Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11583
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11372
88-2-87-2-28
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
(Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company violated
the controlling agreement, particularly Rule 14(d) and (e), when they denied
compensation to Grand Division Sheet Metal Worker R. F. McIntyre on July 5, 6,
7, 1985 when he was forced to displace on a job headquartered in Argentine,
Kansas.
2. That accordingly, the Atchison, Topeka and Sante Fe Railway
Company be ordered to compensate Mr. McIntyre for expenses incurred July 5, 6,
7, 1985, account being forced to move from Pueblo, Colorado to Argentine,
Kansas. Total amount claimed $176.17.
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 employes 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant's position at Pueblo, Colorado had been abolished and he
displaced to another position headquartered at Argentine, Kansas. Claimant
filed for reimbursement of meals and transportation for the move. The Organization asserts that Carrier violated Rule 14 (d) and (e) of the Agreement
when they denied mileage and meal expense reimbursement to Claimant. The
Organization charges that the violation of the Agreement is clear and furthermore that there is past practice on the property in support of said payment.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 11583
Docket No. 11372,
88-2-87-2-28
The Carrier disputes the Organization's Claim that it has violated
the Agreement, pointing to Rule 14 as one providing such expenses when an
employee is required to work away from his headquarters point. It contends
that Claimant was not working away from his headquarters point, but had
exercised seniority after a job abolishment. As such, it argues that since
the move was associated with travel for the purpose of getting to his new
headquarters point, the Rule does not entitle Claimant to reimbursement. Moreover, it denies any past practice of reimbursement under the conditions of the
instant claim.
In our review of this case, we concur with the Carrier's position.
There is no language in the Agreement that explicitly states what the organization requests in reimbursement for travel associated with the exercise of
seniority to displace at a new headquarters point. Rule 14 does not so state.
Further, we have studied the Awards cited by the Organization and find that
they are not on point with these circumstances. Lastly, the Organization has
not provided sufficient probative evidence to confirm its argument of past
practice. The two supportive statements were clearly refuted by Carrier. The
Carrier noted that one payment was inadvertent and the other it clearly
denied. The Carrier further noted that in fifty two other relocations, expenses such as claimed herein were not paid. In the absence of such clear
proof and Rule language, a violation of the Agreement was not demonstrated
A
W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest:
Nancy J/5pOlEr
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September 1988.