rived at DuQuoin at 1:51 A. M., which would have meant a wait of five hours and nine minutes before going to work with no opportunity for rest. The quitting time of the position was 4:00 P. M. and the first available train returning to Centralia was No. 2, which departed from DuQuoin at 6:56 P. M. and arrived at Centralia at 7:32 P. M., which would have necessitated a wait of two hours and thirty-two minutes.

(2) Sloat, confronted with these circumstances, chose to use his automobile. He asked that he be allowed mileage, but Carrier refused.

September 30, 1957 claim was filed with Master Mechanic Jeffrey for Sloat. See Employes' Exhibit No. 1.

October 24, 1957, claim was declined by Master Mechanic Jeffrey on the premise that there was no violation of the agreement. See Employes' Exhibit No. 2.

November 12, 1957, claim was appealed to Superintendent of Motive Power Welsch. Employes' Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4.

January 3, 1958, claim was appealed to Manager of Personnel R. E. Lorentz. Employes' Exhibits Nos. 5-A, 5-B, 5-C, 5-D, 5-E, 5-F, 5-G, 5-H, 5-1, 5-J and 5-K.

The dispute was discussed with Management in conference on June 7, 1958, and November 5, 1958, but not composed.

EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS-CASE NO. 2:

(1) Extra Clerk Marie Wilson, Centralia, Illinois, was required to fill vacancy on position of roundhouse clerk at Carbondale, Illinois, hours 11:00 P. M. to 7:00 A. M. on September 8, 1957. Train No. 9 was available but did not arrive at Carbondale until 10:47 P. M. This train is frequently late. Even if on time, Mrs. Wilson would have had only thirteen minutes in which to get to the roundhouse, which is approximately one mile from the station. Train No. 5 departed from Centralia at 8:41 P. M. and arrived at Carbondale at 9:32 P. M. Employes are not permitted to ride on passes on this train between Chicago and Memphis, Tennessee. The next closest arrival at Carbondale was Train No. 1 at 12:33 P. M. Mrs. Wilson chose to pay her fare of $3.18 on Train No. 5 rather than be late in protecting her assignment or to wait from 12:33 P. M. to 11:00 P. M. to go to work.

September 12, 1957, Mrs. Wilson was required to fill a similar position, hours 11:00 P. M. to 7:00 A. M., at Cairo. She again paid her fare of $6.08 on Train No. 5 which arrived at Cairo at 10:48 P. M. The next nearest arrival was Train No. 1 at 1:58 P. M.

September 15, 1957, Mrs. Wilson was again required to work the 11:00 P. M. to 7:00 A. M. roundhouse clerk position at Carbondale. Due to Carrier's refusal to refund train fare for the two above mentioned dates, she drove her automobile to and from Carbondale.

(2) October 25, 1957, claim was filed with Master Mechanic Jeffrey for Wilson. See Employes' Exhibit No. 6.

October 31, 1957, claim was declined by Master Mechanic Jeffrey. See Employes' Exhibit No. 7.

OPINION OF BOARD: Two separate cases are involved presenting similar issues for determination. Each claim is for automobile mileage expense allegedly due to Claimants who, on different dates and at separate places, were assigned to fill temporary vacancies. Both Claimants were extra clerks.

Petitioner contends that Carrier violated Rule 44 of the Agreement,, which provides as follows:

"ROAD SERVICE-TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT

"(a) Employes not regularly assigned to road service, who are temporarily required to perform service away from their headquarters which necessitates their traveling, shall be allowed necessary expenses while away from their headquarters, and will be paid pro rata for any additional time required in traveling to and from the temporary assignment, except that where lodging is furnished and paid for by the railroad no additional compensation will be allowed unless actually required to perform service in excess of eight (8) consecutive hours, exclusive of meal period.

"(b) The foregoing paragraph shall not apply to an employe temporarily filling a position during the absence of the employe regularly assigned to road service, or pending a permanent assignment as provided in Rule 11, but in such cases, the basis of compensation shall be the same as for the regular employe except as provided in Rule 50."

Carrier argues that the expenses claimed are not "necessary" expenses contemplated by Rule 44; that Rule 44 applies only to regular employes and was never intended nor applied to extra employes.

Rule 44 does not specifically include or exclude extra employes. It cannot be gleaned from the language whether the parties intended to include or exclude the allowance of "necessary expenses" to extra employes. In the absence of clear and unambiguous language, it is necessary to examine the custom and practice to determine the intent of the parties.

The record contains thirty-five affidavits from supervisory and nonsupervisory employes showing that for a period of about thirty-five years "necessary expenses" as contemplated in Rule 44 were never paid to extra employes. This fact is nowhere rebutted by Petitioner. Such past practice has given meaning and intent to Rule 44 which we may not modify. A change in such accepted meaning and intent may be accomplished only through the process of collective bargaining as provided in the Railway Labor Act.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

AWARD