The Older of Railroad Telegraphers )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Norfolk and Western Railway Company, and )
 The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company )

 QUESTION: Whether the Carriers' proposed changes at Lynchburg, Virginia, consti
 tute an action in conformity with Section 2(a) of the Agreement of May,
 1936, generally referred to as The Washington Job Protection Agreement.

 FINDINGS: A situation wherein two Carriers agree to abandon their respective sep
 arate interlocking plants, in the environs of Lynchburg, Virginia,
 identified as "X" Tower (N&W) and "ND" Tower (C&O), and to move the two interlock
 ing control mechanisms from their former sites to a new centrally located joint
 tower, and such devices, when installed, are interconnected so as to operate as a
 single synchronized unit, responsive to a single model board, and manipulated by
 a single operator on each trick, and by such new arrangement provide an integrated
 control point from which to activate the switches, crossovers and signals situated
 within the area previously individually serviced from two separate locations, is
 precisely the type of "coordination" which Section 2 (a) of the Washington Agreement
 so vividly depicts to be within its coverage. Indeed, the elements of joint action
 by two carriers to consolidate their separate railroad facilities, or any of the
 operations or services formerly performed by them through such separate facilities,
 are so unmistakably present in this case, as to make it a classic example of the
 kind of transaction that is intended to be squarely within the four corners of
 the protection afforded by the Washington Agreement.

 The Organization's assertion, that the aforesaid maneuvers contravene the provisions of the N&W and C&O Telegrapher's contracts, is not a question properly before this Committee.

 DECISION: The Carrier's proposed changes at Lynchburg, Virginia, do constitute
 an action taken in conformity with Section 2(a) of the "Agreement of
 May, 1936, Washington, D. C."



The Texas and Pacific Railway Company )
 Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal Railroad of New Orleans )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUT:
 Railway Employes' Department, American Federation of Labor, )
 System Federation No. 121 - Machinists )

 QUESTION: (a) Machinist Helper Theophilus Thompson, furloughed employee of the
 carrier at the New Orleans, La. Shops, has and is being deprived of his
 rights under the Agreement of May, 1936, (The Washington Job Protection Agreement).
(b) That the carrier be required to treat with Machinist Helper Thompson under the terms of the Agreement of May, 1936 and compensate him according to the provisions thereof.

 DECISION: Withdrawn by Carriers.

Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, )
 Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes )
 vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Erie Railroad Company and )
 Pennsylvania Railroad Company )

 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 consolidation
 of the Perishable Freight Operation of the Erie Railroad Company and the Pennsyl
 vania Railroad Company at New York, New York.

 (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.

 DECISION: Withdrawn by Organization.

              DOCIMT N0. 51 --- Decision by Referee Gilden


Brotherhood Raftway Carmen of America, et al )
          VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE

Atlanta Joint Terminals )
 Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company )
 Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company )

 QUESTION: (a) Failure and refusal of the Atlanta Joint Terminals, Nashville, Chat
 tanooga and St. Louis Railway, and Louisville and Nashville Railroad Com
 pany hereinafter called the Carriers, to comply with and apply the provisions of the
 "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." with respect to certain non-operating and
 operating employees of the Atlanta Joint Terminals in the coordination of certain
 facilities, operations and services (involving the handling of freight and passenger
 trains and cars for the Louisville and Nashville Railroad) with similar facilities,
 operations and services of the Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway at At
 lanta, Georgia.

                            - 32 -

(b) Request of the Brotherhoods, parties to this action, 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 or other adverse effect as a result of 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: In this dispute, Atlanta Joint Terminals employees, who allegedly were
 adversely affected by L&N's action in transferring to the NC&StL certain
 of its operations and services at Atlanta that previously were performed for it by
 the Atlanta Joint Terminals, seek to invoke the provisions of the Washington Agree
 ment.

