Opinion ID: 738209
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rights, Privileges, and Benefits

Text: 21 The unions argue that the Commission erred in finding that CSXT's proposed merger of the seniority rosters in the consolidated district would not undermine protected rights. We disagree. 22 When a proposed consolidation involves rail carriers, 49 U.S.C. § 11347 requires the Commission to impose labor-protective conditions on the transaction to ensure a fair arrangement that will safeguard the interests of adversely affected employees. See Executives, 987 F.2d at 813. In interpreting the safeguards required by § 11347, the Commission held in New York Dock that [t]he rates of pay, rules, working conditions and all collective bargaining and other rights, privileges, and benefits ... under applicable laws and/or existing collective bargaining agreements ... shall be preserved unless changed by future collective bargaining agreements. 360 I.C.C. at 84 (emphasis added). In other words, CBA terms that establish rights, privileges, and benefits may not be abrogated outside of collective bargaining. 4 Up until now, this broad conceptual framework has been clear, but the scope of the rights at issue has defied comprehension. Obviously confused, the court in Executives remanded that case to the Commission to allow the agency to explain the meaning of the phrase rights, privileges, and benefits. See 987 F.2d at 814. 23 In this case, the Commission offers a definition: rights, privileges, and benefits refers to the incidents of employment, ancillary emoluments or fringe benefits--as opposed to the more central aspects of the work itself--pay, rules and working conditions. See Commission decision at 14, reprinted in J.A. 237. And the incidents of employment, ancillary emoluments or fringe benefits refers to employees' vested and accrued benefits, such as life insurance, hospitalization and medical care, sick leave, and similar benefits. See id. at 15, reprinted in J.A. 238. According to the Commission, seniority provisions are not within the compass of rights, privileges, and benefits protected absolutely from the Commission's abrogation authority. See id. On this point, the Commission notes that seniority provisions have consistently been modified in the past in connection within [sic] consolidations. This may be due to the fact that almost all consolidations require scope and seniority changes in order to effectuate the purpose of the transaction. Railway Labor Act bargaining over these aspects of a consolidation would frustrate the transactions. Id. 24 The Commission's interpretation is reasonable. See American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. ICC, 54 F.3d 842, 847-48 (D.C.Cir.1995) (holding that the ICC's interpretation of New York Dock rules is entitled to substantial deference by a reviewing court). Under the Commission's interpretation, rights, privileges and benefits are protected absolutely, while other employee interests that are not inviolate are protected by a test of necessity, pursuant to which there must be a showing of a nexus between the changes sought and the effectuation of an ICC-approved transaction. Under this scheme, the public interest in effectuating approved consolidations is ensured without any undue sacrifice of employee interests. In our view, this is exactly what was intended by Congress. 25 In this case, the only contested changes to the CBAs are seniority provisions covering the previously separate regions of rail service. When pressed at oral argument, the unions' counsel was forced to acknowledge that employees will lose no so-called fringe benefits by virtue of CSXT's proposed changes to the CBAs. Thus, the Commission committed no error in holding that CSXT's proposed changes do not undermine protected rights, privileges, and benefits.