STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute is based on our contention that Carrier violated Rule 65 of the current Signalmen's Agreement when the living quarters (house trailer) to which Claimant had been assigned did not meet the requirements of that role, and that because of that violation, Claimant should be reimbursed for the room rent he paid for the period January 22 through 25, 1962 (four nights at $5.10 per night).
Claimant's assignment at the time this dispute arose was on a position with headquarters in a small house trailer provided by the Carrier.
Rule 65 provides, in part, that trailers shall be equipped with lights, water, shower baths, stoves, refrigeration, and cooking utensils, beds and mattresses, and that such equipment shall be kept in working condition by the Company.
On the dates listed in the Statement of Claim, the refrigeration equipment in the trailer assigned to Mr. Thomson as his living quarters was not functional, and had not been in working order for about eight weeks. During this period, Mr. Thomson made several requests that the equipment be repaired, but nothing was done.
Inasmuch as Mr. Thomson's living quarters did not meet the requirements of Rule 65, he established temporary residence elsewhere (in a motel) until his assigned living quarters were brought into compliance with the provisions of that rule.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was assigned to position of lead signalman including a trailer furnished by the Carrier. Over a period of time, he worked his way from Douglas, Arizona, to Deming, New Mexico, with several intermediate stops.
In issue here, is an expense account voucher submitted by the Claimant seeking reimbursement for lodging from January 22 to 25, 1962, inclusive, at the Mirador Motel in Deming, New Mexico. The Organization contends that the Claimant was compelled to vacate the trailer furnished by the Carrier due to a defective refrigerator unit included as part of the trailer equipment. The instant claim was progressed on the contention that the Carrier was obligated to maintain the refrigerator in a functional condition, in accordance with Rule 65 of the effective Agreement between the parties.
In seeking reimbursement, the Claimant contended that the refrigerator would not oeprate when placed in a level position according to the manufacturer's specification. Therefore, he was compelled to seek lodging elsewhere. It is noteworthy, that the Organization advanced the following statement, . that subsequent experimenting with this equipment disclosed that it had to be tipped forward an inch or two at the top in order to function properly."
The Carrier declined to pay the claim on the premise that the butane gas operated refrigerator was not defective. The following quote basically depicts its position:
It appears to us that the primary question to be resolved is whether the Carrier violated its obligations under Rule 65 of the current Agreement or, was the employe at fault as contended by the Carrier. The said Rule provides as follows:
It shall be the policy to maintain outfit cars in good and sanitary condition and to furnish steel cots, shower baths and provide sufficient means of ventilation and air space. All dining and sleeping cars shall be screened. Outfit cars used for road service shall be equipped with springs consistent with safety and character of car and comfort of employes.
It shall be the duty of the foreman to see that cars are kept clean. Kitchen and dining cars shall be furnished and equipped with stoves, utensils and dishes, in proportion to the number of men to be accommodated. 14133-10 355
The above quoted Rule undeniably places upon the Carrier the responsibility of maintaining the equipment in working condition. Additionally, the employe using the trailer has the responsibility of preparing the trailer for moving and also of hooking it up after moving. Analysis of the record reveals that the malfunction was not due to a mechanical defect in the refrigerator unit itself, but was attributable to improper leveling. Whether such improper leveling was induced by the Claimant failing to properly hook up the trailer after moving and, thus, causing it to be improperly parked, is a question of fact which we are not in a position to resolve. We can only be guided in this respect by the Carrier's statement that the refrigerator unit, upon inspection, did not require any repairs then, nor subsequently. It is, therefore, our con- 14133--11 36