 Where formerly, during the period between April 1, 1907 and October 31, 1955, the L&N's freight terminal work at Atlanta, including freight house service, necessary clerical and shop work and all industry and team track switching on the L&N's Atlanta Belt Line, as well as the switching of L&N passenger trains in the Atlanta Union Station, plus the cleaning and routine maintenance of L&N passenger locomotives and cars, had been performed by the Atlanta Joint Terminals (pursuant to the terms of a three party agreement entered into between L&N, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad and the lessees of the Georgia Railroad), beginning November 1, 1955, all of these chores (excepting L&N's freight house work which the AJT was permitted to retain until July 1, 1957) were allocated to the NC&StL by contract dated November 1, 1955, between L&N and NC&StL.

 Noticeably, the instant controversy does not require anydelineation of the respective rights of the L&N and NC&StL employees in the premises. Also, the extent to which the L&N was privileged, under the terms of the April 1, 1907 contract, to abandon the facilities and services of the AJT is not an issue in this case.

 Irrespective of whether, in a strict legal sense, the unified operation known as the Atlanta Joint Terminals, arising from the April 1, 1907 agreement, is a partnership or joint venture arrangement, it is perfectly clear that for many years AJT has been regarded as a distinct entity, separate and apart from the respective properties and interests of the several Carriers responsible for bringing it into existence. Thus, AJT signed working agreements with all of the Labor Organizations involved in this case (other than the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of Ameeca); the seniority of AJT employees was restricted to the Terminal domain; and, most significantly, AJT has been a party to the Washington Agreement since November 1, 1941. Certainly, nothing in the listing of Carrier parties to the Washington Agreement portrays AJT as merely an adjunct of L&N, or otherwise detracts from AJT's individual identity.

 Prior to November 1, 1955, with the exception of the L&N's Belt Line track, there was no question that it was AJT's services and facilities that were utilized in the performance of L&N's industrial and passenger train switching. The servicing of L&N Terminal operations at Atlanta, that had always been deemed an exclusive AJT function, conducted through separate AJT facilities, did not, at the moment the NC&StL replaced the AJT as the Carrier entrusted with such handling, suddenly become transposed into an L&N exertion performed through L&N facilities. Neither is there any sound basis for construing endeavor and facilities expended and resorted to by AJT in the performance of L&N Freight Terminal and passenger switching operations as synonomous with L&N activity and ownership,

                            - 33 -

nor does the language of the Washington Agreement expressly or by implication, countenance that sort of Carrier shuffling.

 It follows that when NC&StL supplanted AJT in the performance of L&N's Atlanta Terminal work, AJT did not enter into or become a party to a "coordination" and the AJT employees, claimants herein, were not employees of a Carrier involved in or participating in a "coordination" as that word is defined in Section 2 (a) of the Washington Agreement.

 Since AJT was not involved in a coordination within the meaning of the Washington Agreement in the transaction covered by this submission, the merger of the L&N and NC&StL, approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission on March 1, 1957, in Finance Docket 18845, did not bring the AJT employees within the purview of Section 12 of the Washington Agreement.

 This decision, being concerned entirely with the application of the Washington Agreement to the instant factual situation, shall not be construed either to modify, impair or in anywise bear upon the eligibility of AJT employees to benefit from the protective conditions imposed by the ICC in said L&N and NC&3tL merger, or to prejudice rights of particular AJT employees to establish through recourse to procedures made available by the ICC for that purpose, whether, when and to what extent, they have been adversely affected by, or in anticipation of, the actions of the L&N and NC&StL in consummating their merger.

 DECISION: A. That the Atlanta Joint Terminals, Nashville, Chattanooga and St.
 Louis Railway and Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company were not required to comply with and apply the provisions of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." with respect to certain non-operating and operating employees of the Atlanta Joint Terminals when, on November 1, 1955, the L&N ceased using the services of the Atlanta Joint Terminals for the performance of L&N Freight Terminal and Passenger Switching Operations at Atlanta and transferred the handling of such work to the NC&StL.

