P$A)l 44




                    DEN-V ^. & RTC)

                          GR.'-..:~. ,;.S~S~t

                          :,I1,-.ROL_J GC:',i_'n:1y


                              A. ND


                RI.IL'iJ-.Y L450R r.XECU=1VS' ASSOCIA=10n


          Fur s·~an t to t!:e 'procedu_res set _cr t:: in Ar Licl=_ I, Sec:ion


      `:' of t.^.e 0r egg'on Shlor t! 1:'1_° 111 cond_ l,1Ons t;:e Denver L R _o Grande


      7°_S~er71 Ra'-_r~ad Com-zany on play J, 1CCC requested that she


      :~al._-0.21 ,).EC:ation Board a=cint a referee to resolve cer 6a=n


      C',.zes,i--ns w'~,i~rl D&RG identify 2.5:


          "some O_° the issues ;n disD'u to are wile1her or not

          _he Cregor. Shot i--= 177 ccnd-_t:ons recuire ....


      - Duran=C L= Silver ton Narrow Gauge Railroad CoT=a.^.y 'Go


                51ve notice to e_T. -l ogees of tae Narrow Gauge line.


          (2) or _fEy., e_ m..,_rloment to emu_oy_..sl_oy-_c..s hcldin_.a posi

          tions On Narrow Gauge Line on date o_ trans

          action (date o` sale).


          =- i^e De~ver & Ric Grande "liestern a_lrca~ 'Cm~--any ea.DlOyees as a condition :-ara^1GL;n, _.')r con5_:cra7'_On fcr el--g·-'cili;,y for "dismissed e7lovees" or diS1)laced er,_Jl ogee S ,a .,us to hold DJ51 ~i~S On Narrow Gauge Line on date of transaC _O.'1 (da ,e O- sale).


      T-T_ The Denver 5: Rio Grande 'ties tern all r cad CcmDa ny to

' de~Eraan° "dismissal allowances" or "CisplacE1?ent
          allowances" earnings during the last 12 ::one:-;s ~re

          ced=ng dare of transaction (date of sale).


                                                                  r


                                                        C1.

      initial rr o1 tr 2 tlcn .nccr lags ~,81C :1C_~ ~.. ~ccc._.~. --

-at Denver, Colorado. .i.L.G.A.'S position was .ltially presented orally during the hearlno. On December 19, 1980 R.L.'.A. submitted issues :n writing and presented supporting argument.

            Issues raised by R.L.L.A. are as follows:


            1. Does the Arbitration panel have the jurisdiction under Article I, Section 4 of the Orecon Short Line III conditions to determine whether she order of the ICC in : i nance Docket No. 29096 reouires the D&S, as well a5 the RG'ii , to .honor the Oregcn Short Line III conQ1210ns?


            2. Does the panel have the jurisdict4or. under Article I, Section 4 of the Orezon Short Line III cord __ Lions to de termine that only ,,hose RGW e-i-ployees who are actively employed on the D&S lire on the date of sale, or who are "b= ed" 'ey such an emol oyee, are "protected" employees under the Crezon Short Line III conditions?


            3. Does this panel have the jurisdiction to interpre t the language 1n Article I , Sections 5 (2) and 6 (c) defining displacement and dismissal 21 l owances?


            4. Can the carrier consu=ate the sale of the narrow gauge line once a decision is rendered

            on she above, or muss an implementing agree-

            rent or arbitrated im of amen tins arrangement be reached be=Fore any change is made i r. operations, services, facilities or ecui=ment?


On December 29, 1 9SSO D&RG filed 2 letter with the Ar bl tra tics. panel protesting R.L.E.A.'s late filing of it's submission. D&RG contends the four issues presented there are not time2y. or presented within the time provided and required by Oregon Short Lire III conditions and should not be considered by the Arbitration panel. On December 31, 1980 D&RG filed a brief in response to the issues presented by the Railway Labor Executives' Association.
                        BACKG?CU`;D


      The Durango & Silver ton Railrcad is 2 45 mile narrow gauge

line owned and operated by the Denver & Rio Grande 'rYestern --ailrDad Company (D&aG). The interstate CoPLmer ce CCmimissi on by order issued on January 16, 1980 granted the Durango & Silver ton Narrow Gauge Company the right to acquire 2:7d to operate the narrow gauge
 line. (: inance Docket No. 29096) .
 The Corrission Order i~zposed the Oregon Short Line III protec tive conditions, the cost of which is to be borne by D&RG.

