_PART_IES The Railroad Yardmasters of America
 _TO
 DI S PLl :CF:: and

QUEST 0:.7S Claims of Rolnnd E. Taylor, who hl-,s been deprived of
 AT ISS;T;~ e::tra ya rdr·astCr work at Susquchln-na, Pa. for compen
 sation due un:'cr ter^,as of the Washington Job Protection
 Agrecrj_,nt of Nay, 1935.
 In accord..-ace with Section 1. (c) of- thls Agreem°_nt Claims are filed
 for June 1967_ through Iiay, 1966, except t:areh an·1 April 1964 due
 to illness. 1,'e are reproducing as E;.-hibits peeve claims and corrcs
 pondence, June, 1.961 throw-h lky, 1962. Papers for subsequent r_-,--iths
 are on file. Attached are:

 Exhibit A,. A-1, A-2, A-3; B; C; D; E; F, F-1; G, G-1, G-2; I1, 11-1, H-2-, H-3, 11-4, 11-5, H-6; I, 1-1, 1-2, I-3, I-4, I-S; J, J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-5, J-6; K, 1;-1; L, L-1, L-2, L-3; 11, M-1; N, N-1, N-?_, N-3; 0, 0-1, 0-2, 0-3, 0-4; P, Q, R, S, T and U.

 FIUDIh22S:

 Claimant Roland E. Taylor held a regularly assigned yard clerk position at Susquehanna Yard on October 17, 1960 when the raarger between the Erie Railroad and the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railro-,d was effectuated.

 TheA4:00 P.M. to 12:00 Midnight yardt:nster position at Binghnmton, Neap York was abolished on I:ay 8, 1961. The incumbent displaced the yardmaster at Susquehanna, Pennsylvania. Claimant, who e;as then an extra yard::·aster, contends that the displacement of the regular yardmaster at the Susquet:anna Yard reduced the amount of extra yard;nlster work available to him. This, Employes say, placed pin in a '~:orst positior with respect to cornpcnsation," as provided in Section 6 (a) of the Washington Job Protection Agreement.

Section 6 (a) mckes no specific distinction between regular and e::tra er.;)loyes. lT,or does such a distinction appear any-;aiore in the 1?.-shin-.ton Job Protection A3rec,:ent. But there is a difference in the coa^ota Lion of "ertra emgloyes." An em: loge N..-ho hfs seniority in a cr:;ft r=ay, because of a reduction in business, be on furlou.-h and be entitled to extra work, or lie may be on an e::tra board subject to call as nceded. Whether such an e-?loye is on furlougt and entitled to extra work, or whether he is subject to call from the extra board, ho has senio;:ity in his craft Pnd for all intents anal purhosea 12e is a "re-ular e,,ployc." He may have such a status in several crafts sir-ul.t..lleously, consistent with the seniority prc-7i sionss ilt th^ <Och.edtiled n3i=C:-'^nt of each craft. It does not ,p;ily to an c:;tra cr=:loye x,7-lao ha:, --)t acquired seua.ority in the craft.
on the cfc.ctfv; date of ti_ .:vordination, no:: did lie acquire yz~rdr--aste:; sc=.iority on li°y vs 19'61. He was not placed 1.11 a worse poaition r.s a reau? of the coordination. Ilia re-.ular, and only seniority l:osition on the esfcct-J.Ve date of the r=Sea eras that of n yard clerk. And his right to tilct position eras not di--t~irbed.

          Claim denied.


Executed tt Vashington, D. C. this /,n ''day of ,Irme, .19'69.

                                            ~ ~1


                            David Dolnick, Referee


            w


J
                                        Docket No. 161


                                                          i


SLCTION 13 C_'-tNlITTIa:

AGRELMryT JF >tAY 21, 1931., NASt1INGTON, D. C.