        B. Request denied.


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


              DOCKET N0. 52 --- Decision by Referee Gilden


New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal )
 Illinois Central Railroad Company )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Railway Employes' Department, American Federation )
 of Labor, System Federation No. 99 )

 QUESTION: (1) That under the current agreement concerning changes in operation
 at New Orleans, Louisiana, pursuant with Interstate Commerce Commission,
 Finance Docket No. 15920, and the Washington Job Protection Agreement of May, 1936
 furloughed Sheet Metal Worker, J. T. Moore, New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal
 has been denied compensation he is entitled to under the provisions of the Washing
 ton Job Protection Agreement.

                            - 34 -

(2) That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate the aforesaid furloughed employee for all time lost from February 16, 1955.

 FINDINGS:/By these actions, Sheet Metal Worker J. I. Moore (Docket 52), and Boil
 ermaker Helper Isiah Spencer (Docket 53), seek recovery of the respect
 ive benefits to which they may be entitled under the arrangements imposed January
 16, 1952, by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Finance Docket 15920 (for the
 protection of employees adversely affected by the New Orleans Union Passenger Ter
 minal coordination) and the terms of the subsequent Implementing or Transfer Agree
 ment dated April 10, 1953.

 Upon the abolishment of their jobs on the Illinois Central, as a consequence of said coordination, Moore and Spencer were transferred on April 16, 1954, in their respective classifications of Sheet Metal Worker and Boilermaker Helper, to the employ of the NOUPT, on the basis of the formula prescribed in Section 1(b) of said Implementing Agreement, for distributing the available NOUPT job openings among the employees in such class or craft on the various carriers involved. Thereafter, and within approximately ten months from the inception of NOUPT operations on April 16, 1954, both men were furloughed - Moore on February 12, 1955, and-Spencer on February 23, 1955.

 Lacking a conclusive showing of any appreciable change in the NOUPT's level of activities during the first ten months of its existence, it is apparent that Moore and Spencer's separation, following their brief tenure of NOUPT_employment, is just as surely an aspect of the coordination as would be the case if these individuals had not initially been placed on the payroll, and were considered, right from the start, as being adversely affected by the transaction. Clearly, Terminal hirings which plainly bear the imprint of the imponderables of the new venture, and, in a comparatively short time become casualties thereof, are not absolved from the dictates of the ICUs ruling in Finance Docket 15920. Indeed, by safeguarding against a deferred, but nonetheless genuine adverse effect directly attributable to the coordination, Section 6 of the Implementing Agreement specifically preserves the employee's eligibility for said protective conditions. Moreover, the last sentence of this provision makes it clear that these employees qualify for said protective conditions notwithstanding that the adverse effect engendered by their transfer to the Terminal is not discernible until more than sixty days elapsed after such happening.

 Significantly, ICC Finance Docket 15920 decreed that the protection afforded by the Washington Agreement (subject to certain limitations on which there is no need to comment at this time) should be extended to all employees adversely affected by the NOUP T coordination. The claimants herein are entitled to no more or no less than the full extent of such increment. The Carrier proposition that the Washington Agreement was superseded by the enactment of Section 5 (2) (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended, and is no longer applicable to transactions requiring approval under Section 5 (2), has already been rejected by this Committee in Award No. 3, Docket No. 27. In these findings, we adhere to and expressly reaffirm the validity of that conclusion. In furtherance thereof, we hold that the asserted jurisdictional deficiency on the part of this Committee ,

 and the Referee appointed thereto to decide this dispute is without substance. DECISION: 1. That the Illinois Central Railroad Company shall forthwith remun-

 erate Sheet Metal Worker J. T. Moore with the compensation accruing to him under the terms of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." subject

                          - 35 -

to the limitations on such recovery affixed on January 16, 1952, by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Finance Docket 15920.

 2. That the Illinois Central Railroad Company shall forthwith remunerate Boilermaker Helper Isiah Spencer with the compensation accruing to him under the terms of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C.", subject to the limitations on such recovery affixed on January 16, 1952, by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Finance Docket 15920.

