1,>continued offices ·
 and bulletined three seven day positions e.nd one relief position at the new "QDr
 office, resulting in the loss of one job and an alleged "change in employment" for
 all the employces formerly assigned to the pcsicicns ~··hich ;per°_ abolished.

 The Organization contends that Article III, Section 1 of the Impleaenting Agreement extends it4,6protection beyond that of the Washington Agreement to "ate chansa of employment by reasono
                  f Ithe margcr." That section reads:


    Any change in employment by reason of this rn_rgar contemplated by the carrier subsequent to toe effective datof :his a,,roe =nc shall be subject t:. the procedures =et forth in Sections 4 and 5 of the A,grccemCnt of 1,117, 1916.,

                                                      ,

    Wash!r,gton, D.C. (hereinafter refcr_ed to as the "4Tashington Ag-aer.ent ).


The Carr?er responds that th_ language is not susceptible to such an int-crpretation and that only Sccti-ns 6 and 5 e: the :7: s:^.-^=ten Agreement, calling for notice and an ici, le-.cntin~ n:;rcement, are the subject of the Article. That argu.^..=-nt is persuasive --nd i=_ reenforced by the fact ti:at the remainder of the Implem=:itin_ Agree-ent provides procc;:ures only for benefits co·:_red by the Uashinton Agrcemcr.t and no others.

                            - 195 -

The pivotal qucsticr t~·en ~ecc~.- did tf= cc-1lnatic._ a.^.3 rc-location of t h:: facilicics CCn3tituCC i CCC:'..._~3~10:'. lrai: li,~s*~i __^n r,?r_~.-nt CCr-.~..Cl'·~'~ or a "merger" ; th.c co rrespo^ci-__ .... c:: ~!-: I:rcIcx^n: i.-:g Agre-=nc; The la LL=r is undefine6 but a^C-rently c~r:C;-1C fates nppiitatiDn of t·-G Wa_hington A=r:-rant term which is defined this way:

    The term "coordination" al used h:rein means taint actin-. by tvo or mere cirri°crs v'1'crehy thzy'uni<y, co'ssliiatF; 7:er,_ or pool in whols or in part their separat°o railrc·ad fa·cili~_,. _r any of tl·°_ cG°_rations or seroicac previcusly pcrftr:^.^.d by them t~roLCn such seepar_.a facilities.


                                            t ,

    In Docket No. ?0 G!lis pr-vision ,Jas discu;_ad and it -was ,e .d that:


    1\othing in this lingua=t: restricts "c.cccdinat_.__" L. _.-._ co :bia:.tie:, c_° li:c=

    r11 if : ^~.t, ~; =1-.-. G

    Chln~,s, al Ou^h Ln~,_ ..i` _ _ ._ lsi.·~d O. .o--1t13L7.C.n·^C>t anCiCipaced,i:le


                        - ; 1 _

    cor..bi.^.inr cf one carrier': nc__i=:es -.^.~!cr =:evic=_s with anot.ner ca:rier

    personnel is no 1°_55 ^ _ "::Erg1 ^g' ,._ "FC.Cli.^.5" ! :=.n _..c c,mtiaing of t:^.°_

    s or different kings offa:ilities a-:d/cr services. t=any ordinary coordin_cien= require the: Combination of "faciliC==s" an- e;iploy3C_ in order to render "serVice3" -- both raregoriea ccvercd by SCCtion c ~a,l


In this case the t1:C f^r-^er LaclawiP^a c7'-mr~.ticn_ '.'Crc consolidnt-ad at a former
 Erie facility: 'Not only does the term as ceflnez in Lhe C=rnement fit, but-Ch=_ re-
 sult of tie ccnsolicaticn _s the kind to ~ hizb t';2 =rt-e~enr is adare.s_ed -- the
 combustion of scp::rzte crerati:.-,s and fn~cillGi.es _:-r ereat_r efficiency, and tile
 protection of cr,ploye-_s sA,.=sely cMctea cy sec." arrange7crts. !he Eric
 facility made it possible to ce-'pine too for^.er I=cl:~...·anna eacration_ which resulted
 in a saving of man-Owcr. The Acre=rcnr: was T=a!lt t^ apply to such transactions and
 any loss of carnincs -hich 7:4grt resul=

 The Carrier attributes these teat ran°_?:-ants to ccerational changes ·ihAch re
 quired lose switching and C1-__SiWCaCiC', Of Cr5in5 >t East Bingllt^CW, !he rE!'~a1R'
 inE Telegrapaer work there was transferrea to ano:;-:er office >:cuc 150 yards from
 the Passcng^t Terminal.. As Iel_;rap~,.- wcrlc dcna there -Cuid in ?art be duplica
 tive, the two c_ficns were co-.1,i-·.ed into the new %D·' office -- at th-e for.-..er Erie
 Frei&1't li;.usC, While re laced __ th° -pcraticnal cttiog.-s, tae co:mbinatiCR ncverth-
 less vas a combination cf servic·es and facilifiss cf t;.= r,*o 'or,-,2r carriers and
 made possible L`:e rw_rter. ?Nor does it change th= r=cult that the than=es were
 accomplis~cd in conformity with tile Eric! -Lact<ar::anea--Tel=zrapine. rules -.:hica them
 selves arc past-mergsr.

 I cen_lude that -the Carrier -.elated t'`le ncti.t,i, _mpl,~Tentation agrae~ent and other protective C~nditicns of tie 17plcm_ntlng .'~r__'T:Cnt '.)hick follow tl:.- pattern and, indeed, provisions of the ':as tliagton Agrc_-_nt.

    (b) Proced-sere


The Cirri°r asserts Chat t~° Claim 'v:i_ 'Jncimly because Rot made vifhin sii:ty days folic'-'in., Cl':e last daj of r!:C talc^~ar mcntb in ;:'7j.=h co-~en:.ltica loss is
 clairlod" -ls rcL:ired by a -e?irate 1·_t·~r a=r===^cnt of ~eat_'.''ocr 11, 1951., I^_ -
 claim letter n~:.-~i,.g individuals all_~e~fa3-crs_ly affected ~J;; d.aced ?a-..iary 23,

                            · 196

1964. The chan"es complaine3 cf coo!; rlecc on Oci--er sl and .:uvenber 7 so that the first month i.^. :Il1iC:1 aC=·^rse effects Could C_f··= p1iCC vas i·O·%=:nCr 1)^Z. The January 23, 19os letter was -*it::in the 60 days f::lic·.i-tl-.c last day of aover..~er __ h.=nce-it Tans ti!-eiy. :-.`;,rc·o;cr, tha C:-cc-T=zr:=icv p:ctesred the chc.^.1-es even before they CCOI; place. :':CnCC tl!a <:1.1Cp<iuiOTl LhdS: the clain is barred as untimely is with:ut factual support.

 DsCIS70:::

      The ccmbinaticn Cf two former laL--'i=.nnl teleg-.uaher CffiCa at a fir.^.er Er=C

                                        w

facility in ;3in~;:c-ton. censtitut__ a co^rcinlAtion, ·ar.ur_e t^,. c·v= the Section 1,
 notices and to re<.^ a Secticn S I-plc-.entiT:: A=rec-enc as afire=d and ,., accord
 the protective ~-cnefits to ad-._..c1· t_`.`__,._ed e-.~l.ya-=; ;iolate3 t:le Se?t_-.~=r 1~
 1961 I-~ple,·.:=n _: C :.;. nt· 1h_ Carr_ r ^ist req::ir_d notice, ^e.--otia e
 an i::'.?lc.^a-RCiiy.', 1C.C.'.'.c:':t a.^.3 pay the call--d for by the September 11, 1961
 Agreer.ent to ad:er=ciy affected er,.cloyees in uccor;:unc: with the procedure detailed
 in Docl;<:t .:o. 105,

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


            DOCI'GT \0. 1 ?1 --- Decision by Re=erte BerastEin


Transportation-CC.^.ruaicaticn Employees union )
 )
          VS. ) Fatties to the Dispute


Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Co. )

 QUESTION ;

 "Is D. Leahy, who was employed is the Telegraph Office at jersey City, ::e'.; Jersey, prior to SepteT:ber 3, 1952, date -of coordina=ion of Telegraph Officas at Hoboken, i`ev: Jersey and Jersey City, \c:· Jersey, entitled to displacement allowances under the provisions of the Implementing :?=reement :iced September 11, 1961?

 FIND I'.: !:g

 This case arises out of the Erie-1__..z_==nna meroar apprcaed by the I.C.C. in 1960 and the sae-1-4 general Implementing .:~rcement of September 11, 1951 inv:clved in Docket No. 1:0.

 Pursuant t0 t`.it AgrCCT,^_nt specific 1'.',71e.^..cati.^.:~ :.~C°-e~C.^.t: ~°-i_ CT2EOClaCed governing the varger of various faCllft_-i, 1nClT:C'aln- tt.c Crni011.S.t1C.^. Cf the fOi7er Erie "Yio" office at Jersey City and the·fu^7=T LaCl;3v:ann3 "::()·4 CIf1Ce at Jersey City into a new "Y.1·" office at Ychck_n in Sept:,'~er 1952. :1 total of 13 regular positions; inclu:fi;:g r=li.f, operated tine former cffrc::;; LM _.=.a "YA" Office required 6 pcsitions (one of which was not filled),

 The controvers.; here is over a claim by Mr. D, leaky who held the second trick teleLrap__ positio : in the old Y,1 of::ce at ?erse;: icy; anotl-:<:r cl_i,: is being held in ..~eya:y_ ih·= old "i:1" second cr--':k posicmn ':as abolisne3 and tire na.4 -A

                              197

office positions were offered first to chase in tie office; abolished; 4_r. Leahy Succcadad in bidding in the second trick teleZ_apl'.Er poziticn in tie new office. The Genara1 Chairman r=quested test period data for :'r. leaay in December, 1962. The Ca trLer refused the informatisn ca :h_ =rC',Ine :^;,C :.°- ~,ai not affected by reason Of 'nr·~C.r" bCCattSC ..^.e 1`.ClC: the 3r--M:! COS_C1.^,T1 as iE 6ilJ·:f:re -he IC~erger. Two issues CnerS?: could .:r. 12ahy be adwer~elf act^cC~d un,i-r CI~.ESe circumstances and may the Carrier unilaterally decide to witia-old test period in.cr.-ation o1 it= determination that the individual is nor eligi^le for a Section 6 ?.Ilcwalce?

