Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 I I
Docket . -

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee

 Jon . Fletcher as rendered.

 DISPUTE:


T
(Transportation Communications International i

 "Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-11685) that:














i all required t


(b) Compensate t
r e

 Award No. 33044
 Docket

No. CL-33705

®d7_-1










(d) Compensate the incumbent Crane rto






Compensate the incumbents of Storehelper Position No. 68031 and No. 68442 at the Springfield Material Department an additional e4!ht (8) hours pay at the


pro rata rate o 113® of $113.02 per day.,

 Compensate the incumbent to Chief Clerk Position
 No. 68452 at the Springfield Material Department
 additional t (8) hours t r rat t
 f $125.33 per ay.

Compensate the incumbent t Stock Clerk Position No. 68044 at the Springfield Material Department an additional eight (8) hours y t the pro t t

f 11 .7 per a.

 The amount claimed is for each
Claimantso these sa s ct t aincreases.
 Form a. 33044
 Docket . - 7
 ®3- 7- -
 n the event any of t above reference positions a bobs,
 arrier shall a require to 'compensate the First Out ualie n
 vailable GREB employe at the Springfield Material Department eight
 (8) hours pay at the e pro rata rate of the position(s) abolished for each
 arrir violates t Agreement s described . f o GREB
 e loes are available any given ate of te violation, clai shall for the Senior Available Extra List t employe on the Springfield Extra
 List for eight (8) hours ay t the o rata rate of t abolished
 ositions) per y. If neither GREB nor Extra List a loyes are
 available on any given ate, clai shall a or eight (8) ours pay t the
 punitive rate of the abolished positions(s) for each day Carrier violates
 t Agreement described herein."
 The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all
 the evidence, finds that:
respectively within t meaning t ail ,
 s rove ,1 .
 This Division o Adjustment Board has jurisdiction v t is
 involved herein.
 Parties said dispute ere given a tic of i ere

Springfield, Missouri, Carrier, or any years, maintained Purchasing Material Management Department ("P&MM Department") that supplied bridge
 timbers and provided bridge hardware to maintenance crews systemwide. The
 Springfield Department s staffed employees subject t
 re After ri a project was approved, Engineering
 personnel would submit a material requisition to Springfield, where Clerks would

 generate appropriate purchase orders. Treated products timbers particular a project 1 e ordered from single vendor, Kerr-McGee's

 Columbus, Mississippi, plant. (Each project requires different design a s
 components, requiring different - c
 r
 a

 ondol car it the structural wood ordered, and then ship t car to t
 Springfield Department, ere it s l until released t start o
 project.

 Other hardware needed othe rject would a ordered fro variety
 different vendors. For exle, timber spikes would a ordere fro is Bolt n
 t any; tie pads fro li - -Tech Industries; walkway rackets o c
 Structural; bridge sins fro Lyle Sign o.; bridge poles fro Paper al enson
 o.; Nuts, bolts n washers fro Service a ply .; pies fro Birmingham ail

 and Locomotive r Industry Railway Supply; and, grip struts ere furnished Metals. All of t vendors s would ship their product directly to the Springfield
 P&MM Department, usually by truck, where it was processed by Carrier's
 employees subject to the TC.U Agreement.

 Shortly a ore particular ri a project was to start the hardware receive
 fro the other vendors as collecte Storehouse employees an loaded int
 gondola with e treate timbers receive fro Kerr-McGee, and ten shipped to the
 or site.

 On December 14, 1994, Carrier notified the Organization of its intent to
 transfer certi entry work fro Springfield, Missouri, t t or
 Customer Shortly thereafter it caces for securing,
 storing, and distributing bridge timbers and bridge hardware. Instead of ordering
 aterial fro severa vendors, Carrier began sending o purchase t

Metals r all the material needed for a project, except the trtic it continue to order Kerr-McGee. . GS Metals would then order necessary items fro various vendors, have it shipped t its facility, ere it provided the same accounting and handling the P&MM Departmenre-

shipped t previously performed, and then re
 the material' t Kerr-McGee at Columbus, Mississippi, ere it placed
 in a gondola with the bridge timbers for the project, and from there, re-shipped to
 the job site.

