Form 1 . NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEIqT BOARD Award No. 6888
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6693
 2-C&o-CM-'75



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:















Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
 Form 1 Award No. 6888
 Page 2 Docket No. 6693
 2-C&O-CM-'75

 The record shows that the Claimant, a furloughed carman-tentative was used to fill temporary carman vacancies on a day-to-day basis at Carrier's Clifton Forge, Virginia facility on dates of April 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, 1972. Despite some apparent confusion on the record, analysis shows that Claimant had established seniority as a carman-tentative and that his standing on the roster was proper.

 Petitioner contends that the use of a carman-tentative to fill carman vacancies on a day-to-day basis is a violation of Rules 272 and Carmen's Special Rule 177' of the Agreement. The Organization maintains basically that regular carmen should have been used, on an overtime basis, if necessary, to fill these temporary vacancies. Accordingly, the instant claims are presented for time and one-half rate in favor of several named carmen.

 Carrier asserts in the first instance that no regular carmen were available to cover the temporary vacancies except on an overtime basis. The position of Carrier is grounded in the main, however, on an alleged "Letter Agreement" dated December 17, 1964 wherein an earlier claim was paid by Carrier in satisfaction of the Organization's argument that a carman-tentative rather than a carman-helper should have been used to fill a temporary vacancy in a carman's position under Rule 272. It is noted that this settlement letter, accepted and signed by the Organization's then General Chairman, endorses a position diametrically opposite to that of the Organization in the instant case.

 We have reviewed carefully the pertinent Agreement provisions and the positions of the parties. We note that the Agreement itself is silent on the precise question before us viz, whether carmen-tentative may be used consistent with Rule 272 to fill temporary carmen vacancies on a day-to-day basis. The position of the Organization is not unreasonable or implausible that seniority principles could lead to a negative conclusion on the issue. But in searching for the intent of the parties, we are met by the so-called Letter Agreement of December 17, 1974. Ordinarily, offers of compromise and settlements of earlier disputes on the property are deemed inadmissible in arbitration hearings. This rule of exclusion has been adopted to foster efforts at settlement short of a formal hearing, without fear of prejudicing a case if the settlement overtures are not success:f'ul. Thus, it is ordinarily of no significance that the Employes may have abandoned similar claims on the property. See Award 5216.

 In our analysis of tine instant record, however, we detect facts which compel us to a different conclusion in the instant case. We are not prepared to accept Carrier's characterization of the grievance settlement letter of December 17, 1964 as an agreement and a legally binding contract-under the Railway Labor Act. We do conclude, however, that it represents substantial evidence of the intent of the parties regarding the filling of 11-emporary carmen vacancies. As we view the
 ,e._,; Form 1 Award No. 6888











                                By Order of Second Division


        Attest: Executive Secretary

        National Railroad Adjustment Board


          R semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of July, 1975.