      In this torrcut of cha^==s it would take a rate.p'nysician trained at a German

university t0 d=G`Cnstr<ice that a fctw drip= remain',d tnE --are. Almost every conceiv
 able aspect of the Jobs in tie disconcin·sea ~fficos --_l.- --, cban;::d-·t ;e location,
 hours, territory served, and, crucially, -he n:!r~:-_ _-railro-ds served--except the
 title a=:d the craft. Surely one wo·-X13 ;avc no difficulty is dscidind that a first
 vice-president ::f one of t;..=. former Carri=rs -ad :. different job ~jhen he b.ecar-a the
 first vice-president of tt.e a,erg=d Carrier Z,._.. if his place of work had not chanSed.

 The Carrier pl=ces g:rea:. emphasis u~cn the t·=rr,.inology of the 01;lahoma Condi
 tions, v~iCh are CC-T;?r0heR:ed within t!'·2 1rC-i_-pc">Cd T':C_',5 Orl-=aR: Conditions: and the
 " ` as the one
                                              -Dloyeeplac:-d

Implementing A.-,ree.--.;:nt. 3c _h repeatedly refer t_ a ' ed:;
 to whom their prc:C:Ction ale::. Section 4 of the 0,:lenC^na Conditions extends CO any
 employee who "is displaced, that is placed in y -.-rse position with respect to his
 compensation and rules c.vernin., his work ccnditicas . . , ." As noted in Docket No.
 108, this is but a parapt::rase of Section. 6 of t?:= aashin=ton Agrr-=.-n-=nt. The-language
 of Article 117, Section 1 of the lnpler:=.nrin~ Asre:'.·..=nt' tc~i.cc affords benefits "if as
 a result of the merger an er.~;.loyee is displaced er depri'.'ed of °_-cloy^ent_, derives
 frost the use of these terms in the llashindtci %gr-cncnt and the Oklahoma Ccnditions
 and their interpretsticns. Thus the Carrie,ts are_ne;,t that ;.r, Leaky could not be
 adversely affected because he did not lose his position is relccted for the reasons
 discussed in Doc':at ~o. 103. Indeed, the quite clear precederts under th·e 011lahcna
 Conditions are against such an interpret_.tien, e'-·en if the tlashingten AgceeM=nt pre
 cedents were inapplicable. Lut they are applicable.

 In Docket \o. 62 the carrier sought to establish that if an employee had a full time position after the coordination with a rate of pay cq-_al or superior to those of his pre-ccordinaticn position; he could net establish eiitibility for a Section 6 displacement a11c':a^ce. That contention was rej=.cted because Section 6(a) of the Agree::,ent requires_tl:at his com_censat:_n.; .._t :e lea; thin formerly; Section 6(c) provides the r:e-t~;,md of measuring whether .t is or i_ not. Once direct in.vclvem=nt in a coordination is shown and -onthly c.^.-7:aserticn fall= 1·elo:.: the test period average, the employ-ee pre>u^ptiv=_ly is clilgible f:. a daplacrc.-,enr allowance, If the
 - Carrier can show that despite the merger-based cht. _: in the t~crb situation t'c first loss of earnincs ate.^.s from';cme ether cause, a Section 6 al_l:t-ante is not due. In oral argument, Carrier ::=-bets contended that if the pose-ccerdination position race of pay equals that of CC pre-coordination p^Sitic-n but total camp=-_aticn falls below tile test period at:eraZe the only possible exflanat.icn :..;_1d ce that hours wor!<ed were fewer; but if c~.? 17C·_r~ of the job were tbc s_T? tlicn t.'.??°. w93 no chan_i in position and hence n0 ad-;,2-se effect. 3uc, reaiC^ing 'J:1Cr1C^_[:'> w!'.it w33 said in Docket 1o. 62:

    In the norral and usual case, eplyin; tho fcrmola of Section 6(c) will

    she:: whcthor an ~t~alC'J~ is in :1 t·: =i_ PCS iti'n Wi'h r·:5pCCt t'.) COM--2~ .==tion.

    In other h~r~i, if an .^.'^iovrc dr'Jp_ -=!1= tnc "a 1-2ra

                                    ;r. CC':F::15itiC'.1~ (C17. e'.L'n

                                    a for"

    ants) for <~. period tc_..-~1. tc or le;-- th.-,*,. _'.',= _.-~=·._- mcnt'-ly timc ;;::i·_ fc. ..c

    M':=_ .::t . hr_-,a :acs: c;.se th-.t _.. is in ; -r=c.·position t'lan

                                                  b_:orc i-~.e c^-


    o:a:nst~on, "c.;;:c c, t'-t r,',y t:.,:='1·:s --.n_ sc~.cdules_ possi`olc di:_,._~ ,_s


                      e

IVW
        in size of work force, prcbabl,~ differ=aces in vol,:mc of work, and a host of other factors -- the drop is a-, era=a ctr;pensation is inferentially caused by the coordination.


        The inference is rebuttable. Secticn 6(a; is quite explicit that the

        "worsc(ned) position·' rust be "as a result of sash coordination." If it can

                              i

        be shown that rive difference in ·cerpensaticn·r is due to so-.,.a cause unrelated to the coordination, the allowance %;-uld not be dt_e,


    So that even if total hours worked were the sa-e, there may be fewer hours of overtime in a coordinated operation i·hich would account for the lessened compensation.

    Other ele·::tints of the cmplcyc-ti's work situation may differ because of the coordination and thus produce lo-,er compensation. (For a fuller discussion of this problem.. see Docket :7o: 121).


    Carrier also invokes Rule 23(s) cf the E-:ie-TEle=rapper's agreement which provides:


        An employee will not be considsr:_d displaced until his position is actually filled by the employee exercising displacerenc rights.


    As the Claimant has not been "displaced" by a senior employee, the argument ru-ts, he is not "displaced" for the purposes of the lmplemcntin= Agreement. But the argument proves too much because it would remove from tile protection of the Agrear~ent (and the Ideshington Agreement) a cat::cory clear` intended to be covered -- those whose jobs are abolished. The rules prevision -s ad-4r=_ss-=d to a situation entirely different from the displace-ants caused by coordinations.


    In this case one difficulty with the Carrier's contention that it may withhold test period information where it decides there is no cli=ibilicy for benefits is demonstrated. Its determination ray be incorrect as it wrn-ed out to be here. Other weaknesses of this position are discussed in Docket I'c. 133, whose reasoning also applies here. .


    DECISI0:


    Claimant D. Leahy is entitled to a displace-tint allcw~nce for any month in which his post-coordination earnings did fall belo~r his test period average after September 1, 1962 be_ause-"fiis ,-,ork was char.;ed in an adni- red coordination; the lowered earnings would constitute ;, worsened positic7 in regard to compensation. The Carrier has made no showing that such lowered earnings ste-. from a cause other than the merger.


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


- 190 -
 DOC:=":O. 1-:2 --- Dccis ? L·.. R~:crr` rnstcin Trans;~ort-ation-Cc:.nun?caticn Employees Union )

            VS. ) Parties tc the Dispute

Eric -Lacka%ianna Co.
 QVCST TC:;S

      r

1. Is i!. S. L` .ttell, who was involved in the re:acaticn of passes- . station
 from `::ain SCraOt, 1n..Uf:ilO, New York, CO Cf'.^ fe7C Cf ."_d.~.CCCi: SCreet EaiC .~.;li:al0,
 hew York, cntit'.ed to beneWts u.^.der p;atectiv;: conditions prose.-ii:ed Sy the Inter-
 state Co-::=roe Cc--.==sicn in its
 0-der dated ~c-;=__':er 13, 1950 in 7inancc Docker no. 7_0707 _ut'crizinz merS_r of 7::,. Dcl,-;_-re, La_. ,.·anna and 11--stern and Eric Railroads as .^plemented by .ct,orandum A~rue,.._-:t dated Septc-ber 11, 1961?

 " 2. Is L. B. Smith, whose position was abolished c.shen ilic(:i5an Avenue Tower, Buffalo, :;e·.: York, vas closed, entitled to ben~firs ur.de; the protective conditions prescr·'xed by the Interstate Cc--=rco Co'';.:issior. in its Order diced Sep:.e·..;oer 13, 1960 in Finance Doc:-,et No. 20707 euthorizin= r_r-~r of the Delaware, LaC'-,j-,7&r.na -and Western and Erie Railroads as implerented by : emorcndum of A-re=_ment dated September 11, 1961?"

