Kansas City Terminal Railway Company )
 The AEchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company )
 vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers )
 Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen )
 Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen )

 QUESTION: Is the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." hereinafter called
 Job Protection Agreement, applicable to the herein described change in
 method of handling passenger car maintenance and servicing work at Kansas City,
 Missouri?

 DECISION: Case withdrawn by Carrier.

Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks )
Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company )
 Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas Railway Company )

 QUESTION: Request of the Brotherhood that Docket No. 19 which involved the claims
 of clerical, office, station and storehouse employees affected by the
 coordination of the Louisiana & Arkansas Railway and the Louisiana, Arkansas & Texas
 Railway, be reconsidered in connection with twenty-eight (28) unsettled claims which
 arose out of the application of the decision in that case which reads as follows:

DECISION: A sub-committee of four will be appointed to investigate the merits of the
 claims in each of the twenty-eight cases in dispute and endeavor to
 effectuate a disposition of same. A full report should be made to this Committee
 with respect to any claims in which the sub-committee is unable to adjust to the
 satisfaction of the parties. Further consideration of the case by the Committee is
 suspended pending such report.

 NOTE: Case subsequently withdrawn.

 - 19 -

Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks)
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company )

 QUESTION: (a) Failure and refusal of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company to
 comply with and apply the provisions of the "Agreement of May 1936,
 Washington, D. C." and of the Memorandum of Agreement, dated Jan. 23, 1946, between
 petitioner and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, relating to coordination with
 its wholly owned subsidiary, the Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast Railroad Company.

 (b) Request of the employees that the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company be required to fully comply with and apply the provisions of said agreements and to accord appropriate displacement allowance to employees, J. L. Johnson and Laura Horne and to any and all others similarly situated who have already suffered or who may suffer loss in compensation as a result of such coordination.

 DECISION: Case withdrawn.

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad and )
 Denver and Salt Lake Railway Company )

 QUESTION: Consolidation of D. & R. G. W. and D. & S. L.

 DECISION: Withdrawn.

Pennsylvania Railroad Company and )
 Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway Co.)
 vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )

DECISION: Withdrawn


v
      Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company )

      vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE

      The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )


      QUESTION: Deduction of rest days during first 6 months of guarantee period - $152.60


      DECISION : Withdrawn.


                      DOCKET N0. 37 --- Decision by Committee


      Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks )

      Va. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE

      St.-Louis-San Francisco Railway Company )


      QUESTION: (A) Failure and refusal of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

      to comply with and apply the provisions of the "Agreement of May , 1936,

      Washington, D. C." and of Memorandum Agreements dated July 12, 1949, July 15, 1949,

      August 1, 1949 and September 6, 1949 between the petitioner and the St. Louis-San

      Francisco Railway Company and its owned and controlled subsidiary, the Alabama,

      Tennessee & Northern Railroad Company, relating to the coordination of certain de

      partments or forces of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company and the Alabama,

      Tennessee & Northern Railroad Company, effective August 1, 1949.


      (B) Request of the employees that the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company must be required to fully comply with and apply the .provisions of said agreements and to accord appropriate displacement allowance or separation allowance, as may be desired, to employee N. B. Sauce and to any all others similarly situated who have already suffered or who may suffer loss in compensation as a result of such coordination.


      DECISION : Tba record is silent as to what happened to Mr. Sauce after he was dis

      placed on August 29, 1950. If he was deprived of employment under the

      terms of Section 7 he was entitled to the protection of Section 7 or to exercise

      his option under Section 9.


                    DOCKET N0. 38 - - Decision by Referee Gilden


      Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks )

      VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE

      Union Pacific Railroad Company and )

      Railway Express Agency, Inc. )


                                  _ 21 _

QUESTION: (a) Failure and refusal of Carriers to comply with and apply the pro-
 visions of "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C.", with respect to affected clerical, office, station and storehouse employees in the coordination of certain operations and services of the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Railway Express Agency, Inc., at Hinkle, Oregon.

