PARTIES 'TO THE DISPUTE:
-

 k- 2

 Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and. .- ..

 . The United Tiansportat~on Union (f)

 'PUBLIC LAW -BOARD Y;_C. 1,157

 NAr io?si~L :?t;tLs,Q.",t?
 AaJizSrZMVar sO~ir,~

 AV7_'=i7D NG. '!

 CASE No 0,

 STATEMENT- OF CLAIM-
Recpaesz of Memphis Line Trainman G. Watson that he be reinstated with seniority and vacation rights unimpaired, pay for all time lost:' account disirissed from service for alleged responsibility. in connection'switn movii>g..out 'of industry track and striking the sides of

 a passing passenger train at Russellville, TCelltucl:y, at about lls3

 ! a:m.;..7anuary 18, 1968. FINDI21G5s

 claimant :gas removed' from services on fel:rua-ty 9, 1968, and thereafter was reinstated on a leniency basis by the Carrier wi6h seniority. unimpaired o:.i A-,pril' 11,. 1962 The' claim insoi:ar as it xequestsw reinstatement is, therefore, moot and the Carrier asserts that the claim for pay . for tune, lost is also moot since the claiman'c';individuaiiy: signed a written waiver of uny claim for time lost as . a,vondition of accepting the-leniency reins tateme4t.

 it is the contention of tile Organ ization ',sat the lersiency reinstatement . agreement between thei Carri es and the individual ? s , invalzcl and ineffective since it did not have the, coiaent of tile

 rGeneral. `i:haikMan.

 The 'record e'stablislies that a1-t?:ougla the Canaral, Chairman was

 the designated representative of this-~qzlr3ioyee at the investigation and iia"asserting his claim for-reinstatement thereafter,, nevertheless the isldividual employee vcl`unta-ily 'elected to approch the Carrier on his own GO~ SeetC reinstatement on a leniency basis. On April 3; 1968; the-Carrier directed-a 'fetter to the General. Chairman statialc; ..tl-.at -the. claimant had approached `Carrier officials seeking a leniency reinstatement; that "-the Carrier Gras willing to restore him to service on 'a leniency basis without pay for time, lost, ;:.1'lc! requested the recommendation of tile c;nner al ::ha _l:rn<ll , T J1C:, G:,niV:Cell t,`.t1aJ.ri11:aR t:2ply.2d statirxg.that he was un;oilling to concur in a leniency rainsiatesnwnt or)_ the' terms proposed ay the Carrier. Thereaft.-^.r cha Ca.-rrier went

 ahead· and entered into the a5r-eei,ent rri.th the :i.ndividtlal claimant.
 The Carrier has ;.i tea numerous a;ra~a:~ of the ?:i.rst Dierision:,.'.;'-':.'r
and, several Special Board .oP -idjus"-Ment a^,ra=-c't's x,17- holding that,.~y~y~;;^~
 individual claiina:u:ls may enter into waiver agreements Of the "i-·y"W?',"'
 involved here %aithouz tire consent or evan the l:nce:_W:dg;_: of i51::';.~:
 representative, 'These holdings are co'rlsis-i:ent with 'ti a ganexFilly,:e=· '
 accepted'-rule of law haldi .g -chat ' a'par-cy, to 'a 1:':g'ai action .oiv h,~:
 -sserE_znr- a. claim through an aii:o-rliey.Inay coroi:_ronys a :.trot c-laiiii·
 with, the opposing: party without. the consent or approval oz his -
attorney. Oft the bas3.s of thesauthorities, it mast be held-that c3aimant e::ecuted'a-valid and binding i"ra?-veY of his claim for t?htt.

 lost. arnithis entire claim is now moot.
aTr7AF'.~T


~S,OLt15Vi3-1,.cco,~ ~KentLtch":7..


4.11; tlr.tlld':i and ITUL: CI: al k1nu:D::Y

 ~~u~;SLiL1ClOr~`'". yi_~li1;s:.LOvGc: li'=efR

 l1i>l.lc Giyy ., (:ur·..'1-.J'r 1S'u°-21Obu?3°.