(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company ( (Chesapeake District)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
 (Chesapeake District):

 Accept this letter as a formal claim by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen for and on behalf of the Claimants named below. Claimants are assigned to a signal gang headquartered at Hinton, West Virginia, without camp cars. This claim is presented on the assumption that this gang will not be employed for a period of one year at the present location. Therefore the Claimants are entitled to t 1968 (Arbitration Award 298) and Official Interpretations thereto. Claim is made for the period beginning February 21, 1970, and continuing until such time as the Carrier takes the necessary action to properly compensate the Claimants' in accordance with our Agreement of February 15, 1968-and Official Interpretations thereto.



(Carrier's File: 1-SG-278)

 OPINION OF BOARD: This claim involves the ~s,,a,8 mpe claimants and issues that were
 considered in AX1X4 19'7and, thus, the merits of this
 claim have been previously considered and determined by the Board. However, in
 this claim, we have a threehhold question concerning alleged violations of time
 limits.

 When the Organization filed its claim in Avsrd 19478# it stated in a March 3, 1970 letter that:



The matters covered by the instant docket were presented to Carrier in the Organization's letter described therein as a "formal claim" for lodging and board for the period beginning February 21, 1970 and continuing until corrective action occurs. On July 25, 1970 the Organization wrote that, due to Carrier's non-response to the April 17 letter, the claim was required to be paid under time limits. On August 3, 1970 the Carrier wrote that, because the April 17 letter had been taken as a continuation of the March 3, 1970 claim, which had been denied, a further denial was not deemed necessary.

 On these facts Petitioner asserts that its April 17, 1970 letter presented a claim separate and distinct from the March 3, 1970 claim and, accordingly, the Carrier's August 3 letter was not within the 60-day time limit. Carrier says the April 17 letter was a continuation of the initial March 3 claim and, alternatively, that, if the April 17 letter was indeed a separate claim, then its filing was not within the 60-day time limit because the date of the alleged occurrence of violation was January 8, 1970.

 In light of the whole record, particularly the quoted portion of the Organization's March 3, 1970 letter, the only function of the April 17 letter was to extend the 20, 1970. In all other material respects the substantive import of the April 17 letter was identical to that of the March 3, 1970 letter. In these circumstances we think it is c the March 3 claim and, consequently, we find no problem with the Carrier's treatment of the letter as a continuation of the March 3 claim.

 Thus, having found no.time limits violation, we now come to the merits of the dispute. The Carrier established a signal gang at Hinton, West Virginia, from January 8 through May 23, 1970. In connection therewith claim was made for lodging and meal allowances under an Agreement which is dated February 15, 1968, and which evolved from the award of Arbitration Board No. 298. In Ao11sA 19478 we awarded allowances-for meals, but nothing for lodgings, for the period January 8 through February 20, 1970. We shall make the same award herein for the period February 21 through and including May 23, 1970.

 The reasons for our award here are the same as those stated in our
 opinion in AvLA 194/80 However, in that docket, the fact that claimants
 lived at home was not before the Board. That fact is before the Board in this
 dispute, but it does not affect the claimant's rights to meal allowances. In
 our opinion in the prior docket, after expressly noting that this Board was not
 bound by Interpretations of Arbitration Board No. 298, we then made reference to,
 and use of, several such Interpretations in a manner which we deemed sound and
 suitable for resolving the dispute. In connection with claimant's living at
 home, we now call attention to Interpretation No. 58.
                          Award Number 19801 Page 3

                          Docket Number SG-19577


              "INTERPRETATION NO. 58 (Carrier's Question No 1· MWE and CB&Q)


                      QUESTION: Are Section 1 employees entitled to meal allowance while stationed in their home towns and such employees are living at home with their families?


              ANSWER: Yes. See Interpretation No. 55."


        Also on the broader question raised by this claim attention is called to Interpretation No. 38.


              "INTERPRETATION NO 38 (Question No 27· BRS and C&0 (Chesa )


                      QUESTION: When Carrier established a signal gang with a headquarters point but did not furnish c other lodging or dining facilities, and abolished the gang after six weeks, were the employee assigned to that gang entitled to the meals and lodging provisions of Article I of the Award?


              ANSWER: This question is answered by Interpretation No. 12."


        We shall also note, as we did in Arazd 19)178, that, even though the Award of Arbitration Board No. 298 is involved in this dispute, there is no jurisdictional barrier to this Board's determining the dispute. Indeed, the Carrier's Submission specifically states that:


              "... it is the Carrier's position that the Schedule Agreement as revised by the February 15, 1968, Agreement is involved in this dispute rather than Arbitration Award No. 298 as such."


        In view of the foregoing we shall deny the claim for lodging, but shall sustain the claim for meal allowances for the period February 21, 1970 through and including May 23, 1970.


              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;


I
 ,IS~;y

 C. 7 S,
 Award Number 19801 Page 4
 Docket Number SG-X577

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

 That the Agreement was violated to the extent indicated in the Opinion.

                        A W A R D


        The claim is denied in part and 111taiud is part, as iNAUMrld in


tia opiaim aaa 7h4aw.
                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTKKNT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2fh day of June 1973.