The applicants raise a section 3 guarantee issue, in which they deprive workers of benefits governed by other protection agreements. The inclusion of the provisions of this case in sections 4 and 5 of the YOJ was, in our view, necessary to provide workers with the protection to which they were entitled under the law. The inclusion of conditions guaranteeing the right of dismissal of the workers concerned and the negotiation of implementation agreements were essential conditions for the implementation of a valid authorisation decision in the context of the procedure. While we fully support this interpretation of the ban on doubling benefits, we must not agree with the interpretation of the ban on the pyramiding of benefits. The dissident member does not cite any source that forces his interpretation of the pyramid concept. Moreover, the last sentence quoted in the passage above, that the dissenting member of Secretary Hodgson`s affidavit to the Hodgson Railway Unions Congress, see p. 97 Supra, was not clearly conceived in its original context as an interpretation of the ban on the pyramiding of benefits. It is more likely that this was merely a reformulation of the final reservation of Article I, item 3 of Appendix C-1: “provided that the benefits of this annex or another regime are interpreted to include the conditions, responsibilities and obligations inherent in those benefits.” See note 17 Supra. It seems that, in this final reservation, the language should function independently of the language of the first reserve (with regard to prohibitions against both thieves and benefit pyramids) and language in the introductory clause of the section (maintaining existing benefits for workers under other regulations). Given that the practice of linking the greater benefits of one provision to the lesser obligations of another provision seems clearly prohibited from the final reservation of Article I, item 3 of Appendix C-1, we refuse to follow the opinion of the dissenting Member who attributes this function to the prohibition of the pyramiding of benefits. Although our interpretation of the ban on the pyramiding of benefits is not imposed by any raw material, it is at least consistent with the original language of Article I, item 3 of Appendix C-1 and ensures that each of its elements retains its content.
See text 100-101 Infra. Trailer On Flat Car Agreement, quadruplicate (4 part) ncr (no carbon required), printed January 1980 Authors Collection added 22 January 2009 Interpreted as well, the simple language of 49 U.S.C. P. 11347 requires CCI, in formulating a new set of worker protection conditions, to combine these benefits under “New Orleans conditions” (as specified in Southern Control II) and the terms of Schedule C-1. If conflicting benefits are granted in each of the two groups, the ICC naturally chooses the most advantageous of the two for inclusion in the new sentence. Therefore, the imposition of a worker protection clause that can be traced directly to the “New Orleans conditions” (as explained in Southern Control II) or under the terms of Schedule C-1 should be clearly considered the embodiment of the US 49. C minimum protection provided.