 (b) Request of the Brotherhood that the provisions of said agreement be fully complied with and applied by the Carriers and that all affected employees who have suffered or may hereafter suffer any monetary loss as a result of the Carriers' failure to apply and comply with the terms of the "Agreement of may, 1936, Washington, D. C." be compensated in full for all such losses.

 FINDINGS: Union Pacific's electing to take over at its brand new Hinkle, Oregon
 Terminal, the handling of all mail and baggage work at Wallula, Washington, which it had previously contracted out to Railway Express Agency, was merely a recapturing of certain work obligations which it had been content, for many years, to delegate to outsiders. Throughout the entire period that the arrangement existed wherein REA was authorized to perform the transfer of UP mail and baggage at Wallula, UP did not itself engage in such activity either at Hinkle or at Wallula.

 Concurrently with UP's removal of the Wallula mail and transfer work from REA's handling, to embark upon such performance at Hinkle under its own auspices, and REA's starting to conduct at Hinkle, the express business which it had formerly transacted at Wallula, the operations and services which were thereafter separately performed by UP and REA, contrasts sharply with that which had previously been rendered by REA alone. Thus, it cannot be said that, as a consequence of the abandonment of Wallula and the activating of the Hinkle terminal on September 2, 1951, any operations or services which had previously been performed separately both by UP and REA, through their own separate facilities, were thereupon unified, consolidated, merged or pooled.

 It is in this significant respect that the disputed occurrence is not compatible with the "coordination" concept espoused by the Washington Agreement.

 DECISION: (a) That a "coordination" of operations and services of the Union
 Pacific Railroad Company and the Railway Express Agency, Inc., within the meaning of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C.", did not take place at Hinkle, (Artgon, and therefore, said Agreement is not applicable to this dispute.

        (b) Request denied.


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


              DOCIMT N0. 39 --- Decision by Referee Gilden


Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, and )
 Rock Island-Frisco Terminal Railway Company )

                            - 22 -

QUESTION: (A) Failure and refusal of Carriers to comply with and apply the pro-
 visions and intent of "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." with respect to affected clerical, office, station and storehouse employees in the coordination of certain operations or services of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company and the Rcck Island-Frisco Terminal Railway Company at St. Louis, Missouri.

 (B) Request of the Brotherhood that the provisions of said agreement be fully complied with and applied by the Carriers and that all affected employees who have suffered or may hereafter suffer any monetary loss as a result of the Carriers' failure to apply and comply with the terms of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." be compensated in full for all such losses.

 FINDINGS: When, during the period between November 13 and December 4, 1950, the
 St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company took back into its fold at its own Seventh Street Station in St. Louis, Missouri, a part of the LCL freight business that it had formerly diverted to the Rock Island-Frisco Terminal Railway Company for handling at the Terminal Company's Broadway freight station in the same city, a greater portion of the StL.-SF LCL freight operations in St. Louis became centered at that one location. In this manner there was accomplished a consolidation of operations and services that had formerly been separately performed by the St.L-SF at its Seventh Street Station, and by the Terminal Company at its Broadway Station.

 Totally apart from any consideration of the commitments which may or may not have been made by the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company (the partner of StL-SF in the ownership of the Terminal Company) it suffices to say that joint action by StL-SF and RIFT, both being parties to the Washington Agreement, was implicit in the arrangement whereby StL-SF regained the exclusive handling of a greater portion of its own LCL freight business.

 Thus, it must be concluded that the development made subject of this dispute, conforms, on all fours, to the definition of "coordination" contained in Section 2 (a) of the Washington Agreement.

 DECISION: 1. That the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." applies to
 those clerical, office, station and storehouse employees who were affected by the coordination accomplished between November 13 and December 4, 1950, of operations and services of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company and the Rock Island-F-sisco Terminal Railway Company.

        2. Request sustained.


- 23 -