 FI1?DINGS
This case also arises from the E:ie-Lac!:at.-..nn&& r,=rgor approved by the TCC in September 1900 and tied up i!: libation. until C,`lc (0110:·-,ino i?rinF.. On September 11, 1961 the parties e::ecuted an :mpleTcntino Afire=-cot. -

 The Orl,::niz2tion claims: that the sl-,utdc-7n sf the former Lac::awan^,-_ passenSer station in Buffalo and its reopening, in the forL_r Erie railroad yard office scvcral miles ao-:ay constitutes a coordination; that the· crsn>fer of Claiiant Litcell fre-i the abolished T:c::et :.-le nt-Operator position at the old station to a newly-b_lletined Ticket Aoen t-Opcra=or position at the new stati,n Cam-- within to°_ Imp1C-'entlno Agreement or, aitcrnativC1Y, is covered by Section 6 or the alas hlrZton A.-ree77Cnt; and the shutdown _- tie :1_cni r:an Avanue Ic::er resulted from tIo passenger station shutdown so as to require bca"its for the To;·armen ~___ Jobs %ere abolisl·ed either under the Impler..e.^:t?^,S :;O:ee^cnt or the ,sas.,inotoz ..:r=emeat.~ Ice Carrier ecaten,.,: t~at the Implementi-nZ Agreement docs not .rant ,-rcatlcr pro_ecticn rhan the `-'ashi-ion Agreement; and that the Nas`:ington A~rae,,crt is inapplicabla because a coordination of passes.-er fac:litios did rot ca';e place in;:m,:c'.. ::s the Eric had no passeaoer facilities with which the Lac!,a-%anna r
                        s could be cemti-.cd.


In contending t-at the ~np~e^_^.tin~ P.~:ec^_nt e·.;pands upon the benefits and eligibility provision 3 --the Was^ington A~r_c-._nt, tie Organization relies upon a provision wiich roads.

                            - 200 -

                          ARTT= TI1.


      1. Any ehale in e~:ployT_-.t by reason cf this mcre.r cont-mpl=ted by the

        ' Carrier subspau_nC CO t:,= ei:_.ai' .. .Care of this ar;_'-._-.t 31'511 b= Sul--- ject to the prcccc_r2s sec forts; in Scccicn 4 and 5 of the Agreement of May 1936, ;7ashin=ton, D.C. (lterefn;.ite- referred to as the ,; ....ashinoton Agree::.ent") .


    2. The carrier's letter notice oAu;ust 11, 1750, copy attached, _eets

        these requirevants as to the rE::rr:-?1~C.^..?:'.C of forces 7y reason of this

        merF;Cr e5ti73ted at this time in the specific cases outlined in Laid let

        ter notice.


While the lano::_--= conceiv:.b1y -.ay go b_ycnd t:;e requi-=-,tints of Section -% and 5 of the :1ashlngton : 7:_'C==at (altilcuz`1 it i3 :..^.t clear _C rrF what it mi=s;t i.-ciucc that they do not), ..;.~.._-,, in Article i1I enlar;cs upon the _cvara=: o°_ Sections 5 and 7 of the Wa3hinF;ttn :?~:_ercn t, while the !"eref_t sections of the.I-?ler-..=;;c:a~ .,=pee=nt are cast wholly in terms of the 'Washington A;roc-tint and derive their contc-t from those provisions. No benefit e1i;ability provisions are to be found which vary those of the t:ashingtc-. A,,reement.

 However, the ,lashinten Agreement seems applicable because former Lackawanna passenger "operations" and "service;",·crc cop.=.:nac Wich former Erie "facilities" in the establish-ent of the no,, passcngcr terminal.

 Hence the abolition of ?!r. Littell's former position and the estabii3'v-._..t of the new one wore C1-C7^rents 1n the cccrdin aticn, this -is se even thol_gh the abolition of the one and t:~,c bulleti::-g of the cth_r alto ware required by the rules aLree-
                              .

meat. These eve-:ts fit the definition cf ,cocrdinatic_-," in Sec;:cn 2!i). :a Doc';et No. 70 establisi·ad, rl:e cewoinat_on of un1?:;_ factors -- such as services and facilities -- can coniLitote a "coordination." It !:floes no dirlerance tear some s,-:_h shift had been under consideration lonS b_:orc ...= cccrdinaticn, for it was effectuated after the m_r;,er and ;:-as made possible by the a;nilab=lity of the o^:-= carrier's facilitics as t`·o site of the operacion.3 end scr,ice3 ef the other. This was .the only issue initiLiLy disputed. AE to i!r. L_rttal1's request for a reco--?itatidn of

                                                          e

test period, ti:e Carrier agreed t:;at c:hare, a=_ .erg, the Claimant h=3 been adversely affected is one .-_rger and is subsequently .a~g-!t _p in aneth=r, the test period average should be-reccmputed when he is aversely af=--ctcd by the secc·nd cccrcina-
 tion. Hc:rever;'Caarrier ors of the CC--.14r":= indicated Cat the last round of ar-
 gument that tiey did not enc:orse this ~~_.. The Organizations _^s!stad that such
 notification ca..^.e too late. In tern Carrier _:=o~ers indicted that is the CrEani
 2ations pressed tno point, tl~e; _.. Curn~:cull insist ;17_^'1 _ d=cision as to h='·J suc'1
 a recomputation ~'rould be mad!; t·^.C CI=,i:~=Litany did not object to a resolution of
 the latter diffc._nce. ArzuT.ent on the is;'jC vas had and, ha%,ino been p:sed, it
 seem; best to resole= it.

 In dispute is -1;ether the r°_ccmputc_ test poricd earnin;5 _1;0·.jld include amounts paid un-'--r SCCticn C(cj by .__'.ue of tile guar-ante- :Or the first coerdinat:en. T^a Organizn:t_u7:s .zn_cnd sue'., .. _:;^.=s sho_1:: ::c -nc1C:Cd, t!rc Carriers contend :·-at the-,.should nt_. U.^;:;.: Section. '(c) _:e Qmo·.,-.t ^i;-~le to .:n en?lo·,^_e eonti."u=d _.. se:vic= is the di=:_.=nc-- _n ·-^,y r.._n:.. F~c=..con .._. c,. . _.:5 ...,.:~ :o; ci:.._ ac=uall· .. ;':-d and the F~:Iar-nieC (~'_ri~'cd.bj' :..i.::,~,_^.=. . _'t~1l . -.~.e!i_a~i=.. .___^1V~=d in ~.'.C "~7e)ve

                            _ 201 -

R : r. o < In _-.J rn R m m cr H n ul O R t7 9 M O b1 T ft H 'O N w ° p 2 f~ ~~ m lY ·o ·o ·o In c) 9
 O n 7 O O H H R ? O a r· N O ? O O O G (D O R G Y· T (> n O r·· r 0 :f o t n L. c, f7 G C, O
 O r· G 1--' CJ n O n G W ' R r· R C O O C n w H 7· rt N 0.7 41 H N O O :3 CJ R O K 7 () H a
 rt O R r· G G G H R 'V n r· (D 1-· G H R 1-1 O (D G Y· Fl 'O R '.3 R " : r-. `[ vl H H R
 a' H a' 1·· G n Y· U) H R N R VJ G G S G Y· fr N H 'lJ 1-V O h-· :T ~J D, C
                                                            · n S>; :-. r. F;J w X

O G u a G O O C) O (~ CO VG · vG 9 G r· fJ R c n YH· R G Q7 Cir rJ n 3 U O ' 3 l> :J n :7 (a In
 1·, n G r: a a r) a C H r-· a r· ~. R H 'C7 n fJ G G n H (y rr O i :7 R h·· R 'Y
 n ;T rr n s: n N P V' M r- fD N cY N H M ?1 O (D H a~ 1 G r-· ~ R U O a G RJ 'U O . · e. O o o. r.
 I:. rJ G Y. fu tJ G N O M R H ~D H O O M 4· m rt P ,-· ·-· O M n ·1 p rt ' -.IU a G ·> ·1r J ~O
 .t .z r · U G u. . r n O D a F` :7 M H % r~ G r. n G ul P Cl n N r· T f7 :7 r I,1 n .rr n R c. :· h :J . n ~

 H r·. n :: n C, n f: n n IJ n n rY O O V 'C7 : ':, a H ~J G U 17'7 - a n O V~ H . , : r.r O =
 1.- (, fl P ' · r r .Y v T ) n 'D H n n C, G 11 R ':7 :J d ul t~ r7 n n R '. ^ -J r · ~· n .'. ^ O : T ::
 n ,J :.1· . u' r~ U b G ( J r· N ~T R O yr , 'c7 U ^ n G N N G r t rJ ... ·:J (? -D C= J ' r : R ·.
 H : r'· rn `< a r- G n ;u C7 n n 1·· n p~ r· n n C· O 1·· n N iT n .n .~ R G ._ r , I7 R ~~ r n n
    rt C. fJ '7 O H Y, r' ul (77 C a W G a r- L~ :: O P yr n '1) M R O n J R f:' O O O 7 H ~ :j a :Y

    '~: r1 rt ;;r r·· r·· 7 NY- a CO ^. V. O r. a 1-' G O 17 O G'·O n :Y yr n r· fu a ': ··)1>

.r r·· . "' fJ. (n a G r. Q· H G (Y =l H :Y G " C` tT t: 3 i O a H F, H U O La .~ O .~ Cr sJ 1>
 -· n (j [T7 n Vr (D P a r· O Pl 't7 H. 'U `< n I> IJ O G 'O H n a :7 n n 4> U 'U 4 :q, It r· O fl·
 f7 ^ G C· n n to Vr rn a Y· C. !J C a V IN U O r~ R M 'J n G f> IY yr G ··, 0 W H 'J .· r· I7 ~. M J
    CJ ·-i'U V. n :~ R r O R a fU Y. a R Vr =I' a H p IT O G I·· ^'· `G r· t7 O O ·t - `! n Ii G GUD "· fJ ID

N rri .1 G II` .-T '· I> N () H IJ r1 r1 n ID n IJ ID `< VI H R ll :J Q a' H C7 'T ~ r-· ' rr -D1 Y. : IJ rt IT

 n H . ·1 R ft y c ,D n << ul n J H n n N f FI ? ^' a W M R n < F· ) ·~. 4, ')- I7 ·tJ 1_ a V. IJ
 r·. n IJ :. 1a · N Y· In IR n G G H ID I7 'U 17 f3 n ;Y r·· n G ~~ n :, C· 11 J) Y· f1 n :T
 rr V V rt n G 'U U n R 'D rn :.T G n. H IJ (ro '7 jJ o yr v 7 .· 1·- n· n rT, -J r: `· n. 3 n G n rv r'