                OREGON S.:ORT LINE III CONDITIONS,

                    ARTTCT-.. I, SECTION 4


            4. NOTICE AND AGREE':ENT 0:R DEC?SION.---(2) Each railroad contemplates a transaction which is subject to these conditions and may cause the dismissal or displacement or any employees, or rearrangement of forces, shall olve a t least ninety (90) days written no.'-ce of such intended transactions by posting a no-.ice on bulletin boards convenient t0 tf:e-nt°re~ted enolcyees of the railroad and by sending regig ter ed mall notice 2o the reDrescn,a rives of such interested e:pl ogees. Such not--'---shall contain a full and adecuate statement of the proposed charges to be affected by such transaction, including an estimate of the number of employees of each class affected by the intended changes. Friar to con-

. summation the parties shall negotiate in the
            following manner:

                                        1

't'ithin five (5) days from "he date of receir~ Of notice, at the request of eit^er -he railroad or re -r esenta tives of such In per E_ ted E:,~- ployees, a place shall ,Oe selected to .hold nEgctiaticns for the- purTJose of reaching agreemen -, Wi phi respect to appl ica ti 0n of The terms and conditions of _his appendix, and these rteggotialions shall cor-men ce immediately thereafter and continue for at least thirty (30) days. Each transaction which may result in a dismissal or displacement Of employees or rearrangement of forces, shall provide for the

          s

selection o_ rForces from all employees involved
 on a basis accented as appropriate for applica
 tion in the particular case and any assig Tent
 of employees made necessary by the transaction
 shall be made on the basis 07 an agreement or
 decision under 'his section 4. If aT the end
 of thirty (30) days there is a failure to a
 gree, either party tc the disrute may submit
 it for adjustment in accordance with the follow
 ing procedures:

 (1) Within five (5) days -from the request
 for arbitration the parties shall select. a
 neutral referee and in the evens they are un
 able T,O agree .Within said five (5) days upon
 the selection of said referee when she Naliona1
 Mediation hoard shall immediately at,p0'_nt a
 referee.

 No later than t'.yentv (Zh) days after a referee has been designa ted a hear -J on the dispute shall comMence.

 ()) The decision of the refe-ce shall be ir31,
 binding and conclusive and shall be =endered
 Wi than thirty (J'0) days frOm Ll:e CO:':.^,.e:1CEv::E.TW
 of the hearing of the dispute.

 (4) The salary and expenses of the referee.
 shall be borne ecually by the parties t0 the
 ,-proceeding; all other elpenses shall be paid
 by the party incurring them.

 (b) No change in operations, services, faci-
 li-pies, or ecuipment shall occur un-~il after an agreement is reached or the decision of a referee has been rendered.
 The narrow gaurP -allroad (D&S) is cper--'- or a seasonal basis as a tblir 1S attraction froul apps CYi.T.a -.e_~j i4av 30th thru the mcnth of Se'Jtember. During the balance ci t:e year the Railroad's crerations are closed down.
 Employees who work on the narrow gauge li..e (D&S) hold seniority rights on the D&?G. Each year when the operations commence on the D&S various positions are filled from, to ranks of the above employees. During the off season a small force :s employed on a year-roLLnd basis engaged principally in main.er_ance service.
      The Durango ang"go & S i l verton Narrow Gauge Ra_~lr oad Ccm-pany has no-,

Served a written notice under Article 1, Sect_Cn 4 of the protective
 conditions.