The organization contends that GS Metals and Kerr-McGee took over certain duties and responsibilities of the Springfield PMM Department, and are now doing the sane work that Clerks and Material Handlers at that facility previously performed. This is a violation of its -Scope Rule, it is argued. Specifically the organization says that Carrier entered into a contract with GS Metals that resulted in that vendor acting as a distribution point to order and supply bridge hardware


a . 33044
 t . -
r



from other vendors an replace Carrier employees in the performance of that work. Also, Carrier entere into aagreement with Kerr-McGee whereby this vendor's employees would receive n load ride hardware into gondola that contain bridge timbers, thus replacing Carrier employees that previously did this work.

 Carrier responds that t c in procedures involve in is matter is
 erely " irect shipment" situation is o eliminates " i lean" fcin
 previously performed aits Springfield Department. t aues that Awards
 reere on tis property y have concluded that direct shipments from vendors and
 elimination of middleman functions are not t odds it the requirements the
 roes o Rule.

 This Board is 'not persuaded that Carrier's use of GS Metals to acquire
 supplies from r vors and t ship such material along iiti
 o a thir vendor, Kerr-McGee, is actual "direct shipment" situation, as argued.

    irect shipment situation is one ere a user the item, locomotive maintenance department, bridge or building department, office, t.,

some department or officer with purchasing authority, orders an item from a vendor
 and has the item or items shipped directly to the site where it is to be used. Direct

 shipment invoelimination, lves altogether, f t e storehouse Replacement a existi storehouse step iv vendor operated storehouse step is not a direct
 shipment situation.

 t is manifest tat t storehouse step has not been eliminated in the
 cres under review in s claim. Metals now functions i t se
 the Springfield Department functioned previously. t receives "material
 list" for bridge project, just like Springfield se to receive, an goes t
 securing the items needed for the project from the same vendors that the P&MM
 Department previously ordered from. When the items o the "shopping list" are
 receive y S Metals they are are for shipment eve loaded i
    f with t bridge timbers supplied Kerr-McGee.e middleman function


of eliminated, s argue y Carrier. t s only shifted property Metals. "Direct shipment" is of involved, as S Metals ships it arty,
 Kerr
 McGee, not the fial user. Metals is riers atria al Department for
 e projects.
 Carrier t this se s vi i s light
 " i v" , Award I , i
 Form a. 33044
 Page Docket . -
 ---®1

 "White nvelo " case users went o local vendopurchased r sle e,
 flashlights, welding rods, cleaning supplies, paper products, office su lies,
 which they formerly orerefro t Stores Department. These ve ors, like
 Metals did of manufacture their o stock. They ordered n purchased someone else the its they resol to ri.

 Carrier's arguments would carry so persuasion if all tat Metals s
 doing as stocking items for resale to Carrier, and ten shipping these items to the
 en user. However, the recor is conclusive, Metals is ing ore, more.
 t is of the very " ile a" function that s eliminated i t case t
 resulte i r Metals does of simply receive Carrier purchase o
 an pull a item oit self and ship it t se. does t yr or tat was
 previously e i Springfield. receives purchase eateil list for a
 particular bridge project. a it ctacts other vendors and orders tat material
 that they previously furnished directly to Carrier. The material is shipped to GS
 Metals, ere it is give the identical handling that it oul have een given if it had
 been n shipped to Springfield. GS Metals is now doing work that previously was work
 performed employees subject t re. Metals is a fact
 Carrier Stores Department.

The parties Scope Rule has been the center piece of a number of Awards of this n other oars. In some of these Awards the parties Scope Rule has been discussed at realg. t least one f these Awards trace development o

c Se through several series of negotions. Since a of its
 latest revision, certai " uz words" such as "freeze -frame," "adhesive quality,"
 "qua t ," etc., have ee "coined" i as to describe certain aspects
                                                    and


standards f application applicable o review. And wile vie f these iscloses tat o occasio the Organization prevailed a occasion t Carrier
 s prevailed, it may well l be that some of the "standards" announced, while well
 intended, , may actually result in a misapplication of the parties Agreement. These
 decisions ill of a revisite i any great detail y this oar s, notwithstanding
 what so a other oars ay have state t meaning a application Rule 1,
 e, i vsimple terms, it stes tat:

      " r covered t

      removed except y et e parties."