 1 L ,_. ·: ·p a o :Y .u n n ,t. (_ n O (- 'C -j r-· · o rt : Cl ul G ;7 r· C> w G U O n v. vl 'r C O n ~r n f U ·~ n ._ C) y i) r, · fD rt n H (0 In H ^r fu G fD -'1 IJ C, r'n '7 1.· O : fJ n, ,·. O (7 r) u. a .) T O V

 :7 c.` `n u a r. G Y IT n r- G c=. rt a n :t U r- 't 0 n H n ur :.1 :-. n .^ a o .1 .-. o al ~c
 n ID G ul ,~'O n r n V · :7 .' G r-· r- W v) f `-n vl r - O G W vG R n' O H ·~T (? n PJ O 1:, rt ·O O :Y On

            1-4 . ,-· IV U a a :7 N Ir V ? R'U U rt C IV

            n r· G J F· O u `< a :r a o n > r-

                                                                % n a G :~ t7

r. ,-. Y. V. n a' n G · In G Y· 0.) IT 1T Y n :J n G 'D 'U 1 - rt O :3 ro J f) H n :7 G n :J ~J ~·, a V, r·· rt
 G r· n n a n .n .·. n O O " ~) 'a rT' ID r. O n F· r O n .-· ;7 n r· 1: I., :: O' O u. -f G ^ u. :7 N
    'Y :7 .-. IU O 'D r-., a' re. H IX) r· fD ') a n. 1.1 V. fJ O `< r· C. ro n :J t·· lV (1 0.' '7 < G ''>'1 p. ·)r J

r .,. f) !TJ N i7 a r-) f· 1:, r .y () a :Y r- ·. a r. G .rl ID O v R O Ti .) P n n ·· n (.'
 .) ·7 'Y .n 171 : (l r·. N n n G R M a G r. ID Y· G n N r- C: (ra a R =7 P n n w r~ r ·., J. ._ r) .·- n rt
 N .n U' 0 to r- C7 J V. O ,T ;J -Y H C M 1: rt a O :1' V. :n v) ;:, r·- n v.2. Jr n O n r·. V' V= J O .J O fr -T.
 a = n r- r4 t, I7 C: (7 O Y· O I7 r--l Y- 1'· ·rt n i: H 'L7 O a H n ID n .> :7 ~J a t7
    n I. CU < In :J -) I7 :T H J? 7 a n a V, rt'p M f~ li n 1·· a r~ <) 1' :7 3 '> '-· I-' rt n r to· H

_ G R a r- Y rT In C rrJ fA H n () n n R Y- ,7 ^' .J rT .~ H < n J :3 C.1 ,·, p n 1' t~ `< `< T n M n V' '_ a
 J n G n n r: ·J n n n O, H H U1 H p v, U n ID F· a r·- v. Y U a <: 1_ H n rt r-· F . c> V f ) O
 n n U, f. r- r~ 4. _.-· .^_' H ·· :. .S, r- L rD ID Y. ;1 R vl a v ('.e a O _.1 r-~J L G L3. n i~ L, ·T O rt T n C L:.
 .1 'r ~. .3 a .T 1·- ; r p r-· (.'~ ·) u N n r1 c` .r· r· III a f.· c n c r. ur n -, rn ~' a 1-.

 17 7 a .1. r- r- :J f. n N N G rt ^·. a' VI C <: a' r r. rr r· n (T a r~ ^7 ~: 7 n a ^· ._ :"t, ~_ w . ` G P. N
 rt '' n O N n ~' rt G n :.' O n n Y ~~ ~~ a r V. fr ID ~L H ^ n r n .] f> O r~ n n n r r1 r:. n
 ~! O 'S '·: a ') :) Y- V. - VI :L V` IV N :Y n 'U "' ~l V V-'·< f:· U r~ :7 r, u a n 1. r. n n :, r ,:
    .T, ~: t G n r~ l7 a r' - n t·J n ·D -_T a r· R - U 3 O':. V. .T ~' f a -· n R F· .7 'U .-. t) ~.

n n Vl n ' : r :J · ` :T r. r· 1 H < yr C. H ' : _ ; -Y .l ':J n r- ·. n (i ,^. G U r.^ C t) a N .T r
 !?. n ·, ·-n " r-· R r·, r O u. a' O ~T, ,D ~J ·'- U f.r IT, r- .? (~ L. i)^S ,J f, U' ID ~r· fJ ..: n
 rJ H n
 ·;1 c " 't ~· n IT4 a 17 n a O n n F` n O 'D ~) Y. ·-i f) ~.. !~ . R ·· ·-
 rr G n G O u n H O r· n H P. 'K a n n .n :Y .. ~.; c G ~J J t:l -· n n C C. .n J a
 I?. ·.o .< 'Y' V M a ~ n J .7 F· n In r.. .Y O G N ·-` I7 I·r . Ir. J: ; i_ > '., ~ r G N n r·
 Cs O fr 'D O F. Ir, Y. n n 'O Ci f. n r] F· V~ ~r ;7 ·-·· I> IV ^r r·. n. R `< a V· rL.f~ c) .. p H ·rJ ,-· ..
 r1 -· G F· .U Fr M ;~ V. Hr'TJ C7 :~ G r-J 4' M r1 fJ '`'s' CY M Y. ,7 ~.r _ '~ n H n f. ` n .r, :D ^, ': ·1
 n ~l. C 1-3 H ~Y In f,r n f) R fh r--· f~ rn ;t fir) L !'- `n a rn 11 ^· )=· :l r
                                                            < 'Y ". of ^ `! L). ,.·

G ^,' .> O ~] Fr L, T .U n n , -t W V. '.. `-) M .) a '7 < ;·. p r_. V) r·- :7 v C, U G n w -1 IJ
 U '7 ·. '.n r, '7 a- ' -· .1 r.. p. in n 'C . , r. r~ U C` G t (? T H ·D n a () ·-r S J :) n a
 n I! n (: n. f0 f.. n Y· 1_ W 1'r n . ; I) l.l. IV U N .i G n CJ 1.^ rr, n n :~' (1 a cr,
 n ·i v. t) H rr.J n .i1 r)) M _ ? 1-· O ul H n fl 1) f, H , '! r1 t:` R 1> :: rt -r Y n S n n
 ~> p v. i 1 U :3 F. , 1:, H IN :` 1~ a n R r rr IU ,D n l.r O r ^ r. ;> · · r p ^,7 (. ·^. ·:7 v. V n
 - 'J n · G a r v -· G f) c n a a ''a r. H .( c, rJ M 1-- :7 0 :Y rh 'D ~.; i; H H ^, u o - I r.

    .3 7 a v () :3 u' r 'D ul U a. o rJ :7 n u. c o n Y· `~ 1-· a IJ F· L. r., , a. `< n ::` r. a `<

a H r.l f~ r-j O n tl·, .-. rt H O n ? H n rn P r- V fr r < ? `< In (: n
                                                            ·4 ·7 = C. a ·T n

rD IJ a' J T Y ·.U .Y h 4r a H O n H H R U n n U'1 n n G~ M H .7 ·· U 7 r7 ;J R ..- Vr ^I
 V. ^( r 1 n .J :D . r n rt n, Y a Y- G I7 N ul H n u` Y. G O r· r~ rl 1. a ·: n f · :% r ' > n r,
 r-t v. "Y C. fJ R a O 1--· U G n p. M y rJ G H. v j f O ' ^ r rR·, r~ G
 ~T C rn W () N rp (D R r l) n IJ G G < .., rn M 0' 1·. r-n N '. H IJ ~ ·~· 1 n
 G R I:r ,... ,i. R r. G F. U. .D ID n O (> a n U-J P :J F· G Y ·· ^r Y· rn f VJ r7 ^t G n W n F.r. r>
 r1 c. r, r a r n r* : L:. n.
 p· Y. n ,.- r· Y· fr v o n H n H n a n p n Y. P n H a a H n G
                                                        · 1. V. :n r> R

,~ .-· '· n O H n a P H n 'y n M O rT ':) O r.J P7 n rt n UJ .T n ": n C7
                                                r· n J ' '-·


.> r- ·-· N r, a '· n ,T r. O O 0.` R r, a V C. r· N I7 ILI O 00 , n ul J .Y ::) ·-r, v. H -] _Y L: tT a
 rt Y _i n .. n N H O n a H N n 7 O G 'c ·. V 7 C=. ID C ';7 O O < r·. G .7 O n ID V1 U 'r n V q,
 :`< : r O ,': " n n G H G U Y n ID n Y '1 a O n N ID C b n r. G r· H )·- n ;3 R
 Y L: i V~ :7 'O " J P N O n a N rn a tT H n r~ n i1 0 O r· U, a n IT < C.
 n :7 rJ a' . _ n 0 O N n _^' rt a <' N O (TJ a n R `< nl n· R G H r -. '-·, n M in a .. () ' (A ;;. r. r
 ·.· r n J. r' _ n a 'D O P N n O ur O n P n (~ r-· 7 :n a p rr G R R ~~ n H rt ul
 U ,^·a VI n 'V R 'a () R 'O '-n ID H r·- r! n n Y· O ... n G fT R rT G G % r4 S-. .T rJ n R '1 n fi n 'D
 n u t) ·~ '1' n, N R r-· 't f1 KJ r. ,r ^ O LJ. ` 1'J ri n :Y a I7 V FD t:l f- n n : rt 7 (T .~ V G R G
 n n 3 M H ,v yr G :T' r· 4l. c' Ill H C a ··. (V Y. rl Y· (D IT-1 13 ul r·. (. fJ G 17 H r. a n ^,
 UG n G )l 'n IV ID r- n N In fD G ·· a 'D n G fr n n r. O I-, S N :7 T1 n :Y f; U O fl
 r., H r1 In ,... DI 'o n a a H H n r- n, M ".· H r· n .-.,: ·D u o <· :7 p. n .n V) .-. c n N c. - a -r p n
 H G n ^t u, O a ? ru N to r. O rt n r. ·.~ a r· W Y- n LT a n n n R a R <7 M :i
 :J :DY Nr: r?r O r. IInJ IJ Jr VR rrt. IVn a III UYV· H rY ... H I:77 1--· t:. VHH ,T· rH·· ,rt_· nlJ · O·n ·nt MY- fn· nrt n r n- rR·- 7 n , ()~ nz 13

                                - O m GO R n

R l:J Y. 1-n G a H p rt n G 1 Vl a R a t)1 r. Y. n a C. H V. H N'D C-) R rt v C) '~ rT-

    H r n 1 r.. R H R N O N G G n. H G In o N r. :r n

    n U 1 V. to :J r: f~ n :Y N r-· .T J `< n n 1

                      Cy, v, ul vl 0. n n r P.

close relation i n ti^.in_ t~^_ reduction in To-cr f·_nc:io:a due to to static;; transfer, and the Carrier's o~an declaration to the ICC lead to the conclusion that th_ Tower s~.utdovn Was part and p°rcel of the station. ccord':-ation so t'-at tic aboli::ion of the Tower jobs entitles Tc;;er-.an L. B. Smith to the protection of the A.-reccent.

