Upon the whole record nd alt he evidence, the Board finds tat the -ties hrein
 amended. Claimants all received Feb. 7 protective went-, fry the Carrier for the

 furlough sttus ,kith ri~hts to rcall under the aplilmble working a,
On October 2, 2000, the Organization submitted a clairn on behalf of the Claimants alleging that Carrier violated the IT!P,,IBM)XT-, collective bargiining agreement when it utilized NorthweAerrt District Steel Erection employees to perforrn carpenter work reserved to the Claimants. 'I'hC"a-rier denied the claim can November-')7, 2000. The matter roceeded on the rc>perty until a settlement was reached in confierence on

 E. 21. Each Claimant was allowed forty (4j hors at the straight time rats of

 ay Ivr August 21. `?2a ? ; and 1-4. '?00. However, the Carrier advised the Cr-arai7tion
 that the payments would be used to offset Article , Section I I protective allowances

 previously laid to the Claimants for the month cat August

 disagreed ith the Carrier's use f time claim

 payments. understanding =as reached tar allow the Organization co refer the matter
 directiv to this Board.

 Sbiect to th-- rovisFos of Section 31 of thisAnieie iV.
 have the authority to fashion a doctrine of "equitable recoupment,

 Carrier's contention to the cotrarly. Therefore. the caim mm e ;
 The Carrier
 -Be Carrier argues that it properly ad.justed t1he August 2000 protection alloNvances ofthe Claimants to reflect straight-tinic cornpcnsation paid to them Ls a result of a caim settlement. Article Ira Section i of the Feb, 7 Agreement clearly indicates that an eniploec is not to be pL-
 ,4ced in a worse position with Tegard to compensation. Such
 ]an ,ggc contemplates that an ernlo,-cis prv icy: a safet-v nct in rotecive
 compensation. t

 of this protection, the Carrier submits.

 to allow an employee to enrich himself through the use

 ire this case. Claimants have received protective allowance and now the Oranizatiois attempting to create an ec:orromic windfall for them. Sch a result is nt warranted wider the F& 7 Agreement. In the Carrier's view, d the Claimants

 performed the wdrat issue, heir straight time earnings would ha

 offset in the calculation of protection due for the month.

 tit basic fact, Carrier asserts. Thus, Carrier was correct in offsetting the tape

 claim payments against The protective payments Claimants received. The claim should

 ,fit issue n this case is whether the Carrier was permitted under the Feb. 7 Agreement,. as amended, co use time cH.aiin settlement payerrts as offsets to the

 protective benefits paid to the

 The Board rids that Carrier's reliance on Article IV. Section I is misplaced, Tisat provision, set forth in aril above, revers to the compensation guaranteed under the Feb. 7 Agreement. It seas firth the promise that protects employces from being placed in a "-arse, position" with respect to compensation but it does nc.st address the circumstances under which a protected urnployee becomes ineligible for the protective pir"Illents

 this case. That provision lists with particularity the even
 ctxloyee to lose his entitlement to tt; bcnefits afforded in the gremt:nt. A. cef review of that provision clearly shows that settlement of claim under a collective

 7 Agreement is not date of the secfc items listed.

 This conclusion is supported by the well-established common sense canon of contract construction knon "expressgo unis e,s°P exclusion alterius" -- the mention of' one thin( implies the exclusion of' another. Applying the rule ire this context, it is ch=ar that the parties explicitly limited the application of Article IV. Section 5 to the specific factual situations set forth therein. They did not include any general tar inclusive terms deft would permit a blanket application of the provision. Thus. the inclusion ref particular circumstances in which employees can have their protective benefits deducted or offset necessarily means that the parties purposefully untitled other potential circumstances, including the ore at issue in this case. We must conclude that the parties dice not intend that a pteeted employee woutd become incligabie for benefits based on a claim settlement under a collective bargaining agreement or presumably the parties would have included that circumstance in Article fix, , Section 5. .
 The application of this logic is strengthened by arbitral precedent= fry ncg ia~ ex csf!cfittnt~tt C~5, Award N~o. 53> tire employee, w=ho was subject to protection

 under the February 7 AL=rcetriet. could not

by a union not

 em pic~,ee had begirt compcnsated in all amount equal to or in excess

 'a I
...there is no qualification under the terms of the February 7 Agreement

 agreement, receives compensation as a result of employment outside the industry.
 or even receives compensation user the terms of an. policy. As sac
 the protected employee is entitled to compensation under the February 7
 Agreement without offset.
 Subsequent cases have applied this reasoning in other contexts, with similar

 of Atl~ustruent 605, Awar'~o, 183, compensation earned by

 is protected compensation. Likewise. in ,~ ~eial l~c~r~ of

 No. 316, outside earnings could not be deducted from, protective payments.
 Ill view cat the foregoing, we find tllat there is no contractual support for the Carrier's recoupment of protective payments previously made to the Claimants. In so finding, we are coanirnt of Carrier's contention that an economic windfall Nvill be the result. However, the Board's authority is confined to interpreting Glnd applying the terms of the 'eh. 7 Agreement to the claim at hand, ie cannot rewrite the agreement on the basis that it would be more equitable. Since e settlement of a collective bargaining

 basis for offsetting protected employee's benefits., we must sustain the clarn.

Carrier violated the provisions of the February 'l. 1 965 Agreement in Medition
 Case No. A-7128, as amended by Article II of the September 26.1996
 Agreement in N14ediation Case No. A-12718 when it deducted from Claimants'
 protective payments amounts equal to claims payments they received in
 connection with a negotiated settlement of a collective bargaining agreement
 claim involving loss of work, The claim is hereby sustained.




                  t


A. K. T-OraZlia
 Carrier ember

          it _t

~`~=~° _ -' . ''-` °£.-- "''°- C 'Oh _ ~7 p.~- _. .-°"`"a

 1 . Hennckse
 Carrier Member

 Dat;ad this day 4)t , 2004.