(dASUINGTON JOd PRUThCTIO-4 AGREGMN-T)


PARTIES Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company
 Richmond, Fredericksburg P, Potomac Railroad Company
 DI~FUTE:
 and
 United Transportation Union, Successor To
 Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

 tVL$TIOV (a) Does the Agreement proposed by the Carriers,
 attached hereto as Carriers' Exhibit "D", meet the
 criteria set forth in the Washington Job Protection
 Agreement, particularly that part of Section 5, reading: "Each
 plan of coordination which results in the displacement of employees
 or rearrangement of forces shall provide for the selection of forces
 from the employees of all the carriers involved on bases accepted or
 appropriate for application in the-particular case;" in the coor-
 dination as hereinafter set forth of certain yard operations now,
 separately conducted by the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company and tht
 Richmond, Fredericksburg t, Potomac Railroad Company?

 (b) If the answer to (a) is "no", what agreement terms would be appropriate for application in this particular case?

 FINDINGS: There is no disagreement among the parties that a "coor
 dination", as defined in Section 2(a) of the Agreement
 of Stay, 1936, Washington, D: C. exists. A merger of railroad
 facilities vas effectuated. ''roper written notice, fully complying
 with the revisions of Section 6 of that Agreement, was ;·iven to all
 interest represLc:tatives. Conferences were held; two proposed
 implementing agreements were ·.ut)nitted uv the Carriers re) the repre
 sentatives o: the affected ew,,loyes; eaeii has been rojec·ed.

 The proposed :T;)lenentind a;rcenent between t!LC Carrier and the respective representatives of the affected employes. identifias Carriers' ~xnibit "'J", ::nd attac:iod to Carriers' Submission, fully complies with the provisions of the Washington Job Protection Agreement, particularly Zie%_tion S thereof. 'owevor, that Agreement was proposed on larc:j 8, 1:)67. ':he merger of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad and Atlantic roast Line Railroad was effectuated oa July 1, 1967. Since then yardmon have been hired who are not covered by the
 merger agreement of November 3, 1966. If adversely affected by the coordination, they are entitled to protection afforded by the tiashington Job Protection Agreement. The proposed agreement herein identified as Lxhibit "D" shall be amended to give protection to such employes hired on or after July 1, 1967.

                          Aa'ARD


(a) The Agreement proposed by the Carriers, identified as I:xnibit "D" and attached to Carriers' Submission shall be amended by adding paragraph (c) to Section 1 thereof to read as follows:

            "(G) Yardmen hired on or after July 1, 1967 and not covered by the !Merger Protective Agreement,-who may be adversely affected by the coordination, shall be afforded protection and shall be entitled to the benefits contained in the Washington Job Protection Agreement of 14ay, 1936."


(b) As so asended, said Agreement mats the criteria set forth in the Washington .lob Protection Agreement, particularly Section S thereof.

 Executed at Washinatoa, D. C. Thi day of April, It H.

                                  r 1


                          17a·ldl/oLnlCI, KOZGTOe


                                            t


-1
 SrrCIAI, ROAPD or nnJUS'R!r.VT t;o. 605
PARTIES )
 TO )
 DISPUTZ )

 QUBSTION
 AT ISSUE:

 OPIKION
 OF BOARD:

      (,aeC 11V. JU-,V-V


IJ~PA w 3 9T' / hoe
          Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company


Claim that Worley C. Spin is entitled to all protective benefits accruing under the employe protective conditions of interstate Co~:aerce Commission Finance Docket F;o. 20707 and/or the Washington Job Protection Agreement of Play, 1936 'because he was adversely affected to the extent of having been reduced from a position of Supervisor of Communications and Signals to a position of roreman-of Maintainers, effective on or about October 1, 1964, as a result of the merger of the Erie Railroad.Company and The Delsuare, Lackawanna and Vestern Railroad Company, said merger approved by'I.C.C. :inance Docket 20707

 This matter is before this Board ,by virtue of Section 3, Article vi of the February 7 Agreement.