 DE C IS IC'1:

    The relocation of the forr=r Lackawa-nn pasEen`er station in t;.e former "Erie

                                          _

Freight :-,rd O:fice in c,uf<_aolo cons tituted a coordination within the meaning Section 2(a). Accordingly Claimant L1. S. Littt11 s test pcriod sho;:ld be recomputed in accordance wita .',^a princi, lea discus sod in the Fi:auir.,.^,s.., The shutdec:;1 of to Plichizan Ave^uc Tc:c r vas part and parcel of '.,._ nasscn-lcr static:: shutdc~yn so tat the abolition o_` his To-.rerr.:an job entitled L. 3. S ·zitt: to tl:c ;rote=tion o= ac ;,3recment.

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


            DOC::ET ::0, 133 --- Dccisio=z by Pngere^_ nernstcin


Transportation-Co=,inicdtion Employees Union )

          VS. ) Parties to the Dispute


Eric -Lackawanna Pailroad Company )

 UEQ STIO:::

 "How lon3 is the protective period of 1!. A. Goetz, who was employed by the Carrier for a period of si:c (6) months prim:- to the effective date of Interstate Co-.-crcc Commission Order _.^. Finance Doc:;et `:o. 2070? in the marZer of t:ze Delaware, Iack_;;anna and Western and Erie Railroads?"

 FIITI\GS:

    The Inplementi-.g Agreement in this case provides:


        "Erceuas modified by I.C.C. Finance Docket No. 20702 and this Agree^e^t, the terns and provisions of the :Iashington AGreecont shall apply in all respects..4


The Co.=ission had ordered the protective co-ditions of the ::e·.: Orleans Union PasscnDer Terminal Case. In turn the i;e·. Or lc,~ns Condition., co-prisc the O:;iah:.,-,a Co::---
            _

lions covcri.^.0 e-,ployees adversely a. coed within fcur years <mom the efrect=v-=
 ., _
 date o< . t:;c Co-.-,fission order . . . as a r_? _ aid i= an ind:vid~,:a1 t,:us .ece;ves

 less tl::.n ;:cold be payable u.-:dcr the :.'as' nZton n-rcon:nt lie is to :aceive all t:~at
 ,_ _ "<_, _ <Uii
          .:r -, _. pr: t._.,. ~ ^_ C'~ tf`er- . rovidled . until

he would lr~ .t .ic .._ ..-
 total cc:., `nsntory b,::ef_ts provided-t::crc=·. for his parcicular period of serv_ca
 have bc_::cn;ld." Condit_on 4 of the O:;ILI_o^_ Condi^4ons limits p-- tect-on a_=ter the
        · ' ,

effective data of t.:e Co.-:-.:_ssion order to a period equal to the _ ployces scrv_ce prior to that date.

                            - 203 -

    C1ai-ant. M. A. Gccrz !;ad fcuir :Ton thi and ',"en :y ~ - *,.`V ., days scY It' .c_ pr io..r tc t!-o

effc:Ctive date cf the c-dtr. li1C Ca(rlcr ai~arts il:::tuncec the Ag"=2rianC '-.nd the
 Ncto Orl: ,- Conditions h.is pre^-ect_;c pcric:l -.-.red f_-,r n.onths _nd twenty-two days
 after tli- effective dat:_ of cl:e Co:%nissian' erue:.

 The Cr=~)nizaticn ar,,^,uo~ that the tun:. 1i-·it provisi-n ;;f `loadicicn = eras extingu'_s!1·:c by the Sup r3.:: Court's d:cis.zn in :h:':e:a Ctleans case (1:A1u_y labor E\eCLtiV_ii ASCOCiatiOn V. U. J., 319 l.. ;., ll2 (.1;1jrj~) _r.d C!'.c rC·avission's .subseqL^nt ol-d': Origirally ttiC CC:i~iissl0'·l, Ctin_ jn-^.T Section i 12)(f) of the Interstate Cv-m3YCC Act, tCld 'hat iC C_·uld ~:'d=! n0 (are t%,an fCt:r y'CaY's pLCt^-C tion in a CO^· nsalidatlon case bccauie ul'_C Acr s0 dcrAaTed Tno statutory langua~i_ in disp utc c,aas .

    ·As a cf?__:dition of its apprOValy l:ndir C\-·.1> pJCa~r.jl`.li (2), of any traTnsar ~0i

                                                        1

    involving .. carrier or carriers by railc7ad subject to the pYCl;isions of this part, the CC,'-,issiCn s'.iall rcyu1l'C ,i f_ir a'id cri,iitable arran^_m_nt to protCCt the incezests of Cie railroad cnplo';c^=s :ffccted, In its crcc: of approval the Commission sl:a11 include corms and :or.:.'1_i~ns prelridiat',at durinG the period of four years frCa the cffeCtive date of ::r-C!1 C-dcr :,'-Ch trans:ction will not result in employees of the carrier cc carrier=- by railroad affected by such order bein. -n a worse. position wi:h rcsn,cct to a:ci_ es:,loy-ent, except that the protection affCYd~d to any emplcyC. pUY~uans to this °_enrfnC·-: s^.=ll net be required to COntinic^ for a 10'1^Cr- period, followinge th3 effectiq'e date' of such order, than tile period during Whirl: such cx'p1CyC= 'as is the cm.Oloy of such carrier or carriers prior to the effecti;c d.-re of such order,


In that case the Or,n,anizations ar`-eCU tl13t tie ii-P limit3 Of the scond sentence gave the Ccn-ressicnal cor.-and as tc rile mini-'.l.= er;ceccion to be afford: d. :a~ile. tile first sentence gave the Cc-:missicn disci=tion c: crd=r pr:te.cti-n ^:yond that period as would be fair and Lqu2.table. the Court ells=':need ;,ith t!ais nterpretaticn, saying:

    The second sentence thus cave a linnet? ;cope c^ the 1!arringicrl Am2nd'r-ent and

    made it wc-rkable by p'uttino a ti%:. li·T'tC .-

    pen its 00- rc;i.se prohibitory effect. There was no comparable ne=d for such a re striccicn ucon t?-e first sentence, 51e find, Ch?refcre, t1lar tile tun°_ limit in tll: second s_:,tenC°_ n0:7 aDpli-°_ to it and to it alone. As thus limited, that sentence adds a nec-· guaranty of protecticn for tile interests of er:plCy-Ces, 1.:1tlvCut restricting 'he Cornissicn > power to r wire greater prctecticn as part. of a fair a:ld equitable arranga ment.


On remand the Co-_,-.lission r·:srondcd ?:v amcndln= :ts crd=r to dad theUashirnigton Agrsemellt protection to the Cklatcrla ~el;'i::ons. :h:3 ee%tinguishcd iha ti-,e limits contained i-1 Condition 6 both by the ccr:.~: of tn=. ;cer~-.a Co-jrt incercretaticn of Section S (2) (f) ..-^.d the l:nua-e in which t!-= C,:-.^issiCn cast its o=der. The Carriers argue that a1a;0ar'1 th22 SuprCfl=' Co·:rt roz-'' -h= F!r>C Cord=n -. the second senCCnce cf

      r

Section ~(_')(f) Crclat_n to a four vC;r ;.-ctccc:·r:: p:r>.od]..s nc li^icatiCn upon the first serltencc calling ft.: "fait- and eyl.c_~l^" =nplo;ne protcct_,:- ccnditi,ns: the limitation of ho sccon? portion of SCzt'ion 5 (?; tf? Cli,l>_cing ea,Cft CcployeCs pratective p=riod~to :: pcr:cd equal to his e·.:n pre-ccordrnacian servic] docs --peratc
 as such a limit. But such a construction. see^s wholly u-tqnabie.*

 Nonetheless, Carriers argue thct the words fur his particular period of service" ill the NGw Orleans Conditions p nss2oe C;'ucted above lntitateo that the Com-

 mission retained the ti -e limit of ~o nditi:.n (. But the \ew Orleans Co-diticns there refers to the Svashingtcn :ar.._.^ant a::d aretty clearly refers to the benefits under Section 7 which vary accordin, to the individual claimant's period of service.

