Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9955
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9_'>81
 2-FGE-CH-184
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhod Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada


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 employes 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.


The Organization contends that Claimant is entitled to the special allowance provided by Article I, Section 3 of the January 17, 1979 Mediation Agreement for the period January 1, 1978 through October 30, 1978. Although it recognizes that he was dismissed from service on October 27, 1978 and then reinstated on June? 16, 1980 in acordance with an agreement, dated, June 11, 1980, it argues that the? reinstatement agreement does not deprive him of this compensatory special allowance since the allowance is predicated upon service he performed during the first ten (10) months of calendar year 1978. It asserts that the aforesaid provision of the January 17, 1979 Mediation Agreement does not require as a qualifying precondition that an em ploye must work during the 1979 calendar year for this allowance.
Carrier contends that the special allowance was to be provided only to those employes who had worked during the 1979 calendar year. It asserts that the Organization was aware of this prerequisite requirement two (2) months before Claimant's reinstatement agreement was negotiated, and Claimant, by definition and voluntary acqui esence, unconditionally waived any claim to past compensation. It avers that the June 11, 1980 reinstatement agreement specifying
 Form 1 Award No. 9955
 Page 2 Docket No. 9581
 2-FGE-CM-184
the terms of his reinstatement clearly spelled out that his return was premised upon the explicit understanding that he would not receive back pay or any other form of compensation for the time he was out of service.
In our review of this case, we agree with the Carrier that Claimant is not entitled to the special allowance. By the terms of the June 11, 1980 reinstatement agreement, Claimant agreed to waive back pay or _any other claim to compensation and his agreement was an all inclusive waiver. Moreover, and consistent with our prior determination in Second Division Award No. 9555 involving the same Organization and the same Carrier, we stated that Article I, Section 3 of the 1979 Mediation Agreement contemplated the presence of employes during the 1979 calendar year and noted that the only exceptions provided were for those employes who were not available during the 1979 calendar year for the specific reasons of death, retirement or furlough. We also pointedly noted that employes who unilaterally terminated their service or were terminated for cause would not be considered an exception or subject to the norm of coverage. In the instant case, Claimant not only voluntarily relinquished any claim to compensation, but he would not be eligible for the special allowance by virtue of the intended coverage and application of Article I, Section 3 of the January 17, 1979 Mediation Agreement. Second Division Award No. 9555 is controlling.







          2-72-7-

Attest: ~~' oe~-Oz.'e~
        Nancy J. All~ -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of June, 1984