 ' -Claimant contends that he was entitled to the protective benefits of the Washington Job Agreement because he was demoted as a direct result of the merger between the Erie Pailroad and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Mfiilroad.
 `.That merger took place sours four years prior to Claimant's demotion.

 ' Carrier contends that Claimant was not adversely affected by
 the merger (or coordination), but instead as a result of reorganization and Claimant
 . incompetence. The Organization rejects such possibilities and asserts that Claimant was adversely affected solely due to the merger between the two carriers.

 An examination of the record discloses that Claimant has failed
 to meet the requisite standards of proof necessary to support the claim that h3

 was y a~by the merger.

The Cla s dismissed. ew-tM~


        Nicholas H. Z~Neutral Me


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 June 24, 1969
                                              Docket No. 1.63


                    SECTIOI'. 13 CO:-_fITTEE

    _ AGREE:ICNT OF IL:Y 21., 1936, t.'.":SI.II'GTO:;, D. C.

            (UTASIIII;GTON JOD P110TECTION AGPEEILNT)


PARTIES United Transportation Union, Successor to
 _T_0 Slaitch_nau's Union of north America
 DISPUTE;
 and
 Southern Pacific Cor,pany and Chicego,
 `
 ROCK Island and Pacific Railroad CO:1?ai7y
 1 1'(` Ir" (1) t`icther the varicus arran3ents d eccrib°_d in
 AT ISSUE;: the "Statement of Facts" set forth below constitute
 "coordinations" within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Agreement of limy, 1935, Washington, D. C.

 (2) If the answer to Que;tion No. 1 is in the affirmative, may the carriers place the said coordinations into effect prior to the time agrccoents coz:reVc-nded by Section 4 and 5 of the Washington Agrcem_nt have boas reached f ollouing the posting of ninety (90) days' notices and tile holding of conferences as prescribed in said Sections 4 and 5?

 (3) If the ans·,Yer to Question. No. 2 is in the negative and tile carriers placed the said coordinntions into effect without notice, nC;Ctiation or agreement as required by Sections 4 and 5, should the carriers now be required to corply with the previsions of Section 4 and 5 and all employees affected by the coordinations be made financially vLole from the date of thoir adverse effect until the effective date of agrecoents executed pursuant to Sections 4 and 5

 FIIDIN3S:
          Prior to January 1, 1967 the Southern Pacific operated

_, the yard, together with station and maintenance force, at TuCl1li:Car3., New Mexico. Southern Pacific CnplOYcs snitchssd b.^.d order cars found
                            ' ^

111 tbrOL'.oh t:'iai12S, C::CUu:'tgen and turned en~inCS and cabooseis, and Switchzi sown trafic into blocks. CO=-::=ncing January 1, 1967 passenger trains (since diSCOatinued entirely) were run through 1'ucu:,:cari and com=nciitg February 15, 1937 freight trains here run through Tucu=fa.'i. From. those dnus?-OLvard yard crews were progresssiv reduced 'ld 1:n:lly (LsC07t7:l: wG 14<hv^2r1. Thereafter, yard 1;0:"x: prC'`iously pcrfornnd by SOucharn Pacific cmp loyos a t Tucu=ari, 11a:J dope 11 oihe"' s(aL,'Inio Pacific and nOCI: Island. employes 0:1 their recP^ctivc properties.
                                                  LOCIC(:L 1.0. 1Vj


- The industry practice of "cooperation" between railroads
    in running through trains does not affect the specific provisions

                                          "coordination" of the I.ushin.rton Job Protection Agrec.=ent. A as

    defined in that Agreement way result from such a cooperative endeavor.

    It depends on trhen and hog: that "coepwraticn" became effective.


    Article V of the June 25, 1964 Agreement in no way am-ands or modifies the specific obligations in the Washington Job Protection Agreement.


