The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21,1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over tile dispute involved herein.
After full consideration of all the facts and evidence at bar, the Board makes the following factual determination of the Organization's claim. As background, Claimant Regaldo signed a waiver of claims September 24, 2004. It is important to note that the release of claims contained exception for medical issues that might be "required with the next 3 months, 7 days" and some "future" medical expenses. It had no other exceptions and stated that the settlement was for "all claims of any kind or nature, arising out of my employment with Union Pacific Railroad Company . . : '
Similarly, Claimant Dinicola signed a release with an undisclosed sum of money to be paid to himself and his attorney to dismiss a lawsuit and in consideration of the settlement, agreed to a large number of conditions. One condition found by this Board is that "Dinicola further settles, compromises and forever acquits any and all claims, demands, actions, damages, costs, and compensation of any kind accruing as a result of Dinicola's employment with Union Pacific . . ." Claimant by his signature agreed on July 20, 2004 to this settlement.
Although both Claimants settled personal injury claims by those releases, they remained on the Carrier's seniority rosters for medical purposes.
Important to this dispute, the Organization and Carrier signed a National Agreement dated September 1, 2005. Side letter No. 2 to the National Agreement provides retroactive payments "to employees who . . . retired . . . subsequent to June 30, 2002", which includes both Claimants. Form 1 Award No. 13946
This dispute focuses upon the fact that the Carrier did not provide retroactive payments to these Claimants. By letter dated December 23, 2005, the Organization filed the instant claim alleging Carrier failure to provide retroactive payments as required by the National Agreement. The Organization argues forcefully before this Board that this, like vacation pay to retires, "is money the claimants earned and are rightfully entitled to." The Carrier has denied payment due to the argument that the Claimants have waived their rights to additional payments.
The Board has fully considered the above and finds that based on this record, the settlement agreement holds. The Claimants signed the settlement and although they made exceptions for medial issues and could have made other exceptions, their signed agreements are final: There is no exception for retroactive pay from a National Agreement that was being negotiated as far back as 1999 and came into existence nearly a year or more after they waived future ciainis against the Carrier.
We are in concurrence with the decision of Referee Suntrup (Third Division Award No. 32571 who stated:
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimants) not be made. Form 1 Award No. 13946