OPINION OF BOARD: Under the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 28, 1956, extra employes such as Claimant Henry were authorized to use a privately owned vehicle where they were unable to use "railway or highway bus transportation . . ." and arrive and depart within four hours at their points of relief service.

The evidence introduced on the property disclosed that Claimant could have used railway transportation and would have arrived and departed within the four hour limitations hereinbefore mentioned but that same would have taken up to twenty hours, and the route would have been "circuitous." Claimant used his own automobile, and sought reimbursement therefor, but Carrier rejected the claim.

The controlling question is not what is fair and reasonable, but, rather, what is the reasonable meaning of the memorandum. While said memorandum does not require that the rail transportation be by the most direct route, it is manifestly clear that it must have been contemplated by the parties that same was to be a reasonable route. Here, where the route would have required approximately twenty hours' deadheading, one way, and almost 1,000 miles by "circuitous" means, same was not such as obviously contemplated by the parties when entering into said memorandum agreement.

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

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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

That the Carrier violated the Memorandum Agreement of May 28, 1956.

AWARD