 DECISION:

    Both the Ioolementing Agreement and the :.'av Orleans Conditions insure that

                                    i

Claim-ant Goetz, as employee _continued in service,i is untitled to the full five
                            · '

years protection o< . Section 5 of t;._ ;a. s1:n.,Le: Agreement without the rice limitation contained in O:;laor.a Condition

 * When 1 orally presented my tentative opinions to the Committee I indicated a
 contrary view because, prior to t!iat ti-,e, the conseq·_=noes of the S--:pre-e
 Court decision had not been fully impressed upon me. Subsequently, while
 sitting as _-Aaneutral member of a special Board of Arbitration on a set of 47ash
 ' ....inton.Agreement cases involving t::e Erie-LaCkawanna (the Carrier party
 to this case) and the Clerks, I heard ar.-uclent on a similar issue turning
 upon the effect of the Supreme Co.:rt decision.. There I was persua?ed of the
 error of my tentative conclusion in this ca.=,e and I info--ed the Cc-,,ittee
 and asked for further arou-:ent on the issue here, which was presented. How
 ever, I was not repersuaded.

                              -205-

DOC;= ;:0. 1z!_ _-_ nc,.:_;.,., t·.. r·,cc

 Brotherl°cod of Railway and Stca7:`ip CLcr:a,
 Freight :Ir.ndlcrs, S::press a.^d Stan=ion Emplo%-2es )
 Par ties to the Dispute
            and )


                                      )

Missouri Pacific Railroad - Gulf District )

 QUGSTIO:·.:

      _

      Is S7. J. Colman, wh.ae o,ork was transf-.red ~.cm Palestine, Te>:as to St. Louis,

Missouri, and=-r ,.he terms of a.. ;Drec=^t deco;! nc_e_m5er 1~L1962, _^.21e-_-:tin3 _,e
            _ ,

lrashinCtcn -rcc.:ent ent:.tled to ·t;c protect ., se- Section 11 ^_ ". in
 ton A^arec.'~c::t for lossC's incurr~_ in tI:C ,.ale c= his h.-:e at icss than its -,air value
 t:·hen he elected t0 r-ma;.n c1 hi.s -c..c read an^.., chan.-e his place of residence and dis
 place a junic=- employee at Houston, Texas:

 FINDI';GS
Claimant's job at Palestine, Texas ;.:as abolished and the work transferred to St. Louis, :-Iissouri as par= of nn ad^itted coordination. II_s chit: is for the protection affors-2d by Sectica li, ind-ctity aZai~st loss cc_casioned by the sale of a
                                        .

home at less than its fair value. Section 11 applies ,to any emplc;·ee who is retained in the service of any of the carriers invol··ed _., a particular coordination ... who is required to chanSe ti:a point o= his employment as a result of- such coordination and is therefore required to -:ove his place of res_de:ce . . " The Carrier contends that the I:.Iplemcnt?=3 :.3_cc-en t i:. this coora'_nat_on made·Sccticn 11 benefits available only to_hose at Palestira l·:_J folicaccd their work to St. Louis. Claimant did not do so. Instead he ecr::_sed :tis seniority o;t his ao:.:c district and obtained a position in Houston, Texas, so,~_ 150 miles a:·ay. It is this move and conse quent sale of his Palestine homc c;hich is thc'subject of the claim.

    The Carrier points to the following lanl a.-e of the implementing. agreement:


    Those employees who are furlou,,had as a result of this coordination who do not transfer seniority to St. Lcuis under the terms of this agreement will not be entlEled to benefits under th·c :..a;._n~te-t Agreement of slay 21, 1936. Those em?loyees _.. Seniority Districts 7, i9, and 22 who arc affected by this coordination as ,revised for under t'aa ter.-s of this asrcem^=,.t will be protected by being paid displac=.-.;:-t a11~-a.._^s as providcd for in the ;Ia>hir.Dton Agrec=nt of 1-1-y 21, 1936, h,it only u:-ile `.·iolding regular ass_3nmants in Districts 7, 19, or 22.


Claimant ::as _.: t':c s_cond eate~cry. The Carrier asserts that this languag^_ affirmatively states all of thc benefits due thcs- in the described cats-ories :;',-o did not go to St. Louis. It further clams, . it:ao__ con=radiation, t^at in all o_` its prior coordinaticns Section 11 allowances tare paid _alv to those who follo·.:cd their jobs. It alai:-: e·.,... more - that su--h is the .,.,._.. o_ -2__ion 11; best t:~at inter?retrtion finds sc;>- _. :c_tltcr _n the la·:3.>>C o: t:.- Scztion nor at:y ,rec_se::t otl·er th,1n, J Perhaps, its c::n pr::cticc.

                            - 206 -

    The Organization asserts th;:t the Implementing Agr:erent conferred Section 11 allowances by this ia-nSua.1e:


        - "Article IV of the agn-e-meat of December 7, 1902, shall be applicable to those affected by this coor~'ination."


        That article in a companion Implel;cnting ."_grec-ent deals with roving a11o:r-

    antes a.^.d protection for szle of homes, z-eng other thin.-s. T.he first portion deal

    ing With MOVing a11c-_;a:!ces Seems to be limiccd to these .moving to St. Louis. The

    second, .,,h;-ch concerns protection for thcso selling their homes, concerns proced

    ures ures; ti:Cre i5 n0 OCCasiOn tOr L__ltiOn of any plaCC Ctner :-^-a: t: ,1C location which

    the erp ioycc is lea~in;;. The pro::imity .,f t^-12 tn:o sections plus t';c similarity of

    the lanl-ua,.e of Section 10 of the WashinStcn .?I-ree-_nnt dealing with eliZibility for

    moving allowances, buttresses the argu:int that both 4%a:C being C'-;tended only to

    .those roving to St. Louis.


    The first quotation -from the Imple.-.entino Areeme.^,t can be read as the Carrier claims; it is consistent faith the barg:_..in~ it describes and the interpretation it places upon Article IV - r-emu of which the 1'--piey=a sub-mission attempts to contradict or explain array except in pointing cut that Article IV is "applicable to those affected by this coordination."


        Moreover, in other respects the Inplcaenti:.g Agreement apparently confers

    ,e~ markedly less protection than the Washinl-ton Agreement ..,culd afford - which lends additional cogency to the Carrier's contention.


        For all of these reasons the claim is denied.


    DECISION:


        Claim denied. -


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


                DOCf= i\0. 13> --- Decis'_on by Referee B:rnstein


    Trans portation"omnunication Employees Union )


              and ) Parties to the Dispute


    The Erie -Lackawanna Railroad Co. )


    QUEESTIO-;:


    "Is :I. J. 1:eegan, who t-as an extra c-.ployce when regularly assigned employees reverted t0 tl!C e'.:tra list as a result O°_ the Bingnamton-Gibson ccO:-d=nation, Cn titled to a displ;.cc:-.crt alic-.lance?"


    FIN:JI::~.3


    Pursti-t to nn 7-·.plcrcntin.~.~-ree-·c:·t o: Au-u st, 1959, Tele;ra"hers l;nr': at Scrlnt.o^:·. ,...s t:·,e ~.lb~cct of c;~or.ii:::tio::. as a rcsult, a rerular posit_on wld.=r


                                - 207 -

f~ was displaced and reverted to extra st-_us, t'lera%y -educiin', Cla,~7,ant, Mr
 Keegan, from the third to fourth senior; L" posit=c-. ,-l t!;e seniority _ist from l.:hic'l
 extra wor:c was assi1;cd in orrler of seniority. i=l.:ut ccntrovorsy ::r. "eegan was
                    - -e

    in extra-status both ca.ore and at--~r _ th..r _ ccoru_lc=.c_., rairier paid him a dis

    placement allowance from "ovember. 1959 throe'--;, April 1960 wlieri it discontinacd do?.-.,,

    so on the ground that he had ret-,:rn(cd; to =he so.-,,2 ralativc positicn on the extra

    board, (and) he is considered at that ti^= as no: '~c_ng in a gorse position ;with

    ,. ·, respect to his co-;,ensation or l.;er::..ng conditions."


    Carrier now justifies the venial of subseuset claims on the Ground that .^.o extra e-.; loyen is e1i;ible for ,. displacec.cnt all^:%ance; it also, despite the terminoloy of its o:;n statement just quoted, dcnics tl:a:t there was a Te1e,rcp"er `s extra bcc-d on this propc-rty. The for^__ payments to :!_-. 11':!c-an; it asserts, were made unc'ar a mista::cn censtr·,_:ction of tho ::ashington 1Srcar:ent which should net Pr-2ju-

    -c,~,_ ~ .,._..

    dice iC: p051ti0:: ., _'C. t~(pr-CllCly c: .iSt<,.,u..·intCrprC'_ati0;1, S:a1Cli 4'a5 rOL10:;ed

    for a considerable -Lima, corresponds to t:',e interpretation which I give to Sections 6

    and 7 as re,ards _::e eiiSibi.lity of ext_ . 0--:1cyees -.s core fully presented in Doc;=t

    No. 103. While tile Carrier is not forcclcsed by its former view, that former view

    has some value as evidence of practice unccr Section o. For the reasons set fort:l

    in Docket :;o, i0u, the Carrier's ground for denial is rejected; it abandoned, as it

    had to; the ground that by regaininthe third seniority position the Claimant had

    overcome the adverse effect of the coordination.


    It also is worthy o_` comment that the Ciainant's test perio'' average monthly hours were 113.10; in other lords, during tile twelve months prior to his adverse effect in which he had employmcet he had w~rl;ed 25 hours a ::eel;, showing a very substantial attachment to his wer:c s.s a Telc-rapher for the Carrier.


    As there is no dispute that Mr. :ieeoan's lol~cred compensation was caused by the coordination, tha only issue being that of eligibility, it follows that his claim was improperly denied.


    DECISION:


    The Carrier violated the Agreement whcn it denied Claimant Keegan a displscerant allowance; contrary to Carrier's contention, !Iv. Keegan was eligible =or such an allowance as an employee who ,corked extra both before and after the coordination.


