S1::Cr_L Bo~ru o'- n^:;os_~';::r-:. F.D. 605

PARIaT.S ) The Cincinnati Union '1'erminal Comp ,any
TO ) and
DISPuii. ) Brotherhood of Rai1wz,,y, Air).".no t< ;t.,.:-.7-I;~, C1:.:_
Frcight Handlers, ExprcSS and Ste.tion Employc;;
Qu:S1101,S
A. ISSUE: (1) ` ,, i _, 1 ', C. -_ -

DO

locomotives "I f· gubstitu?:1o71 Of dLLI CO'Je-·':,lI. `~-, ..`E

1 locomotives han=led in z.nd out of t':eJTe::::=.t-_.1" and

"feet of mail haIlelicd by the '_'e.7i;:a1" for 1'~;:o:;s

operatin-. revenues" and "nci: rcvenu-. tan r_.'_es"

respectively, a.. tho^C terms are u;;_^_;i is Ar%iC)e

Sections 3 and 4 of tae G1,

it ·-` f '1- ::y 7, 1~·us,

. A ucr:=.:_ :: '

provida an appropriate r..c~sure of vG1u:.-- o'_ busiXcss

of the Cincinnati Union Termin~.1 Comps.ny?

(2) If the ans-,,;ar to Question No. 1 is .ffi:~r_aive, should the Agra ca:ant proposed by the Carrier, _ttachcd hereto

., as Carrier 1 ~ Exliibit P:o. 25, b;,~ entered into by t:;e Organization representative in disposition of this matter?

(3) If the answer to Qu_stion No. 1 is r1cl-ative, o:hat data should be substituted to provide an appropria°tc ir:asure of volu.ae of business, or in what manner or to c; hat extent should the Carrier's pi:oposed Agreement (Carrier's Exhibit No. 25) be amended or revised?

OPINION
OF BOARD: The Carrier is a Terminal Conlpany primarily en,,a.-ad in pro
viding facilities used as a passenger train station by the
B & 0, C & 0, Southern, Penn Central, L & N, N & li and
Pullman Companies.
The instant dispute is based upon the fa:.lure of the parties
to find an appropriate measure of volume of business which is equivalent to
the measure provided for in Article I, Section 3, of the February 7, 1905
National Agreement and Question and Answer No. 4, of the November 24<, 1905
Interpretations.

In view of the fact that on this same date we considered a similar problem submitted in CL-33-E, Award No. 155, we are incorpor-,tug by reference herein, our remarks stated in that Award.-

Yowever, we would also include an additional elemnt for the consideration of the parties. Initially, we would state that the parties are obligated to enter into a local agreement.

As a guideline for their negotiations, the parties should

_ ._

L;,...'id i;o. _l.m

C:.oc l;o. CL-!;L·

consider ti:e foliowin;;:

I. Car and l.occr:;otice court;

2. Feet of mail handlec_

3. Nm;b-,r of Tickets sold;

4. Consideration of the revenuo ir;volved in tiles lteri1s ;

5. As cell as other related factors on tire nrcpe=ty.

Ac, :d:

The Questions at Issue are returned to the parties for negotiation of a local agrece·,ent in accordance caitit the Opinion.

j,I i ~ ,

L---%jr~%~'~i-; !~- l!/,~; % ~_ ii. .·:.,

Murray M.'Ro'hr,,-:an

Neutral Member

Dated: Washington, D. C.

November 17, 1969