In the Matter of Arbitration
Under Oregon Short Line III. Protective Conditions. Section 11
pursuant to ICC Finance Docket No. AB-55 (Sub.-NO. 258X1
Herbert L. Marx, Jr., Chairman and Neutral Member
Kenneth R. Mason, Employe Member
R. S. Timmons, Carrier Member
The Claimant held the position of Drawbridge operator, requiring the operation of the Spring Garden Drawbridge headquartered at Port Covington, Baltimore, MD. The position also included "track related activities when required". On December 11, 1988 the Carrier abolished the position of Drawbridge Operator. As a result, the Claimant exercised seniority to claim a position as Trackman. It is the Organization's position that the Claimant is entitled, as a result of this action, to benefits under Oregon Short Line III Protective Conditions.
This occurrence is within the framework of two events. The first of these was the Carrier's removal of its Baltimore intermodal operations from the Port Covington Yard to a new Intermodal Container Transfer Facility ("ICTF"), in connection with the new Seagirt Marine Terminal. The movement occurred on October
6, 1988. This did not require ICC approval, and none was sought. There is no dispute that this move greatly enhanced the efficiency of handling intermodal freight movement in Baltimore.
The second event concerned the plans and execution by the City of Baltimore to provided a suitable site for location of a new printing facility for the Baltimore Sun. This involved rezoning of the Port Covington area, which included the sale of Carrier property. This in turn required the abandonment of a segment of mainline track extending less than one mile. This was among more than 100 miles of other trackage which was abandoned, but which did not require ICC review. According to the Carrier, arrangements were made for alternate modes of service to the five firms located in the Port Covington area .
On September 23, 1988 the ICC approved the abandonment of the track in ICC Docket No. AB-55 (Sub-No. 258X), imposing Oregon Short Line employee protective conditions. The track was abandoned on October 6, 1988.
As noted above, the Claimant's position as Drawbridge operator was abolished on December 11, 1988, and the drawbridge was thereafter left in the open position to permit continuous water traffic. The Claimant displaced to another position.
The Spring Garden Drawbridge, of which the Claimant was the operator, leads to the Hanover Subdivision. The parties take contrasting views as to the relationship between operation of the drawbridge and the relocation to the ICTF, on the one hand, and the track abandonment, on the other hand.
Line Award (Fredenberger, undated on copy supplied to the Committee), in which it was found that "the Organization cannot establish a causal nexus between the Carrier's abandonment of its main line within the Port Covington Terminal and the relocation of the intermodal facility from Port Covington to ICTF".
This is simply not at issue here. The organization does not seek protective benefits for the claimant on the basis of the move to the ICTF, although it is readily discernible that this move reduced in substantial fashion the need for the drawbridge's use.
The Committee finds, however, that examination is required as to the effect of the track abandonment on the remaining (however minor) drawbridge use. The facts are equally clear that the ceding of property for newspaper use (and the resulting track abandonment) resulted in accommodation for the remaining shipper or shippers in the Port Covington area and thus permitted the cessation of use of the drawbridge.
The ICC, in imposing protective benefits, concerned itself solely with this situation, without reference to the separate general relocation to the ICTF. The track abandonment was permitted based on accommodation to the shippers and protective benefits for employees who might be affected. While drawbridge traffic was, in fact, substantially reduced by the ICTF move, the ability to cease use of the drawbridge entirely was a consequence of the rearrangements resulting from the abandonment of the track serving shippers remaining in the area.
In a different but related fact situation, (UTU-CSXT, WalkerWilsonbura Line, Marx, September 22, 1989), the Award stated:
Oregon Short Line III Employee Protective Conditions provide in pertinent part as follows:
The determination here is that the Claimant was affected by the "transaction" (the track abandonment). The organization makes an arguably sound case that the Claimant was consequently placed in a "worse" position as to the rules (his relative seniority standing) and as to compensation, although the Carrier contends to the contrary as to the latter aspect. The Questions at Issue require an affirmative answer. In the manner that the Questions are set forth, nothing further is here required of the Committee. Specific application of protective benefits, based on the