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

              ~-t··t. __::~/. T.- r,_/f r7 , ~~' !.'.7 ~li~ r

              ZZ 'Y:, ._r .,t.~ 1`~_' ,

              I·,._. ( _,. . . _. ,i ... , _ :i.i. .% _~_ ..... i_, r,·J.·~. a _.`r::J.


              rrt~:- ._ ,.-. _ _,. _. __ `,,rte, n._ . · .~i,

. ir i~ !! l-:.i::., ·_. !:i.i ·,i.:::J . .,~ Ji .~f. 1/
                                          f:i::...~).;.,~


              AFL-C1-r)-CLC C. L. DENNIS


nr A·oCr·n Un.on ..<7n InrA.pvr
                                  File 469-2-11


                            Subject: Washington Job Protection Agreemeat -

                            Awards - Section 13 Collmittee


                                  Circular No.43-69


                                  May 29, 1969


      ALL RAILROAD GENERAL CiUIR::EY


      Dear Sirs and Brothers:


      On April 29 and 30, 1969, Referee David O. Dolnick handed down decisions in eight Section 13 Co=:aittee dockets that he tied heard on January 27 and 28, 1969. Copies of these decisions are attached for your files and information.


      The only case involving Clerks is Docket No. 136 involving the Memphis Union Station Co:,pany. In this docket, Referee Dolnick deviated from the decision of Referee :i. C. Bernstein in Docket No. 140 involving about the sane issue. You will recall that in Docket No. 140 Referee Bernstein reversed previous holdings that were set forth in Dockets 47, 51 and 59. F:eferee ,Dolnick reasoned that at the time the Necphis Union Station transaction occurred the carriers were entitled to rely upon the decisions in Dockets 47, 51 and 59. Ile indicates that the carriers had no notice before April 1, 1964 that the interpretations set out in those awards would be changed. In view of his reasoning in this case, it is ;:y opinion that notwit;istanding the denial decision in Docket No. 136, the decision in Docket No. 140 is still corftrolling with respect co transactions of the nature covered by Docket No. 140.


                                  Sincerely and fraternally,


                                  47'~9


                                  International President


      cc: Grand Lode Officers

      Regional .. District 1'1epresentativcs


          0` anizer;; .:.A-.

          File 1:69-5(1/::.)

          hockci ::o. 136


    GRA':D t.0D02/C:I,'TllfI,::D(>D DJILDIr:G . 1015 \'::L : TIILFT, CI':CI::.VAT1, OVi10 4570? - ILL: 51?.:771-.'''.'.(1

Docket No. 136

 , SECTION 13 COAMITTEE
 AGREEMENT Of AAY 21., 19351 1ACOIUGTU?d, !1.
 (fiA5llINCTUV JCl3 Pia)T(:CTIVN AGREEMENT)

 _PARTIL S drothcrh^od of 1;a i l;i y and Stcranship
 7Cl'- Clarks, Freight 7!:adlers, Erpre:s and Station Employees
 L. T:`
 r~.'UTii:

 and

 ,tfo:?pllis Union SL-,-_°.ien CGIv?cny
 Louisville t, ::w1:._llc Railrond Company
 wL.e'.s0:=ki'i.C-1sC ('·:rila'C<.d COilpe'lny
 JOUhC_a 7.:a...:Cy System
 Ste LC31au"J,^.L~tl'.._..W:ra 1:·.7fI:J'J)' L1T39.^a
 Illinois Central Railroad Company

 i)U!::iKf':! r.1L').!7 GI 1:1:0 Sfs:'C::.` l.oF:.'ai2t'Jd of (;h0 t)rw^,W8ic.n'.s5 til'st:
 /·.l ( ) (' ~__- ':1 : lf:'. ffe:'.hai::v r- $%LlelOn YIO;:C and ::V;:ViC('..`.i Nom
                                                    .1

''."'-"~." the t-:., p`'~: Ua:.!::'7 Station Conp::ny ..o t!:c G;;il?.s- lzc
 and slsa::'villa it;.ia11aa:i::'C:.pa:1)'p the Missouri 1·`':Cnf36 1:O.S'.'.-,~:a COi:jW!f,
 1.110 .SC.'.:iih'v'':1 i:1·.hi.i^.j h`IC`'C']3 t):.", Ste LQ.,.17°JCuia7liv5;::Ii'n Railway i.._
 :':iand f:.aa· ',.'I1.l4,.'·30i°W.C__. .°..HiM& Co0=;?,^a and subject to (1CGCa'd..U: Ca- of f~ ."aCij 31'
 (aEG 1'lt,`.:.'JW d ~v·LYU~,) ra'J ._WlMWJ wn`e ~~1)j1,WL to Cho 4',`,~i~ cad
 GOPWRb?C:;J of the f:cC171.7"a i.Cf1t:14,a'U.l:.^.nie

 (b) The Carriers violated the torr,a end conditions of the lic:.:o!17.Pgi:U11 Q:CcL;::iSt: when Choy failed t0 furnish `J Section ri n.Ot:7.CC 0f dF:;;::JC1:C:d CC,'l;,'d7.11.'.%iCll =as ~failed-and YOM& t0 :'.',7;)sy C11C
 toms and conditions of the Q1'w...-:ant for the protection G£ the
 employes r::ec:Qd by the ecordtn^tioa'.

 (c) The Carriers violated tile terms an? conditions of the iW Fail!.i:;tOFl i!"1'C.'.::YC;Iit '.;hCil they COQ>Gi7lutCd tf%I':yvf71.5 Union StCati0:1 S:O:iv !:itll hei!i.°'vlli.a .,:d :i:v5::',_1_1,^, !.'G1'!u, iflll.>nUTf·1 Pi.Q1.fiC 1:C:::, South:-..'n fior!:, Jt . LC;_...,^;i04'.:,h-Js t C:ll SiC"'iC .^.17:1 1.1J.i;1Qi- (.C::.:r% 1 l·'O1'i: tflt;liC-i!o z:1 i.j?r-::L'.<'.R-.'. for til^~.'::).cC21C;1 of forces £uUa the ., plUy'u::: of all the Carriers involved cs royu::ed by Section 5.

 (d) Tilc ::c:r:'isl's shall now be roqui:c:d to r:.tore the s taws q!!0 Zia %1)(7).f all the terns and conditions O: the .'1?1'UC'^Cfil: t0 Cho CQC7rd:.11.v1C:75 111?'Ul1'ad.

 FI::Dit.';:;; the ;,rnnis laic? Station, I;rcz:nutc: r fcYrecto rs
 Union ...:)a:, Js F_ SC;O::r;t0 nh:i cast?.7.C', CC: .1_'l^

 ....1: n..^.L',. 1:10 WC of J!:.._._ of v

 !i>,..:3i.iQg Carriers (5!: ..M715)' li_~:c:

 .r

 r..ati.u). :!; ;:.r:e boon

 TonvLossa Q My. F00 (5)
 in the record), each own one-fifth of the capital stool. of the union-station, Company. In acvenhcr 1909 each of the same operating Carriers (each also :: separate and alstiRct corporate entitl·) entered into -r. written arcc: ant with the Union Station under which coch

                                    - . ·'' 13 i

agreed t0 use the U7iSGn Station facilities for tllCir ,i"..".S:."t.T;g,;i trI1. lno UK= $tatiC1 performed such SCyV1ecs for the epcrotin? Carrier:; as sollinA KOM, WON; bzgj:_w, handling rail, passenger scr YlceS. switching, r-:pairs to otju ,-.ant, etc. In other woris, those oltcrctin^ Carriers bacane tenants of L:_^ Unon SP. :t?ion Coopsny and paid agreed upon fc;a to the Unics Station for t'no scrviees rrncwred.lln"..__°:.l Rnilrvo'l Comp=:7y na?Yc:r had a?:1 does not

 i.~_. , Cei.
 T_^w !::_.1 L? prop'rictnry ln~nvs:t .^. The '":·1'KiS Union Stn ;ion Company.
 ILn`.VJ: 7'.·'0 0,rSGyVIc' . C the IJnicn so·.tion, rdld it nercy was f
 tonyyn~ of .`c!::-. L:.n S:Ani-cn. 5'ho i1110c.C:onual had hod -.1:' now
 ,.
 I)S it;: own ;'.:.,:5:(!1;Ct ,5:._tC'!1 f2 La ::T:l::.S, Ln~:Ji:M i... C:C1:LI':'.1 Onion.

 · Each I.a'i_1,:<` '.ia:::·...:1; Gtiti ^I'(:e:..=.·':Or, including the
 d __. .alo opts ·~., ·s _..
 this 7ozd.._:_ and 1.'1::1: Mcr M-.n t:'"Sisirt.icn:i l:~ali.^-..'.C:ilt'if_,,
      '

avhor c;;:: ts,

 Men C:::: Nun.. _. I. 1990 ·gmimnnt anpived ca April 19
 7:.4:. (.h,7 op'... _...:.. g 1, _.?.1 .J _...._,u .i7 .. :r. ... o^ G'1 th! Union On
 ' Ltjo'·_?t all C.::: .'nctus! :':l`-SooL n.yo .._'.. lt: ..n .; p`.zc:agor ne.vic:
 Mau MIMS `an of rho vascn·EvAcarccn-_vda

 EM C"...,: o. ".p;'; J 1_ :.Sh i 2 h. WHOM q .'Xa^17 i·illo RON
 'ran: c'. ;p : :y Loaf':"-°`n tonLa% ,'.Y On C.'"n·Oni Motion ·!)f W 1110'70
 C"·n'"·.': a! l a.Ryand LCI. .lLnF C .:1' _ MY=^· ... l'rCAF ICbeg:n :7 Opcrac its
 ly.^;:=.'^,:z n 5.... ._,:'. d.·-n CC the ca[::'aS.: _z V,;<_MSc; of WCn M.;°
 vay t.'. .:J:!; ; SOMQ7n C; .... ay S,,..: a"i:-_; o·v°. god it,` ann I:roscnicr
 toeW;al s..i'·-.icu^ n oz its May'h WKW4 S`-rL;'a: f:0';ht Uou:c a
 ._ :hir Sfd'z% !onc I: aEp- ,'e. "i W. 1.['!_ .^ i':!lt~.':fC,',t..:li Thai?...-y Lincs
 opa_ und L:..: iacst p..zur :t' t. ,in .... v_ "v-lphi° i. Mahc; ;;1, 11912
 On& ·'its inno pssurn.v'- tvriil 1: .. 'phi.i on `Jv'er4cr :., 1952. ULson
 Stn.tl·il 11:1'I=.:r:i's.:_.I 'i.-'% s:urvica ~ r SS . Knc that ld'_tz. 1.::CI !iu Ra
 St.'. t] ca1hoy'j)cr:G:.ulhao .:(;.L MY QU since M._.whcr·1, 1.::52.
    .L.iC 7 .;.i... .