      The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad served such ninety

(90) day notice and the D&RG and representatives of the em_loyees
 net and attempted to negotiate an agreement .,_~h res=eat to the appropriate a_Cpl i Cat'ion of the terms and CCnd i t=Cns under 'he employee Dr o tech ve conditions. The parties failed 7o reach an agr eemeri t and D&RG requested the National i"edia.lon Board -L-- appoint a referee as ^r ovi ded for in Article T , Section 4 of the 0=e= Shor t Line 1 1 conditions.
 On June 13, 1C80 the Failway Labcr L\eCL-ives' :.SSoC_ation filed a CCmDlaint before the interstate Co=:erce CommiSSion for injunC Live relief seeklno to have the Dur anoo Ci S ilve= ton ' l\ar ro'w Gauge Railroad ComDany enjoined from consulnmatino t.-,e transaction authorized by the Commission unless and until D&S~.'G cC-plies With A='tide 1, Section 4 of the conditions Which ',Mere im-CSed by F.D. No. LC0CO.
      Ais'tlerlng brier, ere filed '--y the ~-efenC -,s, D&SIA'G on

Cccber 24, 1920 and the D&RG on Oc 7obe_ 2'-, 1 980. . . L. _. A .
 11°_d 2 reply brief CO^I_,^.lalnt C.^. :\C:c.'..D2r 2~=, 1920. 'T~:1S CG.m
 ^lalnt 1s -resentl_y pending before t;;c CC-micslon.
      The above chronology of evens is set forth since the ccm-

~1 a'_.^. i'_l ed by R.l..=-. A . and now be=e=°_ I.^:e Commission is 1^c sub
 Stance the same issue as that ide-:tif'_ed above a5 D&-:;G issue 1
 -D1aCcd bBr_ before this Arbitration panel.

                  D_SCUS510NS 0? 1S47j~S


I. The questions raised by D&=.G's issue No. 1 is pending befcre the Commission. The status ana dispcsiticn of this issue is discussed in the decision beLcw.
 T1. The cuestion raised under _S sue _1 a~DOve by D&RG involves -TWO separate issues:

              (a) Definition and a=licaticn -f the term "transaction",

              (b) Status of emplcyees subject to -he conditions on date c_ ",ransaction (date of sale).


.

 L&;,: expresses the -cp lnlon ~::a-6 -.he te=:.

 -lies only to the initial sale of the _=ep= ~y ( tra-s=er of ownership) and does not apply to cha=es _n c:~era,_ic^s, rearrangement of Work forces, "etc" which -ay --cme abcu. 5';~-eq"aen.t to dare c= sale.
 The R.L.E.A. contends the langu__e as sec by t ,-,e Cem.-:issicn i'_'1 defining the term "transaction" w:".lC:h reads: ".'-.ny action t_:;en i,,ursuant to authorization of this Cc-..7nissiCn _n wh_C". these CCndl .ions have 'peen imposed", call s =cr c c=c2~ier _nter .=a to ,lcn and application..
 R.~_A. 'S DOS_ tlon _.> that a " transac-n" as im-.Dl led by the conditions :.-.dy t2^:e place 2t c tl^e S:-hse=uent to tile initial transact'-On (day.e of sale) and a5 a ccnSEouence trigger the Dro+ective Deriod for "dismissed employee" or "displaced Employee".

      The second euesticn raised under DL=G issue II above is the


conte t _on ion by :)&RG that -one condition consideration
      n..t_ition paramount t ~

for eli=ibility of "dismissed em-leyees" and "displaced employees"
 Status, to hold positions On Narrow Gauge Line on date 0f " tr ans
 action" (date of sale).

      The D&RG's position reflects tha. Only those employees who


                          _

are holding c position on date of Salt or thOSE Who ?nay become dis
 placed by these employees a~:alify for protection under the condi
 tions. As stated the D&S Operation is seasonal thus if 'he date of
 "transaction" as interpreted by D&RG falls a t 'he time of year when
 the operation is closed, (in this case it is anticipated to bey
 January 1981 ) all seasonal ET710yeES,wt'10 CC.':S tl vU t2 'the greater p art
 of 'he work force will not come within desig-ation of protected

 employees. -
 thhat for this .-.r0_~='c~_C:: canel to agree `C
 .L. .A. contends ~ _

                                      . .

