Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9445
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9+56
 2-IHB-EW-'83
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) Indiana Harbor Belt
 Railroad declined to reimburse Electrician Tom Mathewson for expenses
 incurred for seal periods while performing work away from headquarters.
 2. That accordingly, the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail)-Indiana
 Harbor Belt Railroad, be ordered to reimburse Electrician Tom Matthewson
 in the amount of 53.50 for actual expenses an January 2, 3, 4, 9, 10,
 II, 14, 17, 18, 22, 2i+, 28, 29, 30 and 31, 1080 plus 9. p interest
 compounded quarterly from the date of denial.
 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, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involv~sd herein.

The pivotal question herein is whether Carrier was required to reimburse Claimant for meal expenses when he was away from his home point and performing services on the claimed dates.

 Claimant contends that, irrespective of where an employe started or finished his work day, covered affected employes were consistently reimbursed for meal expenses when they were away from their home point or home station at mealtime. He argues that distance was never used as a criterion for determining meal reimbursement and thus, this employment condition accrued to employes as a pre-existing and contractually protected right. He avers that when Carrier issued a policy modification bulletin on October 31, 1979 stating that employes would not be reimbursed lunches if they were working within their assigned territory, it impermissibly and unilaterally amended an existing condition of employment which violated the section 6 procedures of the Railway Labor Act of 1926, as amended. He asserts that Carrier never disproved his assertions that reimbursed meal expenses were always allowed prior to the October 31, 1979 Policy change notice, when employes were away from their home point and performing services and as such the claim is an enforceable right.
 Form 1 Award No. 9445
 Page 2 Docket No. 9456

Carrier contends that neither Rule 14 or 15 provides for reimbursement to employes for noon day lunch expenses when their advertised positions clearly intend their travel of fifteen (I5) and twelve (12) miles respectively and they start and complete their regular tour of duty within their advertised eight (8) hour assignments. It argues that Claimant never submitted meal reimbursement claims for the first ten (10) months of 1980 and his failure to do so underscores its position that such expenses were unallowable. It asserts that the language of Rule 15(h) is not clear and unambiguous as contended by Claimant and the defining words in this provision "while away from home points" could mean a few feet away from the employe's home point, which leads to a ludicrous application. It avers that it reinstated in January of 1981 its former practice of applying Rule 15 (h) by reimbursing employes who are paid on a monthly basis the expenses incurred for meals when such employes were required to travel outside a ten (10) mile radius of headquarters.

 In our review of this case we concur with Claimant's position. Rule 15(h) which is germane to our determination is referenced as follows:

Careful reading of this rule does not indicate whether away from an employes' home point is three (3) miles or ten (10) miles and the practice on the property appears to be that no specific distance was consistently and explicitly observed. Carrier has not contested Petitioner's assertion that he was always reimbursed lunch expenses prior to the issuance of the October 31, 1979 policy change notice and its correlative contention that his failure to submit reimbursement claims for the first ten (10) months of 1980 demonstrates a lack of past practice, is without support. The primary concern before this Board is whether Carrier reimbursed Claimant for meal expenses prior to the aforesaid policy notice and the evidence strongly shows that it consistently tendered such compensatory allowances. It was incumbent upon Carrier to prove convincingly that it never reimbursed Claimant for similar expenses prior to October 13, 1979 and it did not do so. We will sustain the claim only for actual meal expenses incurred.

    Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.


    NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTrENT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Acting Executive Secretary

          Tonal Railroad Adjustment Board

                  · --


By L _
      emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April, 19830

 wW