PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 DIS~rUTE : and

STATEMENT Claim in behalf of Section Foreman C. T. Parham
 Z7=Ti~ for compensation for wage loss incurred May 29
 to August 1, 1979, account improperly removed
 froih service in connection with derailment
 occurring May 22, 1979.
 FINDINGS: By reason of the Agreement entered into by and between
 the parties on August 31, 1978, and upon all the
 evidence and the whole record, the Board finds that the parties
 are employes and carrier respectively as defined in the Railway
 Labor Act, as amended, and that it has ,jurisdiction.

 Claimant was dismissed from service by the Division Engineer on June 27, 1979. Employes appealed that decision and presented this claim in a letter dated July 15, 1979. On July 29, 1979, the Division Engineer wrote to Mr. R. D. Hardesty, then the Assistant General Chairman, "that the Carrier is agreeable to reinstating Mr. Parham on a leniency basis, with no pay for lost time, but with seniority and vacation rights unimpaired". Claimant was reinstated as an employe-of the Carrier with full seniority and vacation rights unimpaired on August 1, 1979.

 August 1, 1979, was a Wednesday. In a letter dated August 5, 1979 (Sunday) Mr. Hardesty wrote to Mr. :Dimmer that his offer in his July 29, 1979 letter was not acceptable. And that letter also contained the following:


There is no validity for such an assumption. I·Ir. dimmer's offer in his July 29, 1979 letter is clear and unambiguous. Claimant could return as an employe with no pay for lost time. There can be no mistake. That letter does not state explicitly nor does it imply that Claimant could return and retain his claim for lost earnings.

 Neither does Mr. Hardesty's letter of August 5, 1979 refer to any conference or oral understanding that the claim for lost time remains valid. Nor does that letter imply that there was such a conference or oral agreement. Employes' statement in its submission that in a conference on July 29, 1979, "it was mutually agreed·that the Claimant could return to work August 1 without prejudice to the Organization's right to continue processing the claim for lost time" is a mere assertion and not evidence. Further, that contention was never made on the property during the processing of this claim.

 Upon this record, the Board finds that the claim was settled in full when Claimant returned to work on August 1, 1979. There is, therefore, no valid claim before the Board.

          Claim dismissed.


                                    vDAV DO CK, Chairman and d Neutral Nlember


r . btY , Car er Member S. . F PNG , employ Member

 DATED: S 9