PA ;TIES ) Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUT) Transportation-Communication Employees Union

 QUESTIO=T
 AT ISSU_i: Are any protective provisions of the
 Februa:_y 7, 196-5 Agreement nullified
 by the terms o= an implementing agree
 ment made to affect tile coordination
 of facilities under the Hashington
 Agreement?
 OPIUION
 OF BOARD: The facilities at Star:~ford, Texas, were coordinated
 under a coordination agreement executed on January 26,
 1966. As a result of tiie coordination, Telegraph
 Cashier D. B. Chancellor was displaced and subsequently exercised
 seniorrit to a Telegrap_,cr's position at Decatur, Texas, in order
 to retain his protected status- 7`i:e question is whether the
 $400.00 transfer allowa:=ce provided in Article V of the February
 7, 1965, Agreement is due, or whether l=a is entitled to no more
 than is specified in the coordination agreement.

 Paragraph 2, Article V - :loving Expenses and Separation Allowances, of the February 7 Agreement provides:

                                      Case No. TCU-40-11


                hundred dollars ($400) and five working days instead of the "two working days" provided by Section 10 (a) of said Agreement.


The coordination agreement makes no reference to the $400.00 transfer allowance, although it specifies Carrier's obli.gati ova for moving ei:penses, mileage and wage loss. According to the Organization, this benefit is due any employee caho is required to transfer to a point of employment involving a change of residence to retain his protected status. Tae Organization cites Article VI, Section 3, of tile February 7 Agreement va.ich states, as fo11o-,as:

                Without in any way modifying or dimi_n- isning the protection benefits or otner provisions of this agreement, it is understood that in the event of a coordination between two or more carriers as the tern "coordination" is defined in the Washington Job Protection Agreement, said Washington Agreement will be applicable to suc:i coordination... (Underlining added.)


Carrier states that this provision "is designed to provide the protection of the Washington Job Protection Agreement... to employees who are not protected under the provisions of the February 7, 1965 Agreement," according to Page 18 of the Interpretations, dated ?;o,,rember 24, 1965. Further, Carrier notes the General- Question on Page 18, which indicates that the Interpretations do not apply to agreements entered into subsequent to Februarv 7, 1955, as in this case. Finally, according to Carrier, the $400.00 allowance is not due a :der the lashington Agree-ent and if the parties ;lad intended to provide it, their agreei,,ient would have soec_~.fied it.

 Article VI, Section 3, provides that the benefits of the February 7, 1905, Acreem=::t are not to be modified or c`minishecl. Tile parties o` course may specifically agree to modify

                          -2-

                                      Award No. zzi

                                      Case No. TCU-40-:,7


any provision of an agreement between them but silence cannot accomplish it. By listing conditions for the coordination they did not waive contractual benefits not mentioned. A waiver, if intended, must be explicit. There was no waiver. of the $400.00 allowance expressed in the January, 1966, agreement.

 Section 8 of that agreement provides that "except as other~,Iise provided for in this agreement, it is understood and agreed that all provisions of the 'Washington Job Protection Agrccment of May 1936 shall apply..." Without a waiver they must apply, as do the applicable benefits of the February 7 Agreement, which was then in force for a year.

 To accept Carrier's reasoning. would require a finding that none of the provisions of the February 7 Agreement were applica:Dle in a case like this. For either that Agreement ·:.·as waived in its entirety by Section 8 of the January 25, 1966, agreement, or all of it governs these parties. If, for example, they had meant that "only" the provisions of the Washington Agreement apply, they, should have said so. Absent affirmative language, there is no evidence of a mutual intent to deny any of the February 7, 1965, benefits to affected employees.

 The general question on Page 18 of the Interpretations is not applicable. The issue arises under the Agreement, not under a subsequent interpretation.

 With regard to Carrier's contention that Article VI, Section 3, was designed to give benefits to non-protected employe--s, the Interpretations do so provide. The,, are to receive the Uashi:l--ton benefits. But tnat was not the exclusive purpose of this provision. As it states, it does not limit the February 7 benefits to which protected employees are entitled.

                        A Pd A '; D


            Tile answer to the Question is iNo.


                          Milton Frie6_~a:1

                          Neutral l 'lem"Iber


tqash~ngton, D.C. November 1&, 1970 -3-