bVJ~°\1~ "__,",JJ~ , umu w u'J·"eW .,.,·,.~ w."'Y ·~i".~'IVe~



4C'1 Fir:; Str:.;, ::.~"1.· Washington, D. C. 20001 200 Maryland A,·c-, N.E. . Mslvn~;on, D. C. 20002
 " Coac 202 iiE 7-134: Code 202 547-7;J


Mr. C;. 1.. I)ennis
 Mr. f1. C. Cr_tty
 Mr. A. R. Lowry
 Mr. C. J. Chamberlain
 Mr. R. W. Smith

                    (Clerks Cases)


Dcar Sirs and Hrothcrs:

 I am enclosing herewith copies of Awards f^155 through 163 signed by Reforce Rohman on November 17, 1969.

 Wc: reserve the right and will write a dissent to Award iV163 which deals with the classification fund. Copy of that dissent will be mailed you as soon as it is prepared.

                              Fratern~Ily yours,


                            f, ~

                            I I

                                        r 1-


                      ChaiYman `

                      Five Cooperating Railway Labor Crganizations


cc: L. P. Schoene
 Frank T. Lynch
                                          e:ce,:re L:o. 1»

                                          Case ..o. Ci.-3:~-h~


            SYNC??:L LOAM-) 0? P:DJU3ii7_r;T_P I;0. 605


PAI;TIGS ) The Dayton Uion Railw,-:y Company
 TO ) and
 DISi·U~:? ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Stca;-_hip Cicrks,
 Freight Handlers, Express and Station i:r:-1oy;a
 QU"STIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Does the substitution of data coverinS "n~:bcr
 of tickets sold" and "feet of !Lail hz-nC'.1CeL1, for
 "gross opcrc;ting revenues" and "n--t rev_--xi- ton
 miles" res >cctively, as those tc-.r'ns are in
 Article I; Section 3 of tine Agreci.::~nL of February
 7, 1965, provide an apprep :-late r-casurc of vol=e
 of business on the Dayton Union Railway Company.
 (2) If the anm;er to Question No. 1 is negative, what
 data should be substituted to provide an approp:iate
 measure of volume of business.
 OPrftION

 0^ BOARD: The. instant dispute ~s submitted ' Carrier, due to the
 iuwitted by the Carrier, failure of the parties to negotiate a local ag reement predicated on Article I, Section 3, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement and Question and Answer No. 4, of the November 24, 1965 Interpretations.

 The Carrier is a Terminal Compar:y engaged in providing tera,,Inal facilities for the B & 0 and Penn Central. Despite the exchznge of proposals by the Carrier and the Organization, thus far, the parties have been unable to resolve their differences. Each has submitted what it considert to be an "appropriate measure of volume of business which is equivalent to the measure provided for in Article I, Section 3," as directed by the Interpretations. Nonetheless, the fact remains that a local agreement is still non-existent.

 Despite the request by the Carrier that we substitute our judgment for the parties, we believe it more preferable to set forth some guidelines for the parties, rather than state our criteria.

 We recognize that similar proble:as have existed and still exist at other Terminals. Further, we are also aware that numerous local agreements have been negotiated by different Terminal Companies and the various Organizations. Under these conditions, we are firmly co:.nitted to the principal that an Agreement negotiated by the parties and based upon knowledge of local conditions, entered into in good faith and through face to-face discussions, is the ultimate objective.

 In this vein, we are prepared to set forth certain guidelines. However, we would emphasize and reiterate to the parties, that our viei~s are presented solely as guidelines for their negotiations. The factors Which We are suZgesting are those Which in one manner or another have actually been advanced by the parties themselves.
                        - 2 - T.·.<:r;:~o. _L55

                        Case Nc;. C1.-33-::~


It is our. vies: that the parLics, a. prov:i_c~ed for in :,nsu:,r to Quostion 4 of the Inter protationS, are rCCjui-Ledto
 i:.'.~;0'_L~.~G ~... CC1i.1V?.ient Measure of vom:n:e of business. In this reyord, we incc-_r.c:w:::e by reference our A;a and No. 119, Case No. CL-27-11, da;:ed August 7, 1959.

 In addition, prCCiicatud u')On t':1C d'iV::r~i.ty O: ti;:_ Val- i0;7ss agreec,·cnts which hava previously been negotiated by Ter::iinal Co::·.-,nics and this Brotherhood, c;e su--Cost that the parties consider t,.,. fol'icwin3 e lemantS

            1. Feet of mail handled;

            2. D?ur~i~or of Tickets sold;

            3. Cons iocration of ti;e revenue involved in ti~se

                items;

            4. As well as other related factors on the property.


                        Award:


Tae Questions at Issue are returned to the parties for negotiation of a local agreement in accordance with the Opinion.

                        hurray 11. Rohman

                        Neutral Member .


Dated: Washington, D. C.
      November 17, 1969