BEFORE AN
 ARBITRATION COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED
 UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 11 OF THE
 NEW YORK DOCK EMPLOYEE PROTECTIVE CONDITTONS
PARTIES AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS )
 ASSOCIATION AWARD N0.
 AND CASE N0.
 J1Ji LT: '1L' ) .
 CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. ) `

 A.)R =3N 1ZAT ToN ' S STATEMENT OF CLATM:
Claim of Train Dispatcher D. W. Sasser for 15'0 of the market value of his residence, uner the RPai Estate Expenses option contained in Side Letter No. Agreement gated August !5, 1989.

 c~QFSTTON A1 Tf;JUE:
unner the circumstances prevalent herein. is the Carrier required to allow Claimant D. W. Sasser a secona settlement for real estate benefits on the same residence?

 :3Y i3 . i389 (:5X T1-anpsorzation. i :c. .Carri er%r CST

 the :%u:hor:.t; :wanted ::y -= :r:r:rsrat~ ,.,:,rir~

 4ua=:S1~I: % i %~Ci In Finance L1ocY°L SOS. ..9'J.r i~UD.-:~p. .! and r°; ~_:-:~,:ings. ':0053. '1c?33 and :'_106 ser:·r.= :oti,_3 ;.^.a~r .!rz:-_=

 ,3(a, o- tae iaDCr protective conditions -wet forth i.^. `?~w


':.Poi: ::':C tim?rlc,3n Train c

 .z _'~s -.ntenr. -and cof~rllinal:=_
 ..Brt~:,r;nec -_·.z. :ari-:)us Dca-ions throuahouir.

 rcr,:.- r

 ,'ack scnvi_' i=. _-- i,~ rics.

 ^.3rt..== ~nt~re
 L
 negotiations as provided in Article I, Section 4(a> of the New York Ljocx Conditions, and on August 15, 1989 the parties entered into Memorandum Agreement implementing the transaction. On the same date the parties executed Side Letter No. 1 to the Memorandum Agreement providing optional relocation allowances to employees transferring to JacAsonville as a result of the transaction and thus having to change their place of residence. Among those allowances was "15% of the fair market value of residence" to be paid to a transferring employee ~iacting not to sell his or her residence.
 5t :ae time the Carrier served its May 18, 1989 notice k~iaimant was working as a Train Dispatcher in Raleigh. North Carolina sna residing in Nashville, North Carolina in a home owned by Claimant. On February 22, 1990 Claimant transferred to Jacksonville. Florida. In connection with that transfer Claimant elected certain relocation benefits including 150 of the fair market value of his residence. 0n ~U::C .~U -~V ~"yaimant r:xecuted .a request f,:,r real estate dppraisa! 4n
 ~Dnn^.ecs--:-n with -he election of
 l:' :..e -3rrie1' aenied Clarequest for the 15'o benefit inn L.^.~
 ground t.^.at in connection with ~~ialmant 5 transfer L==:11 Rocky M.:)Un-,:
 _,a~=lan. :;ort Carolina 1:1 198:3 -"lalmant had received c!f
 3ppraisad value ~~f the same residence ($4,800) and had rele-ased r::e
 ._ arri-zr irom farther obligation regarding that residence.
 the Organization grieved the c:arrier's action. '''he ~'ar_-==·_
 (_cn;.c~: ::~e grievance. The Organisation appealed z.he denial z.,, *::e
 nig:nesL -tf icer -)f :,he Carrier designated to handle Euch ~i;~::=~.
 nowever. -.nc parties could not resolve the dispute, and the -=ar ti=

invoked the arbitratiun procedures of Article I. Section 11 of the New York Dock Conditions pursuant to which this Committee was created .and heard the dispute. The time specified in Article I, Section 11 for this Committee to render its decision was extended by the parties.

