PARTIES United TrLnsportation Union, Successor to

      _TO Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemon

      DISPUTE:

      ' and

      Eric- Lackawanna Railroad Company


      UR~`'70_? Claire of (T1'yomir ; Division) Avoca, Pa. Shop lioctler

      AT 3.S'ii:: Eduard R.. E=es for a coordination allowance-for the

      month of October, 1961, rind all subsequent month-- as

      provided for under Section 7 of- the Washin-ton Job Protection Agree

      ment of May, 1936.


      FTL1211,'GS:


. Em loyes state that a "coordination or merging of hostling
 semiee did cccur on Octobor J_5, 1965 when the Erie PM hoetlin
 r ses^crice at Lvoca, Pa. eras coo.bin^d with the Scranton, Pa. facilities
 of the L_^.cla;una~. RR." Claimant Eames had been e:r?loyed as a hostler
 on the Eric Railroad. 1:'hen the i.^.erger was effectuated on October 15,
 1961 C1air=nt's po.^-.^-ition was abolished.

      An implementing agreer2ent was entered into between this Carrier, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire=en and Engincr^_cn. It bears the date of February 7, 1961. Article VI - Hostler Service - of that agreement reads as follows:


              -° "When hostler service is combined at a common

              location, the percentage of work to be allocated

              to prior - right roster men will be computed on

              the basis of actual hours (in no case less than a basic

              day of eight hours) worked by the hostlers involved

              in the twelve u_onths preceding the first of the month

              in which the change is made."


      Pursuant thereto the Carrier offered to merge the two hostler rosters and thus permit the Cla:.vant to share in the hostler work at Scranton


J
                                              Docket 210. 155


Pennsylvania. l.'hile the General Chairman of the Lackauanna
 employes was agreeable, the General Ch-irar n of the Erie employes -
 was not. His refusal prevented the Claimant from working.

 _ Employes arIcuc that the Erie General Chairman never signed nor accepted the in-pler.:enting agreement. A photostatic copy of that agreement sub7iitted in evidence bears the signature of the Erie General Chairman. lie say have lined it on a date later than February 7, 7.961, but it bears that date and we must assume that it becar== effective on that date. lie apparently ht.d not signed it when he wrote to the C:.rrier on inch 9, 1951, but then he did sign it he accepted all of the provisions and undertakings therein. There is no evidence that he excepted the provisions of Article V7 or the date of February 7, 1961. Under these circua:strnces, the Em?loyes and not the Carrier are responsible fur Clai=nt's unemployT:cnt. lie vas not "deprl_Ved of C^'ilofi--'int as a re-ult of said coordination" as provided in Section 7 (a) of the t-7achington Job Protection Agreement. Me distance between Avoca and ':cranton does not require a change of residence.

                          AWARD


For the reasons stated in the findings, Claimant Eduard R. En_nes e?as not "depfived of employment" as a result of the coordination under Section 7 of the tushington Job Protection Agreement of May, 1936. Claim is denied.

        Executed at I-:ashington, D. C, this I2Lday of June, 1969.


David Dolnick, Referee
                                        Docket Yo. 15b


SLCTIVN 13 C0144-11TTEE

AGREEMENT OF MAY 11, 1936, dASHIVGTON, D. C.

(dASHI.NGTON JOii PROTECTION AGREERENT)


PARTIES United Transportation Union, Successor To
 Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen
 LISVUTL:
 and
 - Lehigh and Now England Railroad Coupany
 ' Lehigh and Now England Railway Company
 Central Railroad Company of Now Jersey

            k'UESTIUNS (1) Mr. Harold Weber and Mr. Granville Jennings , employees of the Lehigh and Now England Railroad

Company, were involved in a coordination by the Lehigh and Now England Railroad Company and The Central Railroad Company of Now Jersey, which occurred on November 1, 1961, and as employees continued in service and subsequently furloughed are, therefore, entitled to be paid displacement and/or ,coordination allowances under Sections 6 and 7 of the Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C.

 (2)· Mr. Harold Weber and Mr. Greaviile Jennings seek recovery of the respective benefits to which they may be entitled under the arrangeneats imposed September 28, 1961, by the Interstate Coemmrce Coanission in Finance Docket 21155 for the protection of employees adversely affected by the coordination.