    Neither the SP no- the RI uniInteral_ly decided to run. . their trains through Tucu=wa.ri. It was the _~oa.ia action" of the two carriers roar i.-:.ulLV :.n the decision. And it has been establinted by tlio Qetlon 13 Cexmitnee, that the "joint action" need not be in writin.


    When t!-:e t;·o carriers jointly dccidcd to run through Tucumccri with their lococ_otives and cabooses they poolcd " in part their separate railroad facilities." lore efficiency and better cu^toer service rnay have recultec: iron this joint action, but efficiency and better service alone does not avoid liability to employes affected by coordination. The action of the t^o carriers is clearly a "coordination" as defined is Section 2 (a) of- the

    Washington Job Protedtio. LJ^rccT:at. )


    Capri-ers argue that the decision in Docket 88 should be applied. That decision is clearly distinguishable. It held that r a pool-=^. of c:-c;·^_ was not a "coordination" as defined in Section 2 (a). l:cre we hu;·o a pooling of "separate railroad facilities." Locomotives ^..-nd cal:0oses are separate facilities of the two carriers used interchangeably over their respacti_ve lines. The use of ~nese facilities 131 throu3h service depri-Vcd the .SP esployes at T17cLmcari yard of em_ loymant. They were affected by coordination.


                                          ir

    Through. service; alone may not he a tcoordination.r But through service resulting from joint action of two carriers wherein locomotives are used interch<nZeably over their respective lines is .. "coordination." Laccnot-ivcs are not cars; they are instru=nts that propel a train from one location to another. They constll:u_:, a "train. rr The look of Tru-aportation Rules of many rails one.". Mine a "train" as "An engine or more than one engine coupled, with or without cars, d0playing markers." A "train" is certainly a facility contemplated in Section 2 (a).


    Since the joint action of the carriers is a coordination , they are obliged to coi.ply with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the I'ash,_ii:"toz Job r_otection Agrceir2t.

                            - 3 -


'_ Docket 11o. 163

                            AWARD


_ 1. The arran;=. -nt of the two carriers as set forth in the findings coil sti tutee a "coordination" within the meaning of Sectioa 2 (a) of the A rcew-nt of Nay, 1936, Washington, D. C.

 2. CarrIers m__^,y not unilaterally place the coordination into effCCt. They :re fir-t required to serve notice as set out in Section 4 rind provide for rea'rangement of forces as required in Sectioa 5 of said Agreement.

 3. Al-1 cmployec affcctod by the coordination shall be radc f_l.r~.~:c_~.r,ll.y ;;t.ol-c :.:.-c:u the dnLe or dc,tes ;·hcn tli^y ;:ere so adv-c:,:so l.y a f1:ecicd until t!:_ C..^.r_zie;_s have fully co__olied with the 1-~_rc,-, 1_ ;:ions of Sections << and 5 of the Agree=;nt of .:ay, 1936, t:.7ashino-toa, D. C.

 t~' Executed at Washin3ton, D. C. this/-q day of June, 1909.

                                I. ~.v-.~ 9'-_

                            David Dolnick, Referee

Agreen??nt of lay, 1936, WashinZton, D.C,

(Washington Job Protection Qrec=ant)


        Dissent of Carrier Members to Award in Docket No. 163


The Referee in this docket has made an award which so distorts and misapplies the Washington Job Protection Qrc=_nt that the Carrier reprecentativcs feel it is necessary to file a dissent thereto.

