(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to allow Crane Operator C. W. Pate travel time pay and the meal and mileage expense he incurred while working on territory outside the scope of this Agreement from January 3, 1970 to February 5, 1971 both dates inclusive (System File 1-12 /E-381-8).

 (2) Crane Operator C. W. Pate be allowed four (4) hours of travel time pay at his straight time rate for each Friday and Sunday within the aforesaid claim period and be paid expenses as itemized on the expense sheets be submitted for the period from January 3, 1970 to February 5, 1971.

 _OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant C. W. Pate was a machine operator regularly assigned
 as a locomotive crane engineer on the Evansville Division of
 the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. The Brotherhood maintains that
 his seniority rights as such are set forth in Rule 4(e) of the Agreement be
 tween the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and this Carrier effective
 May 1, 1960.

 Effective June 5, 1969, that portion of the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad between Evansville by the Louisville and \ashville Railroad Company. On or about January 3, 1971, Carrier assigned Claimant to perform work on this acquired portion of C&EI at Terre Haute, Indiana.

 Claimant alleges Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to allow him travel time pay and meal and mileage expense he incurred while doing this work on what he claims is "territory outside the scope of this Agreement."

 Carrier states that when this portion of C&EI was acquired it "became the Chicago Sub-division of this Carrier's operating Evansville Division and, that since Claimant's position was bulletined and assigned by the Evansville Division, "it necessarily follows that the Evansville Division is his Home Division."


Carrier further maintains Claimant is a System Service Employe, covered under Rule 11 of the Agreement, which provides that these type employes will hold seniority be worked on other seniority districts." (Rule 11 (a) and (b) quoted in Employes' Statement of Facts.)

 Carrier also states that under the aforesaid Rule 11 such System Service Employes do not receive working off their Superintendent's division.

 This is where the dispute arises. The Brotherhood maintains Claimant was working off his Superintendent's division. Rule 4(e) of Agreement of May 1, 1960, reads
          "The Seniority ranks and the territorial limits of seniority districts as described herein may be changed at any time by mutual agreement between the Director of Personnel and the General Chairman. The rights of employes thus affected will be determined likewise by mutual agreement."


The assignment by Carrier of the newly acquired portion of C&EI to its Evansville Division in effect created a reorganization of seniority districts. Under Rule 4(e) of the Agreement this could only be done by mutual agreement between the General Chairman and the Director of Personnel. The language is clear and unambiguous. There is no evidence in the record of any such mutual agreement. The territory Claimant was sent to was therefore under Agreement betwe effective May 15, 1953, not under the May 1, 1960 Agreement with this Carrier.

 We feel that Carrier erred in extending the division without compliance with the provisions of R
Although we agree with Carrier that Claimant's headquarters was his camp car, since he was required to work off his seniority district, he should be reimbursed for his actual necessary expenses under the provisions of Rule 11(b).
                    Award Number 19955 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-19808


        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 Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim Sustained.


        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

        r ~ By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~,'/~A1 I ~/V~ , ~~ $~.
        Executive Secr~e ~ry


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September 1973.