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

                          AIARD


1. For the reasons stated in the Findings In Docket yo. 147, Harold Weber and Granville Jennings are not entitled to be paid displacement and/or coordination allowances as provided in the Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C.

 2. The same claimants are not entitled to benefits prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission on September 28, 196 1 in Finance Docket 21155 because they were not adversely affected by the coordination.

 Executed at Washington, D. C. this bay of pri1, 1969.

                                  4c. e eree

                                                Docket No. 157


'~ SECTION 13 COI=TTEE
 ' AGREEIENT OF 1:AY 21, 1936, V'ASNINGTOII. D. C.
 (FIAS11Ii;GT17II JOB PROTECTION AGRE%:4ENT)
 _PAR TIES The Railroad Yardmasters of America
 _TO
 DISPUTE : and

                  Erie- LackauLLnna Railroad Company


      _Q_U_EST7_n:? Claims of- Lconard F. fart, who became unassigned as

      A~l' 1.;~.c.:.~i: yardl:'aster, for co,,,')en5c Lion due under the Wash-1n.-ton

      Job Protection ASrecz nt of Hay, 1936.


      These claims have been denied and are continuin3 to be denied by Carrier as evidenced in Exhibits attached hereto as


      Exhibit A-1, A-2, A-3, A.-4, A-5, A-6; B-1,. B-2;_C-1, C-2; D-1, D-2; E-1, E-2.; F-1, F-2; G-1, G-2; li-1, II-2; I, J, Y., L-1, L-2; I-1-1, 11-2; 11-1, N-2; 0-1, 0-2; P, Q, R, S. These are exhibits for r_.onLhly claims and denials Septcmber 1, 1963 throu.-h Au3ust, 15V4. Monthly claU,:s for subsequent months are on file in this office together with denials. Purs^ucnt to Section 2 (c) of the A-r::"-cnt !7.,Jnthly claims till be filed for the duration of the protective period, or until September, 1968.


      FIEDIN"=S :


      The merger b-amecn the Erie Railroad and The Delaware, Lacka%:anna and Western Railroad became effective on October 17, 1960. This is aclmovledged by the parties in the interim implev:enting agreement Atted February 6, 1961. Claimant's position as yardL.:ster at Port Morris, Deer York vss abolished effective September 19, 1963.


      Eirployas contend that the abandonment of the yard at Port Morris and the abolish7:ent of tha position resulted from the r==rger because "the operations %acre eventually changed in such manner tLat the business vhicl) had been previously Bundled from the Port Morris, N. J. facility, was transferred to Dover and Craston, the latter bein, an exclusive Exi_e Pwlilread facility." This is a m=re assertion. It is not evidence. It should be noted that T·zployes ' Exhibit 11-2, attached to its Sul)a:icsion, surt)orts the Carrier's position that the yard w"s closed and the position was abolished because of declining

          ' Docket 1:o. 157


    business and improved operating efficiency. That Exhibit clearly shows that the nu_rzber of cars dis, itched from August, 1959 through August, 1953 pro-ressively dcclincd. FO17 example: Ilia number of cars dispatched from tile Port i~orris lard in August, 1959 was 16,388, in August, 1;60, it w,^_s 14936, in August, 1961, 15393, in August, 1962, 8032, end in August, 1963, 7273.


    E=l.oyes also say that the Carrier admitted that the position N-;rs abolished because of the cLange in teniinals due to the verger. They r;recific.411y refer to Iettesa dated Deec46er 6 and 10, 1963 which read in part as follows:


                i?ith refere-ace to your letter of Decc.b,r 5,

- 1963, was rta.; ~-ittcd oil force EC-1 RT-S which

                    wa., rctt.rac

                              c·govcrns ez. A_c;-cor 1..1 Z ---d T):a in Set~vicc. T7nf.s

                foi7:1 ' to 1:7.· J. G. Drake under date

                c·

                of Octe',:,cr 7, 1:63 wit(1:.nstrections for you to

` submit clni_- on Form EC-1 Yardsasters. This has
                not baeu dose."


    Tae mere fact tilt refereice is r^.de to tile form on rliich such a clairl is to be filed is not an admission that tile claim is valid,nor is it nn nd·~,lssioa that the goei Lion ua nt:-oliELcd bccause of the merger.