 Tire Uashington Job Protection Qreemcn t was executed over thirty years ago by practical railroad man, and in large measure has been interpreted and applied by the parties with only a listed area of dispute requiring decision by tile Section 13 Committee. The term "railroad facilities" used in Section 2(e.) has always been undauctood and applied as referring only to substantial fined property or establishments, and not to equipment such as tools, or to rolling stock such as locomotives, cars, cabooses, and equipment. This interpretation is clearly supported by the negotiating history as recorded in testimony given at the Limo the Washington Job Protection Lgreesant was negotiated. This Section 13 Cc-=ittee has consistently held in call reasoned and sound awards, involving situations where locomotives and/or cabooses were run through over taro railroads, that the arrangement did not constitute a "coordination" ac that term is defined in Section 2(a) of the Agreement. See awards No. 47, 88, and 148 made respectively by Referees Gilden, Bernstein, and Dolnick. With no supporting precedent and in the face of the consistent and well reasoned authority, lY, Dolnick now reverses himself in a matter of a few weeks in his award in this Docket No. 163.

 The Carrier members of the Section 13 Committee for the reasons summarized above are obliged to record their dissent to the award in Docket 163 and make it clear that they cannot permit it to stand unchallenged.

 Tlfs dissent has been unanivously adopted by the Carrier members of the Section 13 Committee.

                          -,s

              Cla:~.r.an

              Carrier I:ernbers Section 13 Co-mittee

              Agrccci:.nt of 1_:y, 1936, ::ashington, D.C.


        il.: r: e i

          i

.. .wed ~kT

                              ' Award No. 110

                              r Case No. SG-19-E


l 'SPECIAL BOARD Of ADJUSTI-ENT N0. 605
 PARTIES) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 TO ) and '
 DISPUTE) (Former) Pennsylvania Railroad Company
 QUESTION
 AT ISSUE: Claim that l.s. A. L. Appleby, Maintainer C. & S.,
 . . C. & S. Seniority District No. 16, who was adversely
 . affected March 20, 1963 as a result of the'abandonment
 of the Rochester Branch between Hinsdale and Wadsworth
 Junction effective February 26, 1963, be reimbursed for
 all expenses incurred as provided in the New Orleans
 Conditions. Especially, Sections 4, 7, and 9 of the
 Net.) Orleans Conditions, for displacement, loss of wages,
                      ..travel expenses, m=ais and lodging, moving expenses account of. change of residence and are zxpenses or loss in sale of home, etc., due to abandonment referred to above.


      OPINION

      .. OF BOARD: Certain portions of trackage, knoc-m as the Rochester Branch,

      were abandoned in February, 1963. At the tins Claimant was

      - .the C & S lfaintainer at lit. Morris, N. Y. and resided at

      -Iricester, N. Y. about `4 miles array. In March, 1963, Claimant

I elected to displace a junior signalman in the Camp Car Train at ean, N. Y.
          and continued to main ain is resi3_'nce at Leicester. Inane, 1964, Claimant

          was awarded the C & S 13aintainer position at East Aurora, N. Y., approxi a y

          43 miles from Jcc Ile then sold his hones in Leicester and moved his

          rasz ence o o an ", . Y. This claim is for the loss incurred in the sale

          .of the house; travel, moving and other expenses related to the move. The basis for the claim is that Claimant was adversely affected as a direct result of1the Rochester Branch abandonrr_nt, and was entitled to such compensation under the terms of the New Orleans Conditions, particularly Section 4, 7; and 9.


                      The question here is whether, under the circumstances, Claimant's

          -change of residence was required as a direct result of the Rochester Branch abandonment,..& Remuneration under the New Orleans Agreement is premised on a

          . "required" change as a result of the abandonment.


                      The Board finds that where, as here, an employe continues in

        ~. employment after en abandonment and later voluntarily bids on another position

        necessitating c res lance t is not a change requ ra as a rect

        :resu of t e a an onment.


                                A14ARD


                      The Clai is denied. . . ' .


~'/~ /, / .ff
 Q,_ V 1c o as H. Z pYmas
 - ( Neutral rV er , . .
 .Dated: Washington, D. C. - .'

                June 24, 1969

- SECTIOII 13 C0:-1_1ITTEE
          AGREEMENT OF ILAY 21, 1936, 41AS11II.'GTOII, D. C.

