Form 1

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 33162
Docket No. MW-32261
99-3-95-3-74

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert Perkovich when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

(Consolidated Rail Corporation

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to




(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, the



FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 33162
Docket No. MW-32261
99-3-95-3-74

Subsequent to the Claimant's dismissal of May 26, 1992 the Carrier and the Organization entered into an agreement by which employees who qualified for an annual vacation in calendar year 1991 would receive $4,000.00 provided that those employees had an employment relationship as of the date of the Agreement. In a separate agreement the parties further agreed that those employees who were dismissed as of the date of the Agreement would have their entitlement to the payment determined ". . . upon the final outcome ofthedismissed employee's claim for reinstatement." On August 9, 1993 the Organization, the Carrier, and the Claimant agreed that he would be reinstated on a leniency basis. They further agreed that the agreement was ". . . in full, final and complete settlement of any and all claims J. W. Jones and the Union has, or may have, arising from the dismissal ... ." When the Carrier failed to pay the Claimant the $4,000.00 payment in question the Organization pursued the matter until it is now before this Board for resolution.


We find that the parties' agreements as set forth above require that the claim be
denied. Although one might argue that the Claimant had an "employment relationship" .rI
despite the fact that he was dismissed as of the date of the Agreement to pay the
$4,000.00 payment to those employees who were otherwise eligible, the parties
themselves agreed that in those cases the employee's eligibility would be governed by the
disposition of the challenge to the dismissal. Thus, we are constrained to look at the way
in which the Claimant's challenge to his dismissal was resolved. When we do so we find
that in return for reinstatement the Claimant agreed that reinstatement would be in
"full, final and complete settlement of any and all claims . . . arising from his dismissal."
Thus, the only question is whether the claim to the $4,000.00 payment arises from his
dismissal. We find that it does. Clearly had the Claimant not been dismissed he would
have been entitled to the payment. Thus, his dismissal placed the entitlement into
dispute and the claim for the payment therefore arose from his dismissal. Because it
does, and because the Claimant accepted reinstatement in lieu of this and other claims,
the instant matter must be denied.

AWARD

Claim denied.
Form 1 Page 3

Award No. 33162
Docket No. MW-32261
99-3-95-3-74

ORDER

This Board, after consideration ofthe dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of March 1999.