NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR
a ERENCL

 1275 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, O. C. 700J6/AREA CODE: 702-659-9370

 WILLIAM I;. DEMPSEY, Chairman M. E. PARES, Vice Chair.,.. W. 5. MACGILL, Assistant to Chairman
 JAMES A. WILCOX, Gen<nal Counsel Ii. G. GREER, Director of Research J. F. GRIFFIN. Administrative Secretary

 May 23, 1972

 Mr. '`ilton Friedman
 SSC S::venCh ;.venue
 New York, 1Wa York

 Dr. Murray M. 1,ohman Professor of Inc:ustri.al 2elations Texas Christian University Fort: Worth, Texas 7612:

 Mr. Nicholas U. Zumas
 1225 - 19th Street, N. t1.
 Washington, D. C. 20036

 Gentlemen:

 This o/ill supplement our previous letters with which rye

 forwarded to you copies of Awards of Special established by Article VII of the February 7,

 There are attached copies of Awards dated May 19, 1972, rendered by Special Board

 Messrs.

 G. E. Leighty C. L. Dennis (2) C. J. Chamberlain (2)

 M. B.

AE C . J. S. 'h.


T. A. W. S

M. E. J. E. 47. F . T. F.


Frye
 Crotty
 Berta
 Placksin (2)
 Smith
 Tracy (3)
 Macgill
 Parks
 Carlisle
 Euker
 Strunck

 Board of Adjustment 1\0. 605 1965 Agreement.

 Nos. 297 to 304 inclusive, of Adjustment No. 605.

G`



PARTIES ) The Cincinnati Union Terminal company
 TO TB ) and
 DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Division of the
 Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Does the substitution of data covering
 "total engines and cars handled" added to
 "Freight Movements and Detour Movements
 computed on the basis that three such train
 movements equal one car count" for "gross
 operating revenues" and "net revenue ton
 miles" respectively, as those terms are used
 in Article I, Sections 3 and 4 of the Agree
 ment of February 7, 1965, provide an appro
 priate measure of volume of business of the
 Cincinnati Union Terminal company for this
 craft?



OPINION
 OF BOARD: Carrier is a passenger terminal company whose connec
 tion with freight trains is limited to ':Heir movement
 through the terminal. The business had always largely
 been one of handling passenger trains, which now has diminished
 virtually to the point of total disappearance.

 What is an appropriate objective measure for determining the extent of the decline in Carrier's business under Article I, Section 3? The Answer to Question No. 4 on page 7


of the November 24 Interpretations states that terminal companies and organizations should agree upon equivalent measures of volume of business in place of "net revenue ton miles or gross operating revenues."

 Dollar income in this case is not a meaningful figure; the railroads which are participants in the operation of the terminal company simply make up the annual deficit. Thus it is not an equivalent figure to the revenues derived from business generated by customers of railroads. Even if virtually no work were performed, the carriers who own the terminal still would each year contribute the amounts necessary to pay the bills--including the wages of all employees who had been on the protected list.

 The measure to be used must therefore reflect the volume of work of the terminal rather than "revenues." The parties had long before agreed to this general approach, but disagreed on how to evaluate the relative contribution of passenger cars and freight trains. According to Carrier, in terms of cost and the amount of work involved, each passenger car is the equivalent of one-third of an entire freight train. The organization contends that a more accurate parallel would be to equate a passen- Iwo ger car with a freight car. The two approaches would have altogether different results, since passenger-car traffic has virtually disappeared while the number of freight cars passing through the terminal has increased markedly.

 During its consideration of this case the Board had rendered an Award directing the parties to submit data which would show the amount of time spent in the actual handling of passenger-car work and freight-train work. A joint study, as requested, was not produced. The data submitted were not particularly revealing since time-study information for 1963 and 1964 was not obtainable.

 Moreover, a basic discrepancy between the approaches of the organization and Carrier was revealed. Carrier measured the time involved in handling freight movements in terms of the time it took an operator to perform actual work in connection with the passing freight train, while the organization showed elapsed time extending from a point before the train entered until after it had left terminal property.

                        -2-

                                AWARD NO. 2' V

                                Case NO. TC -BRAC-43-S


The evidence indicates that, considering the actual work involved, Carrier's position is the sounder. One indication is that cost accounting a number of years before the February 7 Agreement had devised the proposed ratio of one passenger car to one-third of a freight-train movement, based upon experience. The contributing railroads paid accordingly. The objectivity of this approach is manifest, it was said, since each participating railroad was interested in obtaining a uniformly fair formula. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that fr03ght movements which involve no switching, repairs, and the like, have never consumed any meaningful amount of employees' actual work-time. Consequently, there is no persuasive evidence justifying either the organization's approach or one similar to it.

 It would be inaccurate to count as an operator's worktime the time in which a freight train is merely passing through station property, since the operator could and would do other work during that t6ur, if work were available.

 Therefore, the measure proposed by Carrier is held to be valid and should be incorporated in an Agreement between the parties, pursuant to Article 1, Section 3, of the Agreement and the Interpretations.

                        AWARD


            The Answer to Question Nos. 1 and 2 is Yes. -41


                          ALL 't ~, ~i , ~L-c L- f(I nt


                          MiltoFriedman

                          Neutral Member


Dated: May /y, 1972
        Washington, D. C.


                        -3-