DC'RG ~ S Do S1-l on 1'70U1 d b2 taWaoOL:nt t:".-'E'sY= _y.^.S t.^.° = r 0 tEC t1Ve CC:".
 dltions by reducing the.^.. Which :'3.L.--.: . C0n~°n~_ S :l~ll~^ be in vlOla
 Lr 'he clear inx r =S' ^^ R.:...:.:'.. al So CUBS D'_C.`.S
 io;~ o~ ~~en~ o_ the Ce-mi_ :_...
 the authority of this panel to alter she condi ticns as ordered by
 the Commission.
      III. The question raised by D&R''s Issue 177 relates to the


basis of determining compensa=ion dur-'15 zh= !as t ~G months prECEd=ng date of transaction (date of sale)
 D&:;G Con7_ncs zna: -r:- ~c ccnnersation fcr "di. _ssed employees" or "dis,
 Calculated cn CO':-en527_cn received b\' --,,he emp1Oj'-a Aurinj t~:° 1?S t 12 months _ r ecedins zhe date .,_ sale.
 R.J..=.A. contends allowances ere :o be calcu-axed by usi-~ tc tai cc"Ipensa -10n received by t::- em~l oyce dur4n= the last 12 months in V:h=c:: he per f oraied service -creced-f.-= -he "a-8 of his disi,lacenent cr dismissal.
 .rS.l..E-·. .r . : ur her al 1 eges thaL zh_S n- b1 -r c z_On -.anal es tab11sheQ Dursuant to Art_Cl- i, SSC-1Cn 4 does nC,, have zhe jurisdiction to :.^.-.."Dr e t 7i a l an-uage 0= =.r z1Cle _ , Sec ~2Cns j al:: 6 of tae Protections as this authC="1-y -s delegated z'J the Section 11 committee.
      1_ , p

. ~.~.J.~. -n oral hearii.S Dn ECemJeT .C, 19~0 and .n their written su'omissicn cf December =9, 1980 su~D~its:
Can the carrier ccnSUI:u a-e t.^.°_ Sale C- the narrow gaug' line once c decision 1s rendered on the above , or mus- t an --"1 amen ti n~ a`reement or arbltra-e0 1?-:-lE_°!':-=:'.j 2Tranc2me-t -Ce reacned be _O r a any chan.e _S ~ade 1n o-rations, Services, facilities or ccu'_Lme nt.9 3y letter dazed December 2; , 1 ;~0 JL=.;: ==o tes tad alai
the panel's acce'Dtance of R.1..L.A.'s ,,-r=-ten su~o'1551Cn on issues
and arguments, the content'-on be_no
i
lateS the ti_r.".- limits Cr _ r Yr tiCle 7,
 oral hearings on Decem'cer 10, 1980
 issues and -Dcsition. No objection
 at the Decem'Der 10th proceedings.
_-eu e7

 azloy=e" 'Do

 .,-2v iz -S :_n tinEl`v ant, v
SeCV_On ~' .
__'-...SenteC in Si.CSz2^Ce v^:e SG:.'.e or = r O tES t 'f.'cS en tErEd by DILRG .':_° c='bZ-rcvC=" CC=:Cl1:C25 -.^.e
written submission of ?.:,.E.A. dated December ;, -980 and D_=G's reply submission cared December 3l , .l cQC are _ "'°= i j' be=Cr a -he arbitrator for consideration.
                  D~.CISTCI Or -P:.I n '?=- _


                        ISSU` I


The rarties, having agreed that DL'_I's ISSue 1g-. - is outside the jurisdi C ZiCn of this r.rbi vra Zion --..E 1 2r E -!1er Er. Cr a direC ZE.7
 .. t0 -re-pare a joint order to the Inter=tale CC=erce Commission advising the Commission on the ma-tt=-r and fcrwarC'_no same to the arbitrator fcr signature and tr a-Smite :21 t0 the Co^mi --sign.

                        ISSUE II


              DY-,IN*I TT ~ ; ,.TIZI: ;c _C^IC:."

              t. 1CT 0_ . TERM, Ti~


It i 5 to be noted the term " tr ansac ti C:^." 'has fir s t used the Commission in the New York Dock =.-r. concitions.
      The Court in New York Dock zy. -:s Uri ted States 509= 2d d3,

C4 (2d Cir. 1979) in discussing the .-_-=..^.i tiC::21 rr o-;isicns con
 tained twined 1:: the New York RHilv:ay condi=inns Stated the following-:

