(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steam( ship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express ( and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement, in particular Rule 18, when it dismissed Mrs. Doris J. Held from its service (Carrier's File 280-754).

 2. Carrier shall now be required to reinstate Mrs. Held to service with all rights unimpaired and compensate her for all losses sustained and the record of investigation be expunged from her personal record file.

 OPINION OF BOARD: On July 6, 1973, Claimant was advised to report
 for an investigation. On July 23, 1973, after
 four (4) days of hearing, she was dismissed from Carrier's service.
 The Carrier's action was appealed in accordance with the procedural
 requirements of the Agreement, and on May 13, 1974, the Organization,
 on behalf of Claimant, submitted to this Board, an intention to file
 an Ex Parte Submission.

 On June 26, 1974, this Division received an extensive Employee's Submission regarding this docket. O document made reference to, and appended, a copy of a September 9, 1974 "Compromise Settlement and Full Release", as follows:



















Carrier argues that the cited Settlement Agreement renders the dispute moot and accordingly, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the claim for relief. To the contrary, the Organization insists that the dispute was initiated by it (not the Claimant) and that it has progressed the claim through the various steps, and because the Organization was not a party to the Settlement, the claim is still actively before this Board for determination, and Claimant's individual action is insufficient to divest this Board of jurisdiction.
                        Docket Number CL-20858


        In this regard, the Organization has noted that the Settlement Agreement was not executed until of the notification of intention to submit an Ex Parts Submission and thus, it could not have been properly raised and considered while the matter was under review on the property. Accordingly, the Organization urges that we are precluded from considering the document. We are quite familiar with the concepts stated in the Awards cited by the Organization to support its contention, but feel that they are not controlling here. There is no question as to the authenticity of the document, and it does raise matters which are jurisdictional in nature. Jurisdictional issues may be raised, for the first time, at this level. See Awards 19527, 19528 and 19530 and Awards cited therein.


        There can be no question that if a Claimant's action (without concurrence by the Organization) can be a sufficient basis for divesting this Board of jurisdiction, result in this case. The Settlement and Release is full and complete; speaks in terms of resignation; and makes specific reference to the 1973 dismissal - which is the very basis of the claim in this docket. Thus, we conclude that the controlling issue is limited to whether or not a Claimant may settle and compromise a claim, which has been instituted and progressed by the Or and thereby divest this Board of jurisdiction.


        Upon a thorough review of this record, we are of the view that Claimant's action has affected this Board's jurisdiction. In reaching this determination, we are not upon by the Organization. In that dispute, an employee had been dismissed from service, and while th property by the Organization, the Claimant was returned to service pursuant to an arrangement between Claimant and Carrier in which the Organization was neither involved nor invited to participate. The Organization continued to press the matter, insisting that the settlement was not fatal to its right


        The Board in Award 20237 stated its awareness to the divergent Awards and conflicting policy considerations on the question, and concluded:


                "...we are convinced that the sounder principle is the one upholding the Organization's right, indeed its duty, to police the Agreements it has negotiated, irrespective of individual employe settlements. It appears selfevident that this principle is most compelling in such as the instant one where not just a monetary claim is at stake but alleged violations of the negotiated procedural safeguards surrounding the imposition of


i
                  Award Number 20832 Page 4

                  Docket Number CL-20858


        "employe discipline. Accordingly, we hold that notwithstanding the purported settlement on the p claim is properly presented for consideration by the Board. See Awards 3416, 4461, 5793, 5834, 5924, 6324, 6958."


In support of its position, Carrier cites certain contrary Awards. In Awards 19527, 19528 and 19530, the Board considered disputes wherein, long after the claims had been handled up to the Carrier's highest officer on the property, the Claimant personally, without the intervention of the Organization, entered into a general settlement agreement and release. The Board concluded:

        "This Board has consistently recognized that an employee is bound by such a settlement and release, and that in the face of such a settlement and release the disputes coming thereunder are deemed to be adjusted and this Board has no jurisdiction. It is n necessary for the Board to deal with the substantive issue raised in these dockets as the issue has been made moot."


        Award No. 13 of Public Law Board No. 457 held:


        "The Carrier has cited numerous awards of the First Division and several Special Board of Adjustment awards all holding that individual claimants may enter into waiver agreements of the type involved here without the consent or even the knowledge of his representative. These holdings are consistent with the generally accepted rule of law holding that a party to a legal action or asserting a claim through an attorney may compromise that claim with the opposing party without the consent or approval of his attorney. On the basis of these it must be held that claimant executed a valid and binding waiver of his claim for time lost and this entire claim is now moot."


In out consideration of the conflicting authorities and divergent contentions, we have not ignored statutory language and judicial determinations. In our review of the Railway Labor Act, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, we have noted that it surely cannot be asserted that individual rights regarding grievances submitted and prosecuted on their behalf. See, for example, Czosek v. O'Mara, 397 U.S. 25, citing Elgin J. and E. R. Co. v Burley, 325 U.S.711.
                  Award Number 20832 Page 5

                  Docket Number CL-20858


Certainly, disputes such as this present highly significant considerations of serious import to necessity, limited to this particular record before us. We do not dispute the conclusion of Award 20237 that an Organization has a righ: and a duty to police its agreements; and surely a Claimant's action in a given case does not constitute a binding precedent upon an Organization when the Organization is not a party to that action. But, we will not engage in lengthy speculation of possible outcomes concerning facts and circumstances not now before us. Suffice it to say that under this record, the Board finds that the Claimant terminated the viability of the claim when she entered into the Compromise Settlement and Full Release cited ab
        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; an
        That the question of Agreement violation is moot.


                  A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
                AW44 me 0

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of September 1975.

 y