SECTION 13 CO'tdITTEf

AGREE~IcNT OF '14AY 11, 1936, NAStIINGTON, D. C.

(WASHINGTON JOB PROTECTION ArRe3E'1LNT)






















` 13 Committee. They do say, however, that "in considering





the May, 1936g Xashington, U. C. Agreement. Employes of the Carriers were affected by "coordination" as provided in that Agreement.

 Affected employes, subsequently furloughed, are not ipso facto entitled to displacement and/or coordination allowances. Section 7(d) of the same Agreement provide: that "An employee shall not be regarded as deprived of employment in case of... [being) furloughed because of reduction in forces due to seasonal requirements of the service..." While the record is somewhat spotty, the preponderance of the evidence contained therein shows that the claimants were furloughed during the winter months, a condition that existed prior to the "coordination". On June 13, 1962 Carrier wrote to the Employes, in part, as follows:.



Employes have produced no convincing evidence to the contrary. Carrier's ' letter of March 18, 1962 is no& inconsistent with this statement, nor does it contradict the evidence contained in Exhibit "A" in Carriers' Reply. A careful examination of the record shows that the claioaats were furloughed because of seasonal fluctuations and a reduction in the volume of traffic.

 Aside from the fact that some of the affidavits produced by the Employes are procedurally defective, the best evidence in the record shows that the earnings of the claimants fluctuated monthly and dome of them had no earnings at all during the winter months of years prior to and after the coordination.

(1)-- For the reasons stated in the Findings, Alvin Ceake, Carl 11i.14., Mahlon Stout, w1illis Rinker and Lewis "artocci are not entitled to be paid displacement and/or coordination allowances as provided in the Agreement of 'day, 1936, Washington, D. C.

 (2) The same claimants are not entitled to benefits prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission on September 28, 1961 in Finance Docket 21155 nocause they were not adversely affected by the coordination.

 Executed at Washington, D. C. this3 0 day of April, 1969.


                                        Docket '!o. 148


                    SECTION 13 COMMITTEE

          AGREEMENT OF MAY I1, 1336, AASHINGTON,.D. C. -

            (WASHINGTON JOB PROTECTION AGREEMENT)


PARTIES United Transportation Union, Successor To
 ^fu- Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen
 DIMJTE :
 - and

            New York Central System - Southern District


VESTION (a) May the carrier unilaterally effectuate a 91coor
 dination" with the Alton $ Southern Road at East St.
 Louis without serving a ninety (90 ) day notice upon the
 employee representatives as contemplated by Section 4 of the Wash
 ington, D. C. Agreement of May 1936? .

 (b) Nay the carrier unilaterally place into effect a plan of "coordination" with the Alton and Southern which does not provide for a "selection of forces from the employees of all the carriers involved" as required by Section St

            (c) .May the carrier escape payment of allowances

described in Sections 6, 1, 8, 9 and 10 to adversely affected em
 ployees by the posting of bulletins describing the plan of "coor
 dination" as interchange movements of cars to and from connecting
 lines? -

 FINDINGS : Employes contend that the "transfer of NYC yard and
 road operations in 3rooklyn Yard at East St.
 Louis, Illitlbis to the Alton F, Southern's Mitchell yard is d coor
 dination as defined by Section 2(a) of the Washington Job Protection
 Agreement of May 1936". This is based upon the allegation that
 prior "to June 4, 1964, the classification and switching of both
 inbotuid and outbound NYCRR freight trains, including interchange
 with connecting lines, was performed exclusively by NYC crews in
 Brooklyn Yard. Subsequent to June 4, 1964, this work has been
 coordinated with the Alton and Southern operations in the Mitchell
 Yard, resulting in the annulment of two (2) VYCRR yard crew assign
 ments."

 A "coordination" as contemplated in the Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C. results only from the "joint action of two or moro carriers" consummated by voluntary joint at,
 ny ICI: or-other lawful authorization, or by indirect action tending to circumvent such a joint agreement. .Unilateral lawful action by one Carrier, without proof of an understanding that it is done to circumvent the obligations under the Nay, 1936 Agreement, is mrt such a "joint action" even though it may result in the abolishment of positions.