          - (IIASEIhaIO:7 JOB ft;OTECTI_Oii AGDEE:iIa'IT)


      PARTTFS, United Transportation Union, Successor to

      TO Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

      DISPUTL7:

                              and


                St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Coc?any

                Northeast Olar_l:o~: I: ailro-d Co:::any


      Qi11:Si ~.C)i' (A) Claim of the I~orth^ast Ol;lahor_x Railroad Cou ^_iy

      Ax IS._~; Gen.^r-l Gricvcnce Cc:.=;ts~tee of the'

                BYota:.i:hood of J

                Rail_-ncd ~rai,.__.ea that tlse Carriers a ·

      re in violat.'_on of tlic f.'a,hinSton Job Protection AB: -cmcat of Ify, 1936 by t!-:^ir failure a-Lid rein^a.1 to c0:''71.y with mid apply prov2Sio_as of tile ABree:_snt of M.1y, 1936, to· the train znd en-ine service e'~ployees of the f~rlit.^.r I':Oi:thcast Okl-hoal2 Pzilvol-d Co::Dally van the v'Ork

      of the 0t.n~ c-.~ ^t E agle-Plcher Central Mills

      the h :' e-rc i.10·ees ,. ..

      located at Cardin, Okla l~o-:La, the Iii ssouri Pacific interchange work

      '-lit Coi:oii":, I~2nF.F:S :.~,jd thC' I.__S£OUi:i-i'C11n.as°Te.·.:as intei-ch-_RL;e work lit CO~I'._~?`i::S, I'an;.:o vaS Lran:erred and coordiilated With the vor.k of the ALton-PLYsons Subdivision of ti:e St. Louis-San Francisco without the rec;u_ired Section 4 notice or ireplcmenting agrcemcnts.


    (B) Carrier violatcd the terms and conditions of the Washin-ton Job ProCection A.rem=c-nt: wh-en they failed and refused to apply the terns a.nd conditions of tale ~A.-r cement for the protection of the fozu_r NEO train and engine service ew-ployees affected by the coordinations.


      (C) The Carriers violated the tei.m_s and conditions of the 4'ashing~qct Job Protecti_ou Agrcc_a,ant when they coordinated the

      . formc_ I!E-0 work with the Frisco worl: without agreement as contemplated and required by Section 5 of the Aorcement.


      (D) The Carriers shall no-1.7 be required to restore the status c;uo and ap-ly all the terns and conditir(~)1s of the Agreer.11-nt

      to the coordincta_oas and sh-11 make whale all the operating e- ploy ces

      of the for,,-.,_,r horthcast O!;lahoma Railroad Company affected thereby

      as if said coordintion had not taken place pending compliance with

      Section 4 a.nd 5 of the AgreerL:~_nt.

                                          Docket No. 165


MUMS:

 Carrier admits that effective 1'January loo-, 1964, the Frisco (SL-SP) Milway obtained control of the Yortllcgst Oklaho='.·a Railroad Co-pany pursuant to TCC approval" and that effective "at close of business Deccobar 31, 1956 the Frisco merged into itself the N.E.O. pursuant to IN approval, and this latter: coypany thereafter ceased to exist as a corporation and as a railroad carrier." Because "the Frisco hrScd into itself," .Says the Carrier, there was no '>i^t action of two or more carriers" as provided in Section 2 (a) of the t.a shiogton Job Protection Agreement and thus no "coordination.ll

 Prior to DeccNwr 17, 1963 Eagle-Picher CO1'7any owned
 2nd CGntrol lc(7 time cn (it%:l Stock of hG?:then 8t Oklahona Rn'ilrond
 Cor,:a.r.y (~c.-e:_nv?'te; ef aa to to the MO.) Purounrlt to t:1..
 order of tho %tcrytate Cormarce Co: aisnion iosued on December 17,
 19' St. Louis-Son rancicco f,at , .-, _,
 u3, the rt'ln.ay Ccr. :^i:y (here__ilfter
 referred ^ tile Frisco) purchased the capital stock of the Iierrea ,, to a~
 from Er·~lc-Pichr co_opanj. The It. E.O. bcW - e a ^ , s
 u - ...t_ subsidiary of- Frisco.
 Each corporation remained and continued to function as an individual
 entity..