Form I Award No. 33044
 a c . -
 -3® --11
 this it canot bisute that work covered y t Scope f the
 Agreement at the ti e t Rule as adopted s removed, without agreement
 et. eet parties. Work covere by the cope of the Agreement aive t
 etals and also to Kerr-McGee, without agreement parties. This or s
 not eliminated, it atransferred, ursimple, t strangers t Agreement.
 Elimination of a middleman i not occur airet shipment to t user is not
 involved. Moreover, the or i not disappear, it continued to be performed by
 plees of S Material and employees of Kerr-McGee, after is no loner
 performed by employees subject to cope of the Agreement. The claim s merit. t
 ill be sustained.

 With respect to remedy, Carrier has argued that the claim was improperly
 submitted, its excessiv that Claimants suffered no monetary damages.
 Carrier's arguments on this point are not persuasive. This Board has frequently
 e1 tat no useful purpose o 1 e serve if a ere to find tat et
 s violate and no re offered. .n this matter substantial elnts of or
 covere the et as removed an given ttrers, even though Rule 1,
 fairly r, states that this cannot be done except by agreement. Accordingly, we will
 award the penalty s for i t Organization's Statement Claim.'

      Claim sustained.


      is Board, after r consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders

that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make
 the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is
 transmitted ti.

 t Chicago, Illinois, t t.
 SERIAL NO.

 NATIONAL

 L
 I

 INTERPRETATION NO. 1 TO AWARD NO. 33044

 DOCKET NO. CL-33705

 F : (Transportation Communications (Union

 NAME OF CARRIER:
(Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (Company

 y letter aced August ,1999, t oar s

 General ia

 v isd as folio the

 "riti you i reference to o Third Division Award 33.044,
 Docket No. CL-33705, 99-3-97-3-110, which was sustained by
 area e John C. Fletcher on January 25, 1999.

 The aforementioned claim involved a Scope Rule violation at,
 Springfield, Missouri. After issuance f the Award the ales et
 several times a a joint check f the facility made. a parties
 re in agreement that the violation has cease an have r
 agreed t monetary settlement.

 question as now arisen i regards t the monetary portion ft e settlement as twhether r of Claimant Carl . Woods who sine t attached release for (Attachment ), is viable Claimant a shoal e included i the distribution f monies. Therefore, in order to answer this question, please accept this as a formal request for an Interpretation of Third Division Award 33044. Please

 rein s handling.
 Page 2

 Serial No. t rat i .

 . 33044
 Docket o. CL-33705

 The Cli ant is represented y counsel. n the eve counsel
 wires to appear before the Board, by copy of this letter, counsel is
 instructed vise e you accord.ingly.11

 y letter ate September , 1 , e Board advised t parties o submit Submissions in this attar.

    e evidence shows that able a Claimant C. . Woods , i fact,

    to ed y Carrier in its Department at, Springfield on the date the

i i aI time claim as submitted t r a itio . is that ti

 is is assertions rest. a unchallenged oindicates, however, that March 14, 1997, (while the dispute was pending resolution), Mr. Woods signed
 a __ Resignation on and Release Agreement, and in so doing, agreed to accept ongoing

 eserve oar payments uncler the following pertinent conditions:

    "ere y elect o a lace "Reserve Board" under the terms

    n conditions set fort in Agreement between the Burlington,

    Northern Railroad Company (BN) and the Atchison Topeka and

    Santa Fe Railway Company (Santa Fe) and their respective

    employees represented by the' Transportation Communications

    International Union (TCU) ate ed December 19, 1995. (BN, Santa

    e and their successors an assigns shall hereinafter collectively

    referred t t " parry".

    irrevocable.


