(f) (viii) Employees who have had a previous employment relationship with a carrier in a craft represented by TCU and are subsequently hired by Amtrak shall be covered by this section 2, as amended. However, such employees will receive credit toward completion of the sixty (60) month period for any month in which compensated service was performed in such craft provided that such compensated service last occurred within one year from the date of subsequent employment.

ARTICLE VII -- Entrv Rates September 6 1991 Mediation Agreement)

The entry rate provisions of existing agreements are modified: effective January 1, 1992.

(a) to credit Amtrak service for entry rate purposes, and

(b) to allow Amtrak to waive entry rates for specific positions under the

following conditions:

(1) all employees hired prior to such waiver and holding the same positions at the same location who would be receiving a lower rate of pay will have their rates adjusted to the rates of the employee whose rate is waived.

(2) the waiver will apply only as long as the employee remains on

the position for which waived.

(3) the entry rate period will remain unchanged.

(4) the General Chairman must be notified in advance of any

such waiver and the names of employees that will be impacted.

NOTE: The entry rate provisions in the article will supersede

those in existing agreements where they are in conflict."

By letter of May 26, 1994, the Organization filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, contending that Claimant should be compensated the difference (S3.61) between the 75% entry rate and tile full rate for her position. This claim was denied on July 18,1994. In its denial, the Carrier maintained that Claimant's original confirmation letter was in error. Carrier further stated that the Claimant had not performed compensated service as a TCU employee with another railroad within one year prior to the date she began working for Carrier. Accordingly, her correct rate of pay was at the contractual 75'% entry rate. The denial was subsequently appealed and progressed up to and including the highest Carrier officer designated to handle such matters.

The Organization, in its Submission to the Board included a copy of the resignation agreement signed by Claimant and CSX. If offered that document as proof that Claimant remained an employee of CSX through December 31, 1993. Thus, according to the Organization, the Claimant was entitled to full pay upon her employment with Amtrak. The Carrier has protested inclusion of that agreement in the case before this Board. In point of fact, even if the resignation agreement were considered by the Board, when read in full, it establishes that Claimant would be considered as an employee through December 31, 1992, for vacation pay purposes only, but

"Effective December 31. 1992, [such emoloyeclwill no longer be an employee of the Carrier and will receive payment for any earned and/or unused vacation to which entitled and any accumulated unused sick pay at 50% of the rate of the last position occupied, or their protected rate whichever is higher." (Emphasis added)

Thus, even with the resignation agreement, which the Board cannot and will not consider in this case, the only issue before it is whether Carrier is bound by the letter from a misinformed Human Resources Department employee.

Under the provisions of the Agreement, since Claimant, for a period of more than a year before her employment by Amtrak, did not render any compensable service at CSX, she is entitled only to the 75% entry rate for her position. Claimant may not benefit via a "windfall gain" from a Carrier employee's error regarding her contractual rights. Nor would she, in other circumstances be compelled to sustain a "windfall loss" from such an error had she been erroneously under-compensated (Third Division Awards 18064 and 29665).

AWARD