                                        t _

            Ia:p)oya: contend twit 2`7.:.a van ll .coc.rtii.^aa:ic_" : uid,·:r

                              . t , ~ ::d


the I.
 t!lC A_!11::.rtC':1 .iC`U !'1'V`:_...^.Lzeil QY;·G:".^.:i: W)..,_.,.L.::C L nlC: CorT'iev rinndov:
                                                        n: dn


          .. ^..;c. - s ,! t.j1 -. :'i=d LhC t i

      :.J1 Ji:..~a fa`.i.i....,.1Ca1....C,.1a C? April ., 17U; 80: tl110:'.:i':S1.CpnsLC!Ia;Gr n:iuSCcs to other facilities as Move .Set forth .


            At t17= cu=set, it :houY b2 nw.?od that the Illinois

Con:. al acvyoperatC_I Cut G: ti:.. Ua:Gn StoAca f,llci n'o.ver hail 3 prv,_'aet0r; inoc.v.st i.a tho Union Station ec:pcrat^ structuro, hilt`_a 7.S no c:l%:a?!'C in till record shooing ;that tho trnn:iQr Of t
                                          ' 1


                            -Z.

the LY passenger service to the Central Station of the Illinois
 Central was 1 "joint action... to C:aify, t consolidate, nter 9C: or nool't
 the facilities of the two Car:ie-s: LAN voluntarily ilecau:c 1 ten
 ant of the Illinois Central. I2 gas naithor n "joint action"'nor
 a "coordination" coatcmplatod 1n Section 2(a) of the ti2Shington
 Job Protection Agreement. '

            .it. Louis-Soethoestorn Railway Lines abandoned its

passenger trains at 2-1=rphis or. November 1, 19=2. The Union Station
 horfolzod no services for t1:3 5$:i sl%:o then. TH' Pore f:.n al=3
 that the 334 re^ains a stochaol_Jer in the Union Oction Core;l=ny flees
 , 1
 not roan to it ass ^ ... party i0 1 CO'v_d_n`.i;1a:1t aC defined in said
 Section 2(F). It did unify, co:COliCIGn, Uorgu or pool any of
 its haysiczl pro;torty joint?.y with eny of the oth:_- naked operating
 Carriers or 4it4 the Union Station COT: any.

                                            dhilo it is not r:a5datowy that arbitration precedents ency in the

.re
 be followed, it is c;.,:..iroO'·_c that the~;: be a cosist
 -interpretation of an C313snont. UcO9t N0. 51 e:'_0 with C b"C'y
 similar situ.-tion unOi %hasawe A·!rccnen.n The ~ Marco hold that
 thttco:,..; ..x n" ..a: Ce::·wt.an Cho ~·. t i
    a,..rc u: nc c:.~r-:.:.,..,._ o_n. ii ..,,..- i.n , t,-~tlr:~t: .n Jol

Protoct.on t:^'a':. .o-::.. IC ccm`)a. nbl's innop:. 00Cn 5:.;,:,; once sa Docht
 \U. 47. Although in U=Loot i0. 52; t '1..^. ROTL07Ji Cialr:=:,':CI CC= MiS°
 bivin6s about the f1%Qn3S in Vo hots' No$. r:% cod ?1. h0 fol10wQd
 their cC"elusion s. th said: ,

            ··In t:caao:t:#.vy with the prx_o: c.sc:s2caa on sir.liF.c:.- itbuYa in Uoc':ct., Nos. al :n4 470 I

            eonclu'l^o that tho tioasfor of the llOrl: of the -

            Lrio ::nu r:sbaah :'c-1 the: C&l:I to CV1 Bureau

            was not a coordination".


Upon thono three well coWid;,l-ed P-roroWnts ulonc it
 would have b0(::: duiirsbW tQ conCia'l-(- that the =Asctienn of
 April 1, 1:16·1 in tills case writ also `nUt .~,OJillie''~.l~li°., But the.
 itcf:reu in Docket No. 59 reverse! hiii-.salf i11 Uockat 1o. 140. To
 justify taf: application of thQ pfinc_7ia5 1n oi:e or the War pre
 C060!tts requi:cs F·. carwfu?- .ell: 1 '.iii U·f tAC' Enlis`'s in C'C Ch o1 the
 Dochot3 ::;lC rc.·:'io··: of 't'1o contractU;11 '.'.?.:... CppliC:Jl.c to the
 intvrprczntion° of n;·~;e_2nt=:. This Rofc.we.is not onwiilinA: to
 accept 1.11:. obl_h .;aoa· :1t duty t0 Lib to. ' ut uaOchlr vole cf cOrl
 tract interpretation Cn isia'. in this. case which "ekes C thorough
 detailed review-of the basic holdin_.°. unnCco:gnry.

 The d;tC:f..^.i0:1 in .)D:a.(;2 NO. 140 1!2.i ro1earCd 1C':13 .^.M7 April 1, 104 and Mar this t!lsputc 1:.a.; lO;;OWd to the Conp=i:te, a The: l.f'rriovs 1101'0 ::!:..:c only ef the dociniO^L i:. DOek'JtC NGC. 47,

 LIlU ' ^ of such a situnticap ,tile ROfer0e ill LOchot
 U ~t`.·. 11...~.i1C CO_nliF..::C::~ :^
 -lo, 140 &nid:

                            - J.a

            'In this Casa, Southern ...miEnt have argued

            that th, ..

            a

                  r:·' of taC Washington

      Avroen= governing this kind of situation

      ' s)looml ^U be changed Vithout notice and that

            it tJ05 cn?ir.lA :,o rely upon the intcri\retat:oll

            of S-:::: a~reonwn t in Docho t ; 51, 47 and 59; and

            T could havc __, n5d."


            Ush or tllo CoMor p.=t1C> " '

                                    to this 7)c. c3tr


tin:. All i%_ :h.m ..vlict c:`. %&'W2V;)'_t_tiCPnCc~mfvwo had ein''D^kC.; NC; 47, SA ^:. Pat ..._ .l'. IN Lii'il_. 1:i, ,:,::4 Mh'iilrc hailrand com'7n:y 12 its srw .-nunt No-:S A_ '.,C .- 23, ?DAB says:
            >.· .' '.,' Allnu at

            i·:JM(. _..._ [:n .`_ 'I t .. _'3r. "ha. _ O~ M ' _;.i .d Up::.


          ' t,ry0.,:f ms's: s' :s i'rn~At'vn 1ri

          itot :?; > `:°_ S ./ n...; S.. , _r ,t .7 1.r. .,c

          .a f,:' p r (,n:~: first :'.

          Ii.]ia: vita Qns" ..:...::·y' a;. 1031, o:.$ "y"` nw

    ., U<: W.hA_4 _ M.r,AK:o 7 'a; 103, lice ·t.^'? ),.

            HSU nsra, thon our y.~ _,i`.f';t' c'n VMS

            mv'in . . 101 : :i A;t f :_. .C : i:S VC&^. ^_ s

            Via 7 <· · M a, ..) M. .- . _ `r


            cninit: 00 ' .3 4_'031'. .;i j ! MAPS I: ·' :7s. '

            59. 101Jl;12 co. G;'=., C.·.,._ i;irJ .... M W'.:

              a=: - ~·L;., (.r.. ~K A ,,l ..p 1,o ..,a·


            WeA<.,; ara =0'1f A _a ;·_1y ·.i"m the ~ _ .~.: ~::

\ cax'i ;' c. .
 in U7001=1 Mon. 53 ·'4 .:f. They M so noWco 3.::unfu'."J·,r`r^'al 7
            ? `;; _ :iC._.. ,. M · i:,. i^ .. . :r,^7, ,


Chni,cd. 1'i: MJ rersrl= :l norat i:s rh. in y)· .,
    ma CGOrdal.t sAn, War ·tho sihrn_ws: r' · i ...(~_J,r : a

      :y_r.;i a.a~., ... V Job 1.r·..:iJ~l l :11 iL':.._.W .


                            '! r 1


            (ta) For the rovsam vat forth in the 1'i:div MM


1r
 .'3'3 ao coqAtl; 4aon undTTr tile d:shinj;m .A;, MUM= Q=LM

            (b) Sinco thor'. was no cosAinst_c: a: notiCa .acs

nacuosary is huan.C:Ma i.r: Saaclion 1 of that f.g" a.

 For the cna° racoon y ca "zalmant i; rCOu1:_'d F.5
 prurid2d in AM= ,, , a Qln .. T.

            (d) i:cC.^.^.uso of (n), (b) a:m (c) Mo::, the Csrricns ::.'c:


                            t:

                            04_

not required to re-itore t;ie status itio and apply the terns and conditions of said :1- rec:.ient to the enployes involved in this ;)c)chet. Erecutcd at dasiiington, U. c:. Lhise~ley of April, 1969. , .

                          1)aiia `llo~rtzc::,"`aeferce~..~.,..~


                      t ~'a


    .5e


                  0

0