The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Howard A. Johnson when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 101, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Great Northern Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, assigns some employes of the Communication Department to Communication Crews. The Communication Crews work at any point within their assigned district limits, the points being determined by the Carrier's orders. The district limits of Communication Crews, Lines East, to which claimant is assigned, are from St. Paul, Minnesota to Bainsville, Montana, and include all branch lines in this area. Employes of Communication crews are assigned by bulletin in accordance with schedule rules to specific outfit cars, which are their headquarters.
Stephan J. Jonas, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, is employed as communication crew lineman, Class 5, on Crew OCC-3, lines east. During the month of May, 1964, Claimant worked in his classification at points including Minneapolis, being assigned to perform such work by the Carrier. In this period of time, Claimant incurred expenses in the amount of $7.55 for meals and lodging while working at or near Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Carrier failed to reimburse Claimant said expenses by deducting the amount of $7.55 from Claimant's expense account. Carrier made the erroneous contention that Claimant's assigned headquarters was Minneapolis, Minnesota, ignoring the fact that Claimant had previously been assigned by bulletin to a specific crew with headquarters in a specific outfit, and based their improper deduction from Claimant's expense account on this erroneous contention. Carrier made the
1, 1 N DINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the ;hole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The claim is that in violation of the Agreement the Carrier failed to reimburse Claimant for expenses incurred in Carrier's service during the month of May, 1964, amounting to $7.55.
Prior to March 31, 1964, district communications crews on Carrier's Lines East were assigned to outfit cars concerning which Rule 50 provides as follows:
By bulletin of March 18, 1964, the assignment of such communications crews to outfit cars was abolished, effective as of March 31, 1964, and bids were advertised for three separate crews as of April 1, 1964, to perform maintenance work on communications lines and facilities of the area by means of highway trucks, with headquarters on definite points. Claimant bid into a lineman's position on the No. 3 crew with Minneapolis as its designated headquarters, and was assigned it on April 3, 1964.
His claim is for expenses incurred at Minneapolis, the established headquarters of his crew. It is stressed that he lives at Avon, Minnesota; but no rule is cited which would entitle him to reimbursement for expenses at the headquarters of his position because of his maintenance of a residence elsewhere.
It is contended, however, that he is entitled to reimbursement of expenses under Rule 10, which provides that:
But Rule 10 relates only to road service away from home point, and not to service at the employe's headquarters point on his regular assignment.
The Employes' main contention is that the April 1, 1964 change of communications crew assignments from outfit cars to headquarters points was in violation of the Agreement. However, that claim was raised in Docket No. 4973 and was denied by Award No. 5164, which under the Railway Labor Act is final and cannot be reconsidered by this Division.