Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS'1'iENT BOARD Award No. 9446
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9457
2-IHB-EW-X83
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 Employee:
1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) - Indiana Harbor Belt
Railroad declined to reimburse Electricia..i Daniel Norton for expenses
incurred for meal periods while performing work away from headquarters.
2.
That accordingly, the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail)-Indiana
Harbor Belt Railroad, be ordered to reimburse Electrician Daniel Norton
in the amount of 72.60 for actual expenses on January
2, 3, 4, 7,
8,
9, 10, 11, 14, 15,
16,
17, 18,
21, 22,
23, 24, 28, 29, 30
and
31, 1980
plus 9.5;~o
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 employee involved in this dispute.
are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Tabor Act,
as approved June 21,
193·
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
In Award No. 9445 involving the same issue on the same property, we held
that the practice of reimbursing meal claims prior to the October
31, 1979 policy
change notice did not include a predetermined mileage distance as a condition
precedent for reimbursement. Similar to our findings in that case, we find
herein that Carrier consistently reimbursed Claimant meal expenses, irrespective
of distance, when claims were submitted. Rule 15(h) does not indicate what
distances away from the employes' home point qualify for reimbursement and the
practice followed on the property before October
31, 1979
does not indicate that
a definable distance was required. We have no evidence that Carrier refused to
reimburse Claimant for similarly incurred meal expenses in the past and thus,
we must affirm his interpretive position. We will sustain the claim only for
the actual meal expenses Claimant incurred an the claimed dates. Our decision in
Award No. 9445 is controlling.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
Form 1
Page 2
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National
Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No. 9446
Docket No.
9+57
2-IHB-EW-'83
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Rose e~$rasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April, 19830