 In 1936, the New York Central and the Alton and Southern reacned an agreement under which the New York Central "both delivered cars in interchange movement to, and received cars from, the Alton and Southern Railroad in its Davis Yard within East St. Louis switching limits." The Alton and Southern agreed to pay to the 'dew York Central 40 cents a car for all business interchanged. The fee was later increased to ;1.67 a car. On June 3, 1964 the Alton and Southern terminated this arrangement and on June 4, 1964 wrote to the .dew York Central as follows:

            "This will confirm advice given District Transportation Superintendent It, E. Ring during conference in my office June 3, 1964 that Alton and Southern Railroad will revert to former interchange point Mitchell, Illinois as soon as necessary arrangements can be completed."


Mitchell Yard is an Alton and Southern interchange with the New York Central, This is the record and this is the-only relevant evidence upon which Employes rely. That evidence fails to reveal any semblance of justification that a "coordination" resulted. There is no proof of any "joint action" by the two Carriers. On the contrary, the record is crystal clear that the elimination of the interchange at the 0avis Yard in East St. Louis resulted from the unilateral action of the Alton and Southern Railroad. The New York Central System was not a party to the change. It had no choice but to comply with the direction from the Alton and Southern. And there i~ no,evidence in the record that the method for the changeover was utilised by agreement of the two Carriers to circumvent the obligations prescribed in the %lay, 193eAgreement, Washington, D. C.

 The resumption of the use of the Vew York Central System Worcester Yard and the Alton and Southern 'litchell Yard as interchange yards for the two Carriers continued x practice that `iaf! existed since prior to 1936.

 For the reasons herein set forth and upon all of the evidence in the record, there was no "coordination" hetween the New York Central System and the Alton and Southern Railroad and no ninety (90) day notice is required.
                          :~ r,ytd


For the reasons stated in the Findings, there was,no "coordination" between the New York Central System · Southern District, and the Alton and Southern Railroad as contemplated by Section d of the nashington, D. C. Agreement of flay, 1936. No ninety (90) day notice was ruauired.

            Claim denied.,


Executed at vVashington, 1). C. this Ad-ay of April, 1969.

                            av o n c , Teutral Here~ree


                                M


.3.
                      SECTION 13 COI:aITTEE

            AGREEI-LENT OF IL,~Y 21, 1936, WASHINGTON, D. C.

          ' (WASI-III;GTON JOB PROTECTION AGREMEITT)


    PARTIES United Transportation Union,,Successor to

    TO Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

    DISPUTE:

    and

    Erie-Lackawanna railroad Company


    IIEST.iOIT The Carrier violated the agreement b etz:een the

    AT ISSU;:: parties: e; hcn it failed to accord a displacer~ient

    allo:Mnce claimed by J. R. Osuch for the month of January, 1963, as provided in Intersta-a Cor=werce Corsmission Order entered Septcmber 13, 1960, I.C.C. Finance Docket 20707, which-order msde subject by refercnce to the employes' protective conditions imposed in the I!ma Orlcens Union Passenger Terminal Case 282-ICC-271.


                    e

    FINDINGS:


    Only one substantive issue mists. W7ere conductor positions available to claimant J. P. Oeuch, during the month of January, 1963? The uncontroverted evidence in the record shows that Mr. Osuch could have displaced junior conductors on twelve different occasions during the month of January, 1963. The naves of such junior conductors and the position for which Mr. Osuch failed to exercise his displacem-2nt rights are fully set out in the record. Mr. Osuch failed "to exercise his seniority rights to secure another. available position" to which he teas entitled underthe then c.pplicable working agreement as provided in Section 6 (a) of the Washington Job Protection A-recraent. :1nd th^re is no evidence·that-the available positions would have required the claimant to change his residcnce or that those positions ~sould produce coopensation less than the co::_pensation of the position held by Hr. Osuch at the time of the coordin~_ticn. He was not in a worse position during January, 1963 than Lie was on the date of coordination, October

    17, 1960.Section 7 (c) 2 is not applicable to ;:he facts in this case.


J
                                        Docket No, 149


                          AWARD


Carrier did not violate the Agreement of flay 13, 1936, Washington, D. C. Claimant J. P.. Osuch is not entitled to a displacement allowance because his reduced compensation in January, 1963 N;as not a "result of the coordination" within the meaning and intent of Section 6 (a) of the l?ashingtoa Job Protection :.Grccneat or as contemplated in the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal Case 282-ICC-271.

 E:~ecuted at jTashington, D. C. this 61- ~l-day of June, 1969.

                            David Dolnick, Referee

            SECTION 13 C012iITTEE

            AGREM:EI;T OF IL~,Y 21,1:36, I<ASHII`TOII,D. C.

