Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9555
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9395
2-FGE-CM-183

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James F. Scearce when award was rendered.


Parties to Dispute: ( Canada

Dispute: Claim of Employes

( Fruit Growers Express Company

1. That under the controlling agreement, the Fruit Growers Express Company




R.L. Smith
R.W. Liller
D.A. Kerner
R.A. Eaton
J.M. Head
R.E. Sabb
L.L. Lockhart

I.F. Ingram
C.R. Hicks
H.F. Davis, Jr.
W.A. Wiser
A. Saahir
G.R. Fletcher
M.A. Muhamad

R.C. Bogle R.E. Harris K.E. Rawls R.L. Fincham R.L. Brooks B.E. Chittum R.M. Campbell

R. Dobbins R.M. Evans, Jr. K.A. Bayliss L. Osborne W. Daniels

2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Claimants named



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.



This dispute deals with the application of a "Mediation Agreement" signed In February of 1977 (to be effective January 1, 1979) insofar as certain aspects of compensation was concerned. Of specific importance was Article I, Section 3 of such Agreement which stated that:

"Compensation for services in 1979 will include a special allowance to be applied on each of the remaining pay periods in the calendar year 1979, to each employee named on the attached statement, in an amount determined by
Form 1 Award No. 9555
Page 2 Docket No. 9395
2-FGE-CM-183
dividing the total amount shown for each such employee
by the number of such pay periods."

While this provision cited "employee(s) named on the attached statement...," no such list was ever appended. It is conceded that this Agreement was effected in recognition of the fact that the represented employes had not received a general wage increase since June 1, 1977. The parties are at variance as to the nature of the compensation referred to in Section 3: per the Organization it was retroactive pay for 1978 to be distributed over the 1979 pay period; according to the Carrier, it was a compromise settlement as part of the Mediation Agreement and was prospective in nature. The Carrier points to the opening words in Section 3 -- "compensation for services in 1979..." The Carrier concedes, however, that the amount to be meted out in 1979 would equal the amount sought by the Organization as 1978 back pay.

In the process of working out the Mediation Agreement, a question apparently arose as to the application of Section 3 where employes who died, retired or who were furloughed during 1978 or 1979 were involved. An undated, unsigned but apparently acceptable memorandum was executed which provided that employes in the above-stated three (3) categories would be afforded the full measure of such compensation as if they had worked the entire 1979 period.

The instant dispute arose aver the Carrier's refusal to apply Sec:=ion 3 to employes who resigned (quit) or were terminated during 1979. In essence, the Claimants herein are demanding that the benefits of Section 3 be afforded them the same as for employes who retired, were furloughed or who died during 1978 or 1979. The Organization cites Rule 21(b) as controlling:



Essentially, the Organization is contending the pay was earned in 1978 and is owed at the time the Claimants' services ceased in 1979.

While we find Article I, Section 3 of the Mediation Agreement less than clear and unambiguous and certainly not well-detailed as to its coverage, it would appear to contemplate the presence of the recipients of such pay as employees "... on each of the remaining pay periods in the calendar year 1979...". An exception to such literal interpretation was effectuated by the "memorandum" for those employes who would not be -- or who could not be -- available during the aforementioned pay period for the specific reasons of death, retirement or furlough. It is a well-established principle that where the parties have seen fit to specify an exception or exceptions to a provision of a collective bargaining agreement, others are without authority to establish other exceptions. And, the fact that the parties determined to establish the exception set out in the memorandum gives impetus to the conclusion that the norm would be employes who were in active status throughout the 1979 period. In essence, employes who unilaterally chose to terminate their service or who were terminated for cause fell in neither the norm nor the exception. We must also conclude that the
Form 1
Page 3

Award No. 9555
Docket No. 9395
2-FGE-CM-'$3

nature of the compensation increment referred to in Article I, Section 3 is what it is stated to be therein -- a "special allowance" and not earned back pay as contended by the Organization.

Finally, in order for Rule 21(b) to be applicable, entitlement to the disputed compensation must be established; it has not.

A W A R D

Claims denied.

Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

B~emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated (at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July, 1983.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division

Imo