understand is election is

 regulatory orders, but I will continue to receive health and welfare
 `-erstan that, unless recalls ° y the
 Company, shall remain the Reserve oar either for six years; ; until I become eligible for
 unreduced annuity r e Railroad Retirement c; r until
 y death, whichever occurs first . . . further understand during
 is time shall of a title to any benefits under any labor
 agreements, including protective a eats rc agreements
      Page Serial No. 380

      Interpretation o.1 to

ward o.3
 Docket o. L-33705
 `Effective upon the issuance by the Company of the last monthly
 payment due a as a Reserve Board participant, I hereby
 knowingly and voluntarily resign fro the service of the Company.
 This resignation shall constitute a complete relinquishment and
 . surrender unto the Company of any and all my employ ent rights,
 including seniority, health and welfare, and other rights and
 benefits which may have accrued to e s an employee of the
 Company.
 `For and in consideration of the above, I hereby release the
 ompany fro any and all claims of any nature, known r
 unknown, which I have r might have against the Company,
 including, but not limited to, claims which derive fro or are based
 on any aspect of my employment relationship with the Company or
 resignation of such employment. Claims which I relinquish
 under this Agreement include, but are not limited to, personal
 injury claims, contract claims, labor claims, employment claims,
 claims arising under any federal, state r local common la r
 statute
`I uerstand this release e does not apply to any labor claims
 pertinent to the roper monthly amount of y reserve and
 menu.
 `I acknowledge a affir that I have carefully read this
 resignation and Release Agreement, that I have been afforde the
 opportunity o seek independent advice concerning the meaning f
 its language, that fully understand its terms an conditions, n
 that I a acting of y n free ill in executin this Agreement."
 Isl Carl . Woods
 March 14, 1997
 This Board- is now asked to rule upon the intended result of the Claimant's
      resignation n release as it pertains specifically t"1 claims" slati

Page 4

      Serial

No. 380
 Interpretation .to
 Award . 3044
 Docket .-

 contain t Agreement. a nee of travel f fro clear unambiguous
 language in t ant itself for guidance in answering question:

      " t, exactly, id allege Claimant Woods release the Carrier

      from when he voluntarily, and without coercion, signed the above


resignation agreement"!"

 The intent the release is reily apparent, this point. Claimant
 release Carrier fall claims, " r unknown" not pertaining to Reserve
 oar payments. a lovers t language s expressio uni s es
 exclusio atei s is manifestly r i the roof r. 's Resignation
 ree ant gar a to release from claims: the centerDiece of the issue at bar.
 Simply t, this principle, en fairly applied, means that expressly stating
 certain exceptions in written instrument, indicates that there are other
 exceptions. the instant case, on application is 1 ng-cce to standard
 of interpretation, it becomes palpably obvious to this Board, that by signing this,
 particular Resignation an Release Agreement, r. Woods relinquished any a
 11 claims against t Carrier (specified and non-specified), excepting those labor

 claims pertaining disbursement Reserve oar payments. There simply no other exceptions permissible under + the structure of this contract, n r.
 Woods, s a consequence, signed away any potential entitlement e ay have had
 to a portion of the penalty awarded in Third Division Award 33044 when he
 affixed is signature t arc 1 ,1997 Release Agreement.

 This oar further gives necessary authoritative force to ran
 chic address the issue raised herein. Due eig t is given to t e s stantial and
 dependable decrees already i lace regarding the viability of or
 claims when held in tension with Resignation and Release Agreements such as the
 one signed . Woods.

 it Division r 3271, t oar state

"After reviewing the full record on this claim the Board concludes that the claim has no viability in view of the March 21, 1997

Settlement Agreement signed t lain
 Page 5

 Serial No. 380
 Interpretation
 1 to
 a. 33044
 Docket No. CL-33705

 This oar has ruled n numerous occasions that claim is of in
 the face f such a giver. . See Third Division Awards 20832, 264709
 9, and 294 0. Also first Division r an
 Division Award 13034.1'

 This Referee held in n Second Division Award 12093 that:

 " otrtis to the dispute have raise numerous issues,
 procedural n substantive, in support f their . e
 oar s that t need consider one. December ,1 ,
 Petitioner resignation release r Carrier,
 which included the following provision:

 `release and forever discharge the carry fro
 any an all claims, guess of acio , and liabilities
 any i r actions currently pending in any stage- f
 appeal including those ati i ore the
 National Railroad Adjustment Board, arising
 my employment at, or termination of my employment

 from, the Company.'

is clear that such resignation and release covers the dispute before this oar in this docket.


