(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) that:

(a) That the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) violated the Agreement between the Company and the employes of the Signal Department, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effective April 1, 1947, and including revisions, and particularly third paragraph of Rule 2(c) which provides: "When meals and/or lodging are not furnished by the Company, or when the service requirements make the purchase of meals and/or lodging necessary at other than home station, Signal Foremen and CTC Signal Foremen shall be paid actual necessary expenses."

 (b) That Mr. DeWitt be allowed the amount of $38.05 reimbursement
 for the cost of meals purchased during the period September 28 to October 23,
 claimed on Personal Expense Account Form C.S. 148 _submitted October 25, 1970.
 /Carrier's File: SIG 108-44/

(a) That the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) violated the Agreement between the Company and the employes of the Signal Department, represented by 1, 1947, including revisions, and particularly third paragraph of Rule 2(c) which provides: "When meals and/or lodging are not furnished by the Company, or when the service requirements make the purchase of meals and/or lodging necessary at other than h be paid actual necessary expenses."

 (b) That Mr. DeWitt be allowed the amount of $42.25 as claimed on Form C.S. 148 personal expense account covering the period October 26 to November 25, 1970, inclusiv during this period, while working away from home station. /Carrier's File: SIG 108-45/


OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is for the reimbursement of the cost of certain
 lunches purchased by Claimant during September, October and
 November 1970 while he was employed as a Signal Foreman with assigned headquarters
 at the Signal Shop, Stockton, California. On the dates of the claim, Claimant
 was working installing crossing protection devices at West Lane Crossing, which
 is not in the city limits of Stockton and is .63 miles outside of the Yard Limits o
 Stockton. The site of work was 1.55 miles from his regular on-duty headquarters.
 The claim is based on Rule 2 of the Agreement, which in pertinent part reads:

            "When meals and/or lodging are not furnished by the Company, or when the service req,iirements make the purchase of meals and/or lodging necessary, at other than home station, Signal Foreman and CTC Signal Foreman shall be paid actual necessary expenses."


Petitioner argues that the claim must be sustained under the provisions of Rule 2 because ",..Claima an assignment away from his home station on the claim dates. It was necessary to obtain his noonday meals at or near the work site because, as shown by the record, he was not at liberty to use the Company truck to return to his home station to obtain same." Petitioner also contends that the requirements of Rule 2 were met by the facts that the work site was not at the "home station" and further that Carrier did not furnish the meals.

 First we note that there is no evidence in the record to support the contention that the purchase of meals was "necessary" by virtue of the work site. The company repeatedly on the property contended that a truck was available, and Petitioner presented no contrary evidence. Secondly, the same issue, with the same parties and Agreement has already been reviewed by this Division in Award 12737. In that Award we said:

            " ..in our opinion, Petitioner has the burden of showing that the requirements of the service in which Claimant was engaged were such as to make his purchases of noon meals 'necessary' under Rule 2 of the Agreement. Those purchases would not have been necessary if he could have returned to the outfit cars for lunch within the time allowed. Thus, Petitioner's primary task was to present evidence that the factual situation at Lordsburg made it physically impossible for Claimant to have done so. This it attempted to do by assertions and argument. But nowhere in this record is there any evidence


We do not find that the reasoning in Award 12737 is erroneous; in fact we reaffirm the interpretation. It has been our strong belief for many years that in order to avoid confusion a sound interpretation of rules which has been relied on by the parties should not be disturbed, and should be changed only by negotiation by the parties. (Award 17363, 10911 and many others). For these reasons, we must reject Petitioner's arguments and the claim must be denied.
                  Avard huu:;bnr 20010 Page 3

                  Dockct ltumbor SG-19670


        FIIMIMS: The Third Diviion of the Adjustment hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidcnce, ficda and holdrs:


        That the parties vaived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the I'l.~z loy es involved in this dispute are respectively C.trrier and J'Lnloyes wit:iin the m;:auing of the. Railway Labor Act, as approved Ju-i '1, 1934;
Tiu;t this Divicion of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herei:i; need

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            RATIO:;AL RAILROAD ADJUS:i.' 17T BGM

                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Exccctive Secretary


Dated at ChieaCo. Illinois, this 31st day of October 1973.