                                                            1

Dut on Dceeuber 22, 1566, the 7CC authorized the merger of the r.E.o. and Frisco. It resulted in a merger of two distinct cor;.o):at:c cnC:it:_es into one corporate entity. Y:.1;.0. ceased to exist on DoCCober 31, 1966 because of the joint action of two corporations. Who owned the capital stock is unirort.nt. The r stockholders And directors OQ each corporation approved and consented
                                                    1

to the action. Two carriers participated in the merger. A "coordination resulted within the mvaninS and intent of Section 2 (a) of the Wrashin1ton Job Protection Agreement. And this Committee has jurisdiction.

 As a result of this coordination, work was shifted, facilities and sevices of separate stations were pooled, and I:LO train and en ine service employes were adversely affected.

 Disputes arisKg out c` N particular coordination, inCludin3 as lntevpyetatien, applicatioP Or enforcement: of any of the provisions of the Washington Job Protection Agreement may be
                                              Docket No. 1G5


referred to ttls co:::-Attee by either party. Sectioa 13 does not require t113 1.'-atual consent of the Parties for the Cc-~ittec to rccc;)t jurisdiction.

 Since employes are affected by "coordination" as defined in Sectio-a 2 (a) of this A.grecrcnt, this dispute is properly before this Co=ittce.

                          At'AI:D


(A) For tl·o rea.s-1ns stated in the findin-s, a "ccordil.n
 t-ioa" S-7%thn tile yllcani1°u ^ a%d intfr,-nt of the AVgreccD.,::1t of Ii^~7 ' 193 ',
                                                      7


j:.=f:1'_i.e.;~tU::, D. C. "I-ilway l~Talr
                                            ..._..coT:.'.:Ilt:--::1 1:-tC-:1 the jCii.l?.L <.Ct:.C11 O?_

                      at1:= 1:0:."i:1iW .,

                                                      t.

        n,.~. n~ td . wt. 1,.,~: _ ~ - te

                                      enn.yo n n OIa.~._:c:__~ ~.~- .voce Cc:-;,wny ..1,n .. Louis-Ctei..._s..co .Co::_=ny.


(D) The ~a~_-riers vi.olc:tcd the term;. and con:-litior-: of t',~ Waohinston Job Prutcction Asre17r:nt bccauce tL-Y r~ iletl to serve notice of coO;-Ciination C s provided in SCCtioa 4 t11ercof.

 (C) The C^rricrs v'.ol.=tcd t'1e terns and cc:=ditaons. of the iTUS1U1ZMU Job :"i:OtCCtiOa, t_~reCT.!:;:71t au provtded in SeetIen th-IrCOf.

 ' (D) The Carriers Sf_'!11 rCGtorc the st"--Luz quo and apply all the teri~u and coud--%tions of the VaE.'ninuton Job r-LOtection A-reC1m'at t0 u:-^_ COC:.'C'in~.1:7..0:-_~ -l:d shall. rICICe whole 811 th-- Operat-?T.~-
 -nns of t!ic f~dl_.~ L:Ortllci:st OkluhO~.a Railroad CC:-.pony afffc:a. ·1 thereby 1S -it said coOTCiii?=tioa haCi not tak-Un placo pcndirv; CO!-.~!1.::^11CL' with Section 4 and 5 of tae F!; ;;hin.gton Job Protection Agrec~lont

 E,;ccuted at I'ashinb-ton, D. C. this /~ day of June, 1969.

        _i.c !


                            David Dolnic!c, Reeree

w.tP~ ~7kT.i~C


/?/~s~Ja w

              A~


6