Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29340
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29497
 92-3-90-3-467
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Dana Edward Eischen when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 ('Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "~laim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

1. The Carrier violated the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement effective Marcn 1, 1982, w Attachment 'A' in accordance with Paragraph (h).

 2. The Bureau shall now be required to compensate the individuals listed on Attachment 'A' for the amounts in accordance with Paragraph (h) for the number of days which they were entitled to be paid for as indicated on Attachment 'A'.




D. J. Altman $ 14.26 per hour 6 days 3/4 hours
 S. A. Bloom $ 14.26 per hour 6 days 2 hrs.
 C. W. Proctor $ 14.26 per hour 3 days
John M. Casey Bureau Records 7 Days
 H. 0. Hadley 7 Days
 E. R. Hilt 7 days
 R. B. Robinson 7 days
 M. R. Sorrentino Bureau Records
J. W. Webber
 Form 1 Award No. 29340
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29497
 92-3-90-3-467
 FINDINGS:
 The Third 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.

        Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


nder the terms of a Sick Leave Agreement dated March 1, 1982, Rule 32 (h) reads as follows:

          "(h) =o provide a reserve against a prolonged sick

          ness, an employee may accumulate unused sick leave

          from year to year. Upon accumulation of forty-five

          (45) working days, an employee shall have the option,

          each succeeding year, to be paid for 50% of the un

          used sic< leave credited in that year to a maximum of

          seven (%) days' allowance at a daily rate computed on

          the bas's of the employee's annual earnings for that

          year excluding overtime payments, or may accumulate

          the unused sick leave to a maximum of sixty (60)

          working days. Upon accumulation of sixty (60) days,

          an emplo,~ee shall be paid for 50% of the unused sick

          leave credited to each subsequent year to a maximum

          of seven (7) days' allowance at a daily rate computed

          on the 'oasis of the employee's annual earnings for

          that year excluding overtime payments. Pay for

          unused supplemental sickness allowances shall be

          included in the second half payroll for January of

          each year."


Effective January 1, 1989, however, the above-quoted provisions of Rule 32 (h) were replaced by the following new language appearing in a Memorandum of Agreement dated January 3,
              "(h) To provide a reserve against a prolonged sickness, an employee may accumulate unused sick leave from year to year and may accumulate the unused sick leave to a maximum of sixty (60) working days."

Form 1 Award Yo. 29340
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29497
 92-3-90-3-467
 The question presented in this case, as well as in two identical com
 panion claims, is whether the "old" Rule 32 (h) from the March 1, 1982 Agree-
 ment or the "new" Rule 32 (h) from the January 3, 1989 Agreement governs
 claims by employees :or "buy-bac<" of sick leave earned and credited, but not
 used during calendar !ear 1988.

 In early January 1989, a number of employees applied for "buy-back" of unused supplemental sickness allowances which they had accumulated, but not used in calendar year L988. The General Manager denied these claims, pointing out that the January 3, 1989 Agreement had modified Rule 32 (h) "to eliminate pay for unused suppiemental sickness allowances." By letter of `larch 1, 1989, the Organization initiated the present claims as follows:

          "Eacm 3f the emoijvees listed on the Attachment 'A' have applied for and have been denied payment for unused sick leave credited to the year, 1988. The rule specifies that these individuals would be compensated :or these .mused days at the rate of 50% each unused sick leave day to a maximum of seven (7) days ali:wance whic-. was to have been paid for on the second -alf payroll =or January. This benefit was accrued to them during the year, 1988, and is therefore. pavaole."


The General :tanager denied the claims, again citing the language of the Memorandum of Azreement of :anuary 3, 1989, and also asserting that he had communicated the Bureau's interpretation of the new language to the Organization prior to the ratifi
In Award i , PLB No. 3840 Referee E. L. Suntrup wrote a lengthy treatise on the sub'ect of effective dates of new contract language, while deciding another dispute in a similar claim between these same Parties. Most of the language in ::at decision is not applicable here, however, because the present claims are =overned by the specific, clear and unambiguous terms of the Memorandum Agreement of January 3, 1989: "This Agreement shall become effective January 1, 1989 ...."

 Under the terms of that Agreement, Rule 32 (h) was modified prospectively with respect to Sick Leave 1989 and forward; but it was not modified retroactively with respect to Sick Leave accumulation, zredits and usages in calendar year 1988. Under the "old" Rule 32 (h) the physical act of calculating and paying "buy-back" claims for sick leave earned and credited, but not used during a preceding year, ea, 1988, of necessity took place during the beginning of the succeeding year, fa, 1989. The contractual entitlement for the 1988 claims, however, was the language of the "old" Rule 3 supplemental sickness allowances had accrued during calendar year 1988. The interpretations sought by the Carrier would implement the "new" Rule 32 (h) retroactively and deprive the employees of a benefit they had already earned during 1988, rather than applying the "new" Rule 32 (h) prospectively as required by the plain language of the Memorandum Agreement, effective January 1, 1989.
 Farm 1 Award No. 29340
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-29497
 92-3-90-3-467

                      A W A R D


        Claims sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: 6z

      Nancy J. - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, :__inois, this 25th day of august 1992.