          "althou-h this defini ticn r:2s no precise a::ces to in either the "New OJr l e2ns conditiCnS" (as clarl'ied in Southern. C=--ol -T) Or is the aroendix C-1 cenditic-s, it is clear =ro-I the definition, t.~12t .,~e -.ca, wh=,... t^°- T.C.C. had in mind e;as enco-zasS=C 1n I ZS C?__ :i .'_G^: o` "transaction." the same siiua tLor.s that v;er e within the parallel "coon:.-patio::" e-~1e;-Ed in the aCI?li ZZEd blue grin t :.._ all cu:-rent e--D-'cvEe5 pr O teC ti'Je CaC.':2yBS, ZEE 5'~J'=.. W B GG ::C

          t believe that this goal 15 C°_'y'Or:C -.he S to tU tOry authority con=erred on t.~e I.C.C. in for-ulating employee irotec Live condi tic:- _rursuan t to 49 USC Par. 11347. Ncr =o %,.re b=1=Eve that the I.C.C.'s attempt to achie-:e tris goal strays so far from the mark that ~:.° term -transactic-." needs any redeflni tionC_ ;:5".

      The I.C.C. in it report on 7inance Docket No. 282$0 (New


Yor". Doc:-: Rail%,:ay) s __ted:

          "Since Article I, Section 4 here is intended to incorporate the =ull _DroTecticn o` Sec-


          TC:15'- 1^ WJ. r.

          ~4 cd m_ 5 Of mp_h, the term vr2n..cCT._Cn^

          should be redefined to set the noTice, nego-

          tiations and arbitration Dr ovi sions in me t10n'

          in The same situation as does the term "aOCrdi

          na:icn". 1,J e 21 so note that the broad def'_ni

          tion is necessary in the type o= Transaction

          for which 2DDroval is reouired under 49 U.S.C.

          Par. 11343 et sea. because the events actu-

          clly af`eatin_ the emolovees accu.- at

          a later ac to than the '_nl 7_a_ transaction ye t

          still Dursllan t to our apDroycl (Car_sol ida Lion

          of ePDlcyee rosters e t cetera. In all these

          situations, e.^7pioyees should be given notice

          and the right To negotiation and arbitration;

          therefore, we will modify the term "transac-

          tion" so tha u 1 - will a,D^-ly to any action taken

          _pursucnt t0 a Commission au7.-crization a--on

          which these condi Lions are i-ilDosed"

                                  (em7has`_S added)


      The 1.C.C. report is -finance Docket No. 21096 (Oregon Short


Line III)conditions stated:

          "The term "transaction" in Article T, Section

          r

          1 (a) which trig t I:6 cppliC~'_-7.11Ly of the

          article 1, section 4 notice and a`reemerit _Dro

          visions is redefined broadly l1~ke the term

          "coordination" was defined in the '1'iJ~.. Trans

          ac Lions means any action taken pursuant to

          authcrizaTionS of the Co= isslcn an ,,,-h-'ch these

          provisions have been imposed. T'-_s w=11 aporc-

          pric tel y -orctec t em-clOVeeS ',Y'~0 mh'J^e ctyersely

          affected because of (Cut sa-a .":e c'- =^) cori-

          Su=,a Licn o- the aba-Cc r.72n-u"

      (emphasis added)

      in the opi nion of the arbitrator what t =s stated above cl ear i y

defines the term "transaction" as beLno sj'nc-y-,,Cus 'aith the term
 "coordination" as used in 'rIJPA.
      The term "time of coordination" as used in '6j::-. is ee__nee


          " the Ler 1Cd following the eff ec z=ve da ,e of

          a coordination during w7-ici- cranes Ccnse

          C on i i h ^a; r,- 3'_

          U,...t. U70n COCrd_aav_O.. are .u__..~ made e_

          fECtive, a5 ao_Jly'_n~ to 2 '__ ~_CUlar ~m~lOy

          ee, 1t means date in said 'Br_Od when gnat

          emulcyee 15 first, adversely affected as a

          result of said coordination.".

Based on the above it is clear t:'-:=t the per-:: " transac Lion" as used in the Oregon Short Line TIT corcit_ons also extend to actions ta',·;en rurSUant t0 -he T.C.C. order at a Cate later than tae =.^.=tlal date of sale.

