The Second Division consisted-of the regular members and in

. addition Referee Nicholas I?. Zumas when award .-Tas rendered.

      System Federation Z?o. 7, Railway Employes'

      ' Departmet:t ; A . F . of L . C . I . 0 .

      Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)


                      ( Burlingt. on -Northern, Inc.


      Dispute: Claim of Fmnloyes:


                1. That the Carrier violated the terms of the current agreement when it failed to reimburse Co^amunication Crew Cable Splicer F. F. Suckert as specified in schedule,:r,L.es for the entire amount of expenses which he incurred while performing service for the Carrier during the month of June 1971.


                2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate the aforementioned employee in the amount of 18.50.


      Find inUs


    The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and 0 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.


              Ps.rties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


. The .central question to be determined in this dispute is ,r'ne+her, under the
      provisions of Rule 40 of the Agreement, Cayxrier is required to provide free transportG

      tion to Claimant even though rail transpcrtaticn bet-reen the two points in question

. was provided by 1'1ITRA:i and. not the Carrier on the claim dates in question.

              ';Ule 40 provides:


              "Employees covered by this ogreerent and those depenling upon them for -upcrt :gill be friven the same consideration in isauing :"ree tran3rcrtation as is~granted other employees in the sorvice. Transportation gill be furnished. crew :ien if it is possible for them to go home for their rest days."

:.F orm 1 Page c

 Award iio · 6588
 Docket I~Io. 641.5
 2-Brz-E';.r-' 73

 The Carrier takes the position that Rule 40 ;gas intended. tc prcviue transp(-rtation on Carrier facili'Gies if and when such facilities were available and under its control. Since it did rot provide passener service between Park, North Dakota and Minneapolis, "Minnesota cn the cla m dates in question, Carrier asserts that there was no obligation to reimburse.

 The Organization contends that the second sentence of Rule 40 ("^rans^ortr:tic
 will he f1.,.rnishec, ere*.r rien ~r it rcssible for the;a to ~zo hcre fir their rest ua~.s .~

 is a mcndatory requirement cn "he fart of Carrier under any circumstance and. irrespective of whether Carrier orerates passenger service bet;·reen the t!.;o points involved.

 The Board does not a-ree with Organization's contention. F;ule 40 :rust be read and construed in its totality. Basic to the providing of free transpcrtaticn under Rule 40 i s the aZ.i l a .biiitt· of such= transportation .by Carrier. Such a:ailabllit,, encompasses crews coma home on their rest days, Inasmuch as A"fiTR^h had control of the passenger service between Fargo and Ninneapolis, free transportation was not available under the control and ausrices of Carrier. See Third Division Ae:a.rd.s No.
 12351, 16745, 18152, 18,0.61, 1Q138; and unnumbered award. of P.L. Board. No. 970.

 A W A R D
Claim d.enied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 NATIONAL RA IT ROi1D A DJUS TAM; T BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 RcSernar ie Bras ch - Administrative f': s s is Cant

 Dated. at Chicago, Illinois, his 15th day of November.. 1973