The Claim, therefore, having. become moot, must be dismissed." (See also Second Division Award 12199.)


In Third Division Award 31915, the Board further stated:

 " his oar as revs ed the record in this case and we find that
 November 1,19 a Claimant executed release of all claims
 releasing and discharging the Carrier from all claims and liabilities
 every y kind and nature. Because this claim arose before the
 .execution f a release y the Claimant, Board s a
 e c must dismissed."
 Page.6 Serial No.
 Interpretation No. I to
 . 33044
 Docket . CL-33705
 e oar concluded i it Division that:

      6"Tis oar consistently recognized aly is bound

        such settlement n release, and tit face f such. a

      settlement and release the disputes coin thereunder e

      tadjusted nt is oar rd has no jurisdiction. It is not

      necessary for the Board to aitt substantive issue rise i

      t dockets as the issue as been a moot."


        as Special r Adjustment . l

further guidance. r the
                        Board held:


      "On December 23,1986, Claimant voluntarily resigned from service i exchange for lump sum payment. Claimant signed a release stating:


          'For and in consideration of the sum of $38,070.00,

          subject to the usual deductions, the receipt of which is

          hereby acknowledged, I hereby knowingly and

          voluntarily resign from t service of 'the Atchison,

          to Railway y and eress

          release e and relinquish unto said Railway Company all

          y rights s n employee, including y claims,

          seniority Health an Welfare, a t rights

          and

          benefits which y heretofore avacrut s

          r employee of said Railway Company.'


      Upon executing t release, Claimant waived i t s

      against the Carrier as of December 23, 1986, which would include

      t aim e."


      Special Board- of Adjustment Award No. 475 held under similar

circumstances t:
 e

      Serial

          No. 380

      Interpretation .1 t a o. 33044 Docket o. - 7


" n December ,1 7, Claimant voluntarily resigned fro sice i exchange for lump sum payment. Claimant signed a document stating

 `further understand tat this voluntary resignation
 constitutes full settlement and release of any an all
 claims of any nature, known r unknown, hi
 have or might have against said ail Company,
 including, but not limited to, claims is derive fro
 r are based y aspect f y preceding
 employment relationship with. sai Railway o
 r y resignation of such employment.'

 consideration for lump su separation allowance, Claimant relinquished rights she l against the Carrier as oecr 14,19 7, which includes t is claim. For the reasons ore fully set orth in o. 7 , e must dismiss this ."

The Board further encourages review the relevant findings contained in Third Division Awards 20832 and 26206, and Award No. 680 of Special Board of Adjustment 7 .


review of Counsel's arguments to this Board do not change our disposition. While assertions are made there is o evidence tat Claimant did not

t s involve in t E S. fact it as the Claimant, according
 to Counsel, o first sought the availability of participation. Asserted
 entitlements s under other statues and other circumstances simply does not provide
 a basis, , given the precedent in this industry, noted above, for a finding that
 Claimant's release does not apply in this matter,.

      Based o the whole of a re, this oar finds that y virtue t

Resignation and Release Agreement signed by Mr. Carl R. Woods on March 14,
 1 7, all claims s made by him concerning the disposition of Third Division Award
 3dismissed r f merit s discussed v .
 Page 8

 i1 . 380
 Interpretation o.1 t

    Award Docket . L-337


ccrdi

 ngly, an Award favorable to Mr. Carl R. Woods will not be made.

 Referee o. Fletcher who sat it Division as a neutral l member
 hen Award 0w as adopted, also participated it tDivision i
 is Interpretation.

 TI
 Order of Third Division

 ate t Chicago, Illinois, is 1t ~ of ril,