      :.1C1~!iT^Y ~C~ ~~ic',~=JJ_^7 ~.~iWOY_^"" Ca 'rJ~C~T~CD Llr:


      The arbitration 7anel 1n 1 is del _C2-at ion on this issue must


                                _

aCCe-o`v and consider 2S a -~araR10u_l'lt rfoot the basic COnCEvt G_ :;1-)10fEe rr o tectlon Agreements or Protective Conditions imposed by the Commission as being designed as the terms indicate, LO DrovIde TjrcteC t1Cn to em-Dloyees against adverse ef f °C -~s flowing from t--ansactions auti:Orl2eQ by the interstate COr.^ErCE CO.:.^,.'liSSiOn.

    i/

The arbitrator finds; as a condl -~=C n -ar amCun t for C O-s i den aLion for ellg;b111ty for "diSLllssed e7-p10vE°" C= d'_S:laced emC1C'yea" status .need r10 t hold nOS1 t10.^.s 0:: !T~arrC'·NN' ~aUE -Jlne on da ,,e of sale. However it is a cond'-Lion nrecedent -.hat for em-01.oyees to i avail themselves for consia°_TaT.ion f0_^ e11E,'-bilizy for "dis:=,iSsed ~ employee" or "displaced em710yee" status that L^ey hcl d emLloymen t~ rights on D&.RG on date of sale.
 The :parties oy their resLective vrrltten submissions are in agreement that, the questions concerning the inter-Dretaiicn of the 1anguase of Sect'O..S 5 and 6 of Article _ a=a beyond the jurisdiction of this Arbitration panel.
 Thus the issue paced before this :.=b-tration panel with res Dec t t0 a determination o2 di SDl acement and dismissal allowance i s moot.

                    R.T.E.A. ISSUE IV


R .L.L. A . recues is the A:r bi tr a ticn panel to de ter7ine -Ylh a 'her the Carrier can ccnsur_^a to the sale O? narr C'w gauge line following the "d2Cis ion" rendered by this Ar bi tra -ion panel.

      Permission of sale was granted under i.C.C. Finance Doc:ret No.

6. TO ask the arbitrator t0 nullify S'L1c.^. sale would be tan tamount to asking for administrative review of the above I.C.C. action which is beyond the authority o° t:^,=s ar bi tr a ter .

      Notwithstanding, Article i, Section ~= (b) which orevides;


          (0) "iy'O char=_° -n Cileraticns, c·^- ':-ceS,

          f aC 11 - tles or ecu-7:;',:er, t shall ccc= -,n-U4

          of per an agree-;en t is reaci:ed or a tee i _

          _ 2r

          SiCn of a rer1Cr22 has -'-,----n

                                  r _,-°_.

(e-D'asis ceded) must be construed to =ro tee t the interests cf the e-:cl cyees until such time as the mandatory -provisions of ?::' t-cl e I , Section 4 a=e concluded:
          Each transaction SYa1Ch may r es'u1 -~ in

          a dismiss or dispiace^en7 of em:-) ees

          rC

          or rearra..ement or

          _ih°forces sh2-vide for the selection o° forces from all eiiluloyees involved on a ba°_=S acc.e-,ited as 2 =CJr12yve SiCr c'Jzl1C3WG.`-: ' n she -.J~_r ~s_ Culcr case and any ass=cn-:e::, of e^i~1Ovees mace -necessarv by the 7ransac ..ion snail be made on the basis of an acree:^7ent or dec--- s1Cn Under tP1s Sec- ti or,


                              (emuhasis added)


The parties have jointly agreed .o remove -from the jurisdiction C` this Arbitration panel and r e^and to the Commission for decision the issue concer-irzr the "rearrangement of the forces". Thus -she manda to of Article 1 , Sect=on L: Can not be resolved by "decision" o._` this arbitrator.
 The arb_ tr a for fin_ds .the "decision" here rendered on other issues does not set aside the binding aD=11Cat1Gn of Article 1, Section 4 (b) therefore:

            "loo change in operations, services, iacllltiEs or ecuip-ilen t shall cl-cur un 7il of ter an agreement 1s reached or deC1s1Cn of a referee has been rendered".


                  _ 2r

                        Neil = . Srrirs

                        F.r-O1 t J

                            ra to


dated January 9, 1981 at San Francisco, Calif.