Es.nloyee have failed to present any convincing evidence that the abolisl~,cnt of the lsositlen arose directly from the r-~=rger effectunted on Octol:=r 17, 1:50. On t:':: contrary, there is sufficient evidence fn th= record to justify the conclusion that the position ' Haas abolished bccause of che.nges in the vole of business at the Port Norris Yard long after the coordinatioa eras effected.

                            Af7AP0


    For the--reasons set forth in the findings, the claims of honard F. ?Art are denied.


            Executed at 1'ashi.:3ton, D. C. this .J~z day of June, 1969.


                                  .,~_; , - ,_. X_' r ~.,.~ .

                                David Doliiick, Referee

Award N0. 18

 Case No.CL»36-E

      _ SPECIAL HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605


PARTIES) Ralph R. Gannon (Individual)
 TO ) and

    DISPUTE:) Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company ,

    QUESTION Respectifully submit that I, Ralph R. Gannon, was'adversely

    AT . affected as outlined under the terms of the Washington Job

    ISSUE: Protection Agreeme3t when my position of Asst. Supt. Dining

    Car Department, Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company, was

    abolished and a~nd was forced to revert back to the Clerical -

              Roster #14on funs 16, 1964.


' OPINION This dispute was originally submitted to the Committee
 OF HOARD: established under Section 13 of the Agreement of May, 1936,
 Washington, D. C., and identified as Docket No. 158.
 Subsequently, it was agreed by the Section 13 Committee that Docket No. 158,
 along with several other dockets, would be submitted for decision to Special
 __._Hoard-of Adjustment No. 605 in accordance with the provisions of Article VI,
 Section 3, of the. February ?, 1965 Agreement.

              The record is clear that the claimant was not adversely _

    affected by reason of the involved m2rgor. He held a position as Assistant .

    Superintendent Dining Cars and his position was abolished as an economy

    measure, such abolishment being in no way related to or coming about as a

    result of the merger.


                          AWARD


              The claimant was not adversely affected by merger.


        CARRIER MEMBERS FMP MFMHFgS


                                          i


                                    , ~W

          J OA X.


    Washington.-D.-C.' - October 10, 1968

                                              ·Oe~- aso ./.s'~


SECTION 13 CO',11TTEE
 ' AGREOi-iENT 0: I:AY 21, 1936, WASHFN'GTD1I, D. C.
 (WASHINGTON JOB PROTECTION AGPLEE:aiT)
 PARTIES The Railroad Yardr;asters of America
 _TO
 DISPUTE: and

                Erie-Lack,- :anna Railroad Company


      _Q l1ES'~T 0:; Claii-as of Lawrence T. r~?rns mho has been deprived

      AT ): SSU_l : of E>:tra Yard:c.^ stet Work at Susquehann, Pa. for

      compensation due under tei::ms of the WaShinuton Job

      Protection E=ecc,,;=r_t of ht--y=, 1936.


      Fuzndlinof these claims on the property is evidenced by the f_oll c:,-ing E::hibits ct:cached thereto. A, A-1, A-2; B; C; D; E; F; G; F!; I, 1-1, I-2; J, J-1; F:, K-1, FC-2; L, L-1; F:, 1:-1; N, F?-1; 0, 0-1; P, P-1; Q, Q-1, Q-2; R, R-1; S, S-1, S-2; T, T-1, T-2; U, U-1

' alrd V.

      F7iM1FMS:


                The record sho;;~s that the Clairznt held a position of


y
      Dett::arrs~ Clerk a t Susquclhanna, Pennsylvania on the effective date of the mcrgc;-. He occup:_ed that position when the 4:00 P.ti, to Miduirht yard.-.' astei.- position at Bin;haraton, Vow York was abolished. Ile also occup__ed that clerical position when the incumbent Bin.-hc-~--ton yardrv=stcr &s; placed a junior yard;-lo.stcr at Susquehanna. There is no showing in the record that Clair·.2nt was adversely affected. There is evidence that his job opportunities as a yardmaster actually improved.


      At no time did the Claimant seek to displace any one of five junior-yard-Masters in Bin;h2mton. Nor did he ever request extra yarcio-aster work to N·hich his seniority entitled him.


                                AWARD


                Claims of Lawrence T. Turns are denied.


      Eaecutcd a t Washington, D. C. this_ZAaay of June, 1969.


                                                    1


                                      .i L-two .~-a W .L


                                  David Dolnick, f.rbitrator