PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees
 DISPUTE ) and
 The Union Terminal Company (Dallas)
 QUESTIONS (1) Did the carrier violate the February 7, 1965 Agreement
 AT ISSUE: and in particular Article I, Sections 1 and 3 and Article IV,
 Section 1 when it reduced forces on April 9, 1966, whereby
 Red Cap Harry Thomas was reduced to the furloughed list and
 when on April 30, 1966, it reduced forces causing Red Caps
 Ben D. Scott and David Jackson to go on the furloughed list
 on the basis that a loss of business had occurred?
 (2) Shall the carrier now be required to return Harry Thomas,
 Ben Scott and David Jackson to active service and retain them
 in such service until such time as it can show that it has
 suffered a decline in business based upon the formula set out
 in Article I, Section 3 or upon a local agreement providing
 an appropriate measure of business equivalent to the measure
 provided for in Article I, Section 3, and subject to the other
 provisions of the agreement of February 7, 1965?
 (3) Shall the carrier now be required to pay Red Caps
 Harry Thomas, Ben Scott and David Jackson the difference
 between the normal rate of compensation of the position
 to which each was regularly assigned on October 1, 1964,
 plus subsequent wage increases, and the amount they have been
 or will be paid while working as furloughed or extra employes
 during the month of May 1966 and each subsequent month there
 after until they are returned to active service or until such
 time as the carrier can show that it has suffered a sufficient
 decline in business which would permit it to reduce them to
 the furloughed list based upon the formula set out in Article
 I, Section 3 or an appropriate substitute to measure business
 is agreed upon, whichever occurs first?
OPINION The Carrier is a passenger terminal jointly owned by eight
 OF BOARD: Carriers operating into and out of the City of Dallas, Texas.
 It has no gross operating revenue and revenue ton miles -- the
 criteria established in Article 1, Section 3, of the February 7,
 1965 National Agreement. Hence, Question and Answer No. 4, of
 the November 24, 1965 Interpretations, is applicable, i.e., they
 are required to negotiate on an equivalent measure.
 In this regard, the Carrier asserts that a substitute formula
 was negotiated and accepted by the General Chairman of the Clerks'
 Orlpanization; however, the Local Chairman of the Red Caps declined
 to acquiesce.
                                              Case No. CL-32-W


OPINION The Organization, in turn, abjures this contention. Instead, it
 OF BOARD: argues that the Carrier has never furnished it with information Moot
 (Cont'd.) pertaining to loss of business, nor has the Carrier made "any
 attempt to reach agreement with the organization on the property
 on an appropriate measure of volume of business equivalent to the
 measure provided for in Article I, Section 3 ---." etc; etc; etc.
 Again, we are confronted with dialectics. Each party accusing the
 other with a refusal to negotiate a substitute formula as directed
 by the interpretations.
 We shall state our position once more. It is our firm view that
 both parties are not only obligated, but mandated, to negotiate an
 agreement which would provide a substitute formula for the criteria
 set forth in Article I, Section 3. See our Award Nos. 119, 155 and
 156.
 In this posture, we are remanding the matter back to the parties,
 with the understanding that they will be required to reach an agree
 ment on a substitute criteria within sixty days. In the event they
 fail to reach such agreement within that period of time or as mutually
 extended, and the matter is returned to us for further action, we
 shall then expect the parties to justify their conduct. Such justi
 fication will include sufficient data to enable us to evaluate a
 refusal to negotiate, if such does occur. Where, in our judgment,
 it appears that one of the parties was recalcitrant, the burden of
          overcoming such presumption will be on that party to justify its low

          action.

          We would strongly urge the parties to reach an agreement on a sub

          stitute formula. We would further suggest that where one of the

          parties submits a proposal which is unacceptable to the other, then

          the rejecting party is obligated, nay, duty-bound, to submit a

          counter proposal. Of course, we recognize that neither party is

          required to accede to the other's proposal. However, we are also

          indicating that, if necessary, we shall be compelled to determine

          whether good faith bargaining has taken place. Such bargaining

          will be judged on the basis of proposals and counter-proposals -

          not simply on a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. We are, furthermore,

          indicating that in the event the parties fail to agree upon a pro

          posed criteria as an equivalent measure of a decline in business,

          then we shall not shirk our responsibility.

          Award


          The Issue is remanded back to the parties for negotiation of a substitute formula in accordance with the Opinion.


                  -Gad ` -

                  ~ r y.14.-Roliman

                  lvrePtral Member


Dated: Washington, D.C.
 April 20, 1970