 FINDINGS:
 Emphasizing that Claimant transferred from Raleigh, North Carolina to Jacksonville, Florida as a result of the transaction and that Claimant therefore was required to change his residence. the organization argues that Claimant was entitled to the 150, of marker value benefit contained in Side Letter No. 1 to the August 15, 1989 Memorandum Agreement- The Organization further argues that the prior payment by the Carrier of the 15% benefit on the same residence is no bar to the payment sought here because the first payment and the releases executed by Claimant in connection therewith applied to 3 completely different transaction.
 The 1_arrier bases its rejection of the 15 '·o payment upon t'.^.^.e .Language of the September 8, 1987 release executed by Claimant =.. return for payment by 3 predecessor Carrier to Claimant of 15°0 of the fair market value of his residence at that time, the same residan,:u--izvo~ved in this case. in connection :with the transfer of Claimant' :.:or:: from cocky `fount to Raleigh, North Carolina. The r-ei=a= 6peciyically states that the Carrier ". . . is willing to make su,-:payment provided it be released by the Employee from ~r T ._o-:.i:,1t~n -,o aim, insofar as any loss suffered by the Employee in
 sale oz his home is concerned. . .
 pertinent part that:

 The release further states it

 The said Employee hereby releases, relinquishes and discharges any and all claims, demands or causes of action which the Employee had, has or may have against Seaboard System Railroad, Inc., its predecessors, successors or assigns, by reason of any loss which the Employee may suffer in connection therewith, or otherwise.

 in our opinion the language of the r?lease is clear an' s pec i= is . 1n return for the 15 % payment the predecessor Carri -r .--.::d its successors, including the Carrier in this case, were released any Lurtner obligation in connection with the sale or disposition the particular residence occupied by Claimant at the time he sign--' the release. inasmuch as that is the same residence with respect t=. which Claimant seeks the 15% payment in this case. we bel iavs

release a xtinguishes any obligation on the Carrier to make such
 Payment..
 qe are well aware that, as stated in the release. it teas
 generated by the transfer of dispatching work in :383 from Rocky :'=:::.
 Lo rialel-An, Oorth t."arolina. We understand the ! Drganl: at ion's arsumjen~
 ,,hat tile release should be ;nterpreted ao as tv apply _n_,~ r_:_ -.:__-_
 ransactlon and not to the --,ne generating the dispute 1T: ~~:115 :~__°J.
 However, as the arbitral authorit7 --elied upon by the C:'3rri=r=r~-= :-

                                                      r-,JC.n

~ndi=at.s, language such as that ::,-nntained in the r=leas= ::as . _ _
 interpreted zonsistently as Darring -ur:her :r 2-_,t_::-= _~-_ _-_-
                            - 5 -


obligations with respect to the particular subject matter of the release.
 The Organization argues that if the parties intended to restrict the 159 payment at issue in this case as urged by the Carrier they would have so specified in the August 15, 1989 Memorandum Agreement and/or Side Letter No. 1. However, the Carrier in rebuttal argues vigorously: and quite logically, that the language of the release as well as the May 4, 1983 Memorandum Agreement applicable -ne ;.ransier of dispatching work from Rocky Mount to Raleigh relieved :he Carrier from any further obligation with respect to the Particular residence upon which it paid the 15% of fair market value. Thus, from the Carriers point of view, there was no need to clarify in the '989 agrqement an economic benefit already available to the Carrier.
 The Organization emphasizes that had Claimant sold his residence when his work was relocated from Rocky Mount to Raleigh and purchased another residence, unquestionahl! tha Carrier ,,ould; :oii~atea co pay tae 159 of fair market value sought Oy Claimant :.n

 however, as the Carrier points out. :;'_simant in "act _'_?

 ,.)s -?11 ::is residence in 1983. Had he done so the Carrier would n-:~-~ :lave continued :o bear the potential -bligatii:~n to n.ay -ur t ^= ..=n~rits :n tat residence. In the instant case inasmuch as Claimant stain era .ownership of his home the Carrier maintained :-cant;.ai :.i_Diiity for repeated payments of the 15% of fair mare?: .1alua _ pt ion as ,he ; Iraanization would interpret and -2.rPL:.7 -n-z _`le=: :cat agreements and rC1e-ases. -t is just such continuing ~yabili-.~
                            0

on the Carrier's part that the language of the release executed in connection therewith appears to have been fashioned to eliminate.
 In the final analysis we can find no support for the position that Claimant is due a payment of 15% of fair market value on his existing residence under Side Letter No. 1 to the August 15, 1989 Memorandum Agreement.

                    AWARD


The Organization's claim is denied.
 the Carriers Question is answered in the negative.

            illiam E. Fredenberger, J

          Chairman and Neutral Member


                  it..

Michael Nicolettl :arr-,,=r ::ember

 H. E. Mullin X /0"

 Employee ?~h,