- (WTASIIII;GT0N JOB P1.OT;~CTIOIt l.C:;Err:.EidT)
 PARTIES United Tranc:nortation Union, Successor to
 i`0 Brotherhood of Railroad Trainyen
 DISPUTE :
 and
 ' The Eric -h.-clwa;anna RailroZ^.d Co=gany

    t~rST:~OLI The Carrier violatcci the agrccrent between the AT a_SSTJ3: parties ulici it far led to occord a di srlaccment

    allc_-c.nce ac clam=d Ly 11. E. Reucch for the month of Sete::b=r, 11"'63, as ; ro; ide·? in latcrctate Cc,-__-erce ~o:issi_on Order entered Setc::.bar 13, 11930, I.C.C. Finance Docket 20707, which order r_:de subject by refcrece to the emploges' protective condition:, 3i-,,~-oc cd in the Ve;i Orleans Union Passenger Terminal Case 283-ICC-271.


    F Tl;~7a S:


            Clais_:nt's *tatuo on the date of the n3rger was that of

    an extra traii:_.n, a status he contir::oucly ocer._ied since he

    entered the employ of the fo=cr D1_i~7 RR on May 24, 1960. As an e::tra

    traix`an, Reusch's worl: oortunities and coz.neasation was governed

    by the rise mad fall of L .ncss conditions. During 1.962. and 1963

    rail traffic declined resultin.- in fluctuating c=,loy,-_3nt for 111r.

    Reusch. I-:e was not adversely afsecacd as a result of the merger.


                            AWP.P,D


    Carrier did not violate the ACre=ent of May 1.3, 1936, tlashington,__J_ C. Claic._at 11. E. F.c_.sca in not entitled to c displacement allo-.:ance because his re;'uced co::~?cnsation in September, 1963 was not a "result of tho coordination" w itLia tha r:eanii:J and intent of the IL?achingten Job Protection Agree-_ent or as contc-Plated in are Ilea Orleans' Union Fasse-a3er Terminal Case 282-ICC-271.


    Executed at Washington, D. C. this /~x' ~ day of .Tune, 1969.


                              David Dohtick, Referee

                                          Docket No. 151


                          4


SECTION 13 C0`IMITTEE

AGRtEHENT OF MAY 21, 1936, WASHINGTON, U. C.

(WASHINGTON JUB PRUTGCTION AGRI:E`iENT)


PARTIES United Transportation Union Successor to
 '~Tff" Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
 LISF'UTE :
 and
 Lehigh and New ungland Railroad Company .
 Lehigh. and New England Railway Company
 Central Railroad Company of Hew Jersey
 UVSTION (1) Messrs. Earl Horn, John Petsurka, Paul Mriss,
 ~: Bretz ilubitsky, Alvin Geake, Harold Gangaware, Charles
 McIilhaney, Thomas Richmond, Ralph Stampone, Arthur
 L·Dar and, Monroe Berger, employees of the Lehigh and New England
 Railroad Company, were invilved in a coordination by the Lehigh and
 Now England Railroad Company and the Central Railroad Company of N_ew
 Jersey, which occurred ca November 1, 1961, and as employees con
 timued in service and subsequently furloughed are, therefore, entitled
 to bo paid displacement and/or coordination allowances under Sections
 6 and 7 of the Agreement of Nay, 1936, kashingtom, D, C.

 (2) Messrs, Born, Fetsurka, Mriaa, Itubitsky, Geake, Gangaware, McIllhaney, Richmond, Stampone L&Bar and Berger, seek recovery of the respective benefits to which they may be entitled under the arrangements imposed September 28, 1961, by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Finance Docket 21155 for the protection of employees adversely affected by coordination.

 FINDINGS: The identical issue, involving the same Carriers, and
 sesulting from the same coordination, is fully discussed
 in Docket No, 147.. Conclusions and findings therein reached are applicable
 to this case and are hereby affirmed.

                - AdARD


(1) For the reasons stated in the Findings in Docket
 No. 147, Earl Horn, John Fetsurka, Paul Mriss, Brotz Hubitsky, Alvin Geake, Harold
 Ganxaware, Charles McIllhaney, Thomas Richmond, Ralph Stampone, Arthur LaBar and Wnroe
 Berger are not entitled to be paid displacement and/or coordination allowances as
 provided in the Agreement of 4ay, 1936, dashina.ton, D. C.

 (2) The same claimants are not entitled to benefits prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission on September 28, 1961 in Finance Docket 21155 because they were not adversely affected by the coordination.

 Lx ecuted at Washington, t). 0. tnis3 O day.of April, 1969.

                                o n c ,"ice oree


.. !

 .2-