Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9134
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9018
 2-MP-CM-`82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ~ and Canada

Dispute: Claim of Employes:




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.

Claimants C. J. Clear and A. J. Savage are Carmen employed by Carrier at its repair facility in Kansas City, Missouri. They are also duly elected Local Union Representatives and, as such, are part of the Lodge 36 Local Union Committee.

 Cayman P. M. Murray is employed by Carrier in its Omaha, Nebraska, repair facility. He was the subject of an investigation that was scheduled for May 1 and 2, 1979. He requested that Claimants, as part of the Local Committee, be present to represent him at the hearing. Murry was also represented at the hearing by T. S. Daniels, General Chairman, and T. W. Jacobson, Local Chairman.

 Claimants left work on April 30, 1979, at 11:30 p.m. They traveled to Omaha, Nebraska, remained there through May 2, 1979, and returned to work at the start of their shift on may 3, 1979· Claimants were off their jobs a total of nineteen and one half (19.5) hours. Carrier refused to pay them for time lost at their home point.
 Form 1 Award No. 9134
 Page 2 Docket No. 9018
 2-MP-CM-'82

 The Organization argues that Omaha, Nebraska, where Murray worked, is a part of the territory covered by Local 35 of the Carmen's Organization and that, as such, he is allowed to have the Local Chairman and the Local Committee members available to assist him in a disciplinary investigation. The Organization further claims that the May 27, IgSg Letter of Understanding further supports ids position and that Carrier has always paid claims of the same nature since the 1959 Letter was agreed upon.

 It finally argues that Article 33 of the 1960 Agreement does not supercede the May 27, 1959 Letter. The 1959 Letter was an interpretation of Article 33 and, until recently, Carrier applied it as such. Carrier's Letter of Understanding, dated May 27, 1959, reads in pertinent part:





Carrier argues that Article 33 of the current Agreement supercedes the 1959 Letter and that, consequently, the contract is silent on pay for Committeemen while attending hearings. It further contends that the practice has been not to pay Local Committeemen for time lost if they had to travel to a hearing or investigation. It finally argues that the Organization has served two separate Section 6 notices on Carrier. They each requested changes in Rule 32· The language to be added reads as follows:







If in fact the current Agreement or a valid practice of paying all Committeemen for attendance at hearings did exist, such a demand would be unnecessary. A careful review of the record of this case reveals the following: (1) The Organization has not been successful in establishing that the May 27, 1959 Letter of Understanding applied to Committeemen who had to travel to and from one location to another to represent an employe. (2) It has not been successful in establishing that since 1959, a controlling practice existed on this Carrier to pay Committeemen who traveled from their home point to another point on the railroad to represent an employe for lost time. In fact, Carrier cited a number of situations in which such claims were withdrawn by the
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 9134
 Docket No. 9018
 2-MP-CM-'82

 Organization. (3) The organization has not been successful in undermining
 Carrier's argument that Rule 33 is controlling in this instance. It is the
 opinion of this Board that Rule 33 speaks to payment for Committeemen who must
 travel in the course of their business and that this rule only obligates Carrier
 to grant Committeemen who must leave their home point a leave of absence and free
 transportation. The clause is noticeably silent on the issue of pay for lost
 time, just as is the rest of the controlling Agreement.

 When these points are considered, together with the fact that the Organization has unsuccessfully attempted to gain through bargaining what it also seeks in this claim, it must be concluded that the Organization's claim is not based on a solid foundation. If it were, it would not be necessary for the Organization to attempt to effect language changes pertaining to this issue in the 1977 and 1980 Section 6 notices.

 It is the opinion of this Board that the Organization has not met its burden of proving its claim and that it must consequently be denied.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By -~ ~ ~~/yC.l'
 R ~arie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at (Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of June, 1982.