Form l NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 731
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7232
2-SPIT&L)-EW-'77





Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)












Findings:

The -Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole 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, 193+.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



In the performance of his duties on 10 days in September and 3 days in October of 1975, claimant worked away from his headquarters. On each of those days claimant expended money for meals for which he is entitled to reimbursement under rule 10 of the agreement between the parties which in .pertinent part reads as follows:


Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 7314
Docket No. 7232
-SP(T&L)-EW-'77 1"r01

The issue in the instant case is whether the amount claimed by petitioner fox his meals on the aforementioned dates was so high as to remove it from the definition of "necessary expenses."

There is no dispute between the parties that charges for lunches and dinners on the dates set out on the vouchers axe appropriate, the only issue is the amount. There is some implication by carrier that claimant did not expend the amounts set out but this point is never adequately raised or dealt with on the property.

The carrier has unilaterally reduced claimant's expense voucher for September 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 from $x+6.78 to $2.38 and fox September 22, 23, and 25 and October. 2, 7 and 9 from $33.70 to $7$.09. The carrier added 5% for inflation and tendered claimant $42.47 in full satisfaction of his claim. This was refused by claimant.

The carrier is basing its interpretation as to what is "necessary" on vouchers filed by other employees over the same period and by claimant fox previous periods.

The record substantiates the fact that on this property at the points in question, amounts substantially less than that which petitioner has claimed have been regarded as sufficient to fulfill the carrier obligation. If, as claimant alleges, the amount necessary to fulfill the carrier's obligation under Rule 10 has been more than that claimed in the past he should have supported that allegation with evidence of probative value. The dictionary definition of necessary as "essential to an end or condition; indispensable" is quite narrow. The past actions of the parties have given to that word a doLlar.and cents value. Any attempt to alter that agreed on definition requires that the party suggesting that change bear the burden of proof. Claimant has not done so in this case.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTNtENT BOAR

By Order of Second Division


By
~~seinarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of July, 1977.