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


              DOCKET N0. 53 --- Decision by Referee Gilden


New Orleans Passenger Terminal and )
 Illinois Central Railroad Company )
        vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE

Railway Employes' Department, American Federation )
 of Labor, System Federation No. 99 )

 QUESTION: Isiah Spencer, Boilermaker Helper, New Orleans Passenger Terminal has
 been unjustly denied compensation due him under the provisions of Inter
 state Commerce Commission Finance Docket 15920 and the Washington Job Protection
 Agreement of May, 1936.

 That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate Isiah Spencer in accordance with Interstate Commerce Commission Finance Docket 15920 and Washington Job Protection Agreement of May, 1936.

 FINDINGS: Identical to Findings in Docket No. 52.

 DECISION: 1. That the Illinois Central Railroad Company shall forthwith remun
 erate Sheet Metal Worker J. T. Moore with the compensation accruing to
 him under the terms of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." subject to
 the limitations on such recovery affixed on January 16, 1952, by the Interstate
 Commerce Commission in Finance Docket 15920.

 2. That the Illinois Central Railroad Company shall forthwith remunerate Boilermaker Helper Isiah Spencer with the compensation accruing to him under the terms of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C.", subject to the limitations on such recovery affixed on January 16, 1952, by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Finance Docket 15920.

 - 36 -
 DOCKET N0. 5+ --- Decision by Referee Gilden
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
 Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 VS.
 Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company
 St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company and
 Rock Island-Frisco Terminal Railway Company

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE
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 and services of the Rock Island-Frisco Terminal
 Railway Company with those of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Com
 pany and the St. Louis-San Francisco 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: As respects the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company's action in
 retrieving for its own handling at its Seventh Street Station in St.
 Louis, Missouri, the remaining portion of the total share of the LCL freight
 business that had formerly been allocated to the Broadway Freight Station for
 performance by the Rock Island-Frisco Terminal Railway Company, the situation is
 indistinguishable from that confronted by this Committee in Award No. 12, Docket
 No. 39. It is just as manifest in this case as it was in the other, that the
 transaction resulted in a "coordination" of operations and services by StL-SF
 and RIFT. Therefore, the Washington Agreement is applicable thereto.

 It appearing that the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company never before performed the LCL and team track operations and services in St. Louis, previously assigned by it to the Rock Island-Frisco Terminal Railway Company, and that it initially entered upon this activity immediately following the construction ~ its new Carrie Avenue Freight Yard facilities and the discontinuing of RIFT s license to render =here services on its behalf, CRI&P's obligation to respond to the provision of the Washington Agreement is no greater than that which was deemed to be incurred by Union Pacific Railroad Company in Award No. 11, Docket No. 38. In short, since the CRI&P did not participate in any coordination in this instance, the portion of this claim that is directed against that Carrier is not merited.

 DECISION: 1. That the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." applies to
 the clerical, office, station and storehouse employees who were
 affected by the coordination in August, 1953, at St. Louis, Missouri, or opera
 tions and services of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company and the Rock
 Island-Frisco Terminal Railway Company.
 2. Request sustained with respect only to St. Louis-San Francisco Railway-Company and Rock Island-Frisco Terminal Railway Company in accordance with the above findings.

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


              DOCKET N0. 55 --- Withdrawn by Organization


Railway Employes' Department, AFL-CIO )
 System Federation No. 9 )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company )
 (Pere Marquette District) )

 QUESTION: That under the terms of the "Washington Agreement of May, 1936", Vin
 cent Surian, formerly employed as carman helper by the Chesapeake and
 Ohio Railway Company, Pere Marquette District, at Saginaw, Michigan, is entitled
 to receive a lump sum separation allowance, as provided in Section 9 of such
 agreement, he having been displaced and furloughed as a result of the coordination
 under the Washington Agreement of the carrier's Coach Shop operations at Saginaw,
 Michigan, with those at Huntington, West Virginia, effective February 10, 1954.

 DECISION: Settled and withdrawn by Organization

 - 38 -