STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The claimants are regularly assigned B&B employes headquartered at Newport, Vermont.
On February 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16, 1970, they were assigned to'.perform certain B&B work at St. Johnsbury, Vermont. Employes who are required to work away from their designated headquarters point are entitled to be reimbursed for the actual reasonable cost of meals and lodging, not to exceed $7.00 per day. This provision is set forth within Rule 29(i) which reads:
The claimants submitted a properly completed Form 140 (statement of personal ..expenses) setting forth the amount of expenses incurred for meals and the amount of expenses incurred for lodging each day. On Thursday, February 5, :Friday, February 13 and on Monday, February 16, 1970, the claimants returned.to. their respective homes after the close of their regular work period and, therefore, incurred only meal expenses on those days. The Carrier reimbursed the claimants for all expenses except for those incurred for the noonday meal on Monday, February 16, 1970. Its excuse for refusing to do so was set forth within a letter reading:
Upon receipt of these employer' expense accounts, the Carrier accepted payment of all mileage expenses and declined payment of meals expenses.
In his letter of May 7, 1970, the ~Geneial Chairman of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employer claimed that the meal expenses be paid to each employe for that day of February 16, 1970. Tha claim was declined by the Carrier as per letter of May ate, 1770 from the Regional Manager, Operation and Maintenance.
The parties involved in the instant dispute are governed by the Collective Agreement dated September 1, 1949, as amended. One of the amendments to this Collective Agreement is the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 16, 1968, Which is a result of the provisions contained in Section V of Award of the Board of Axbitrati.an No. 298 concerning "Travel Time and Expenses fox Employer Required to Work Away From Their Home Station." This Memorandum o£ Agreement dated May 16, 7.968, contains the provisions over which the instant dispute has arisen, and 'it is therefore enclosed with this aubmi!ssion as Appendix "A."
OPINION 07<' BOARD. This claim arose when Carrier refused to allow m·:al expense for the claimants. The applicable rule is 28 (1) (i) which reads as follows:
There is no question but that the claimants returned to their headquarters point on tube day .in question. 1n fact, a claim for mileage from St. Johnsbury to the headquarters at Nezvpox°t was submitted by claimants for the days in question.
The rule is clear. The employes ax°e to be allowed the meal expense "when they are unable to return to their headquarters point on any day * * *" ,Since the claimants returned ~to Newport on the day in question it is obvious that they were not entitled to the meal expense under 28(i). See Award 18973 (Call) between the same parties interpreting the rule.