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 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Claimant was scheduled to work at Nashville, Tennessee, from 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. on January 30, 1989, and from 11:00 P.M., January 31 to 7:00 A.M., February 1, 1989. On January 31, 1989, however, the Claimant was required to serve as a carrier witness at an Investigation at Evansville, Indiana, at 8:00 A.M. These locations are about 160 miles apart, a distance which can be driven in three hours. The Investigation was concluded at 1:30 P.M. on January 31, 1989. Form 1 Award No. 29972
The Claimant was relieved from working her assignments on January 30 and 31, 1989, but received compensation for both shifts as if she had worked. She was also compensated for her mileage and travel time to and from Evansville. She was not, however, paid for the time spent attending the Investigation, for which the organization now seeks five hour's pay at The Organization relies upon Rules 19 and 33, which read, in part, as follows:
Although the Carrier notes the Claimant could have worked her shift on January 30, attend the Investigation, and return in time to work her shift on January 31, 1989, it asserts it allowed the Claimant to miss the two assignments for her comfort and convenience, allowing her to be well rested back. The Carrier further argues the Claimant lost no pay as a result of attending the Investigation.
Throughout the handling of this dispute on the property, the Carrier maintained the method of paying the Claimant had been discussed with the organization's Vice was made, and the Vice Chairman, who retired shortly thereafter, approved it. Though the Organization insists it has no record of him authorizing such a payment, it does not go so far as to deny he did so. Instead, the organization argues the Vice Chairman lacked the authority to interpret the Agreement. The Carrier correctly notes this position was first raised in the organization's submission before this Board. As this is a new argument, we have not given it any consideration in our resolution of this dispute.
At the time the Vice Chairman approved the payment, it is evident the Carrier had reason to believe he had authority to resolve disputes arising under the Agreement. If there was any question as to the proper or appropriate payment to be made to the Claimant, the Vice Chairman gave his concurrence to the manner in which the Carrier intended to pay her. This concurrence constitutes a resolution of the dispute. Thi agreement between the Carrier and the Claimant. The Vice Chairman acted in his capacity as a Union official. Once that agreement was made, it was not subject to challenge. To allow a challenge would put all settlements under scrutiny. It does not matter that the Vice Chairman might have agreed to less than the Claimant might be entitled to under the Agreement. Settlements of disputes need not be restricted to the precise terms of the Agreement. If they were, fewer disputes would be settled, which is contrary to the purposes of the Railway Labor Act.
Finding that the dispute herein was already settled on the property, we must dismiss the claim.