(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago and North Western Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western Railway
 Company that:

 (a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement between the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the Chicago and North Western Railway Company, particularly Rule 19, when it failed to allow actual necessary expenses to Mr. Vern Davis when he was used to fill the Signal Maintainer's position at Ad
(b) The Carrier now compensate Mr. Davis the difference between what his actual necessary expenses were and what the Carrier allowed on his October expense report--the difference being $45.00.
actual necessary expenses and what the Carrier allowed on his November expense
 report---the difference being $44.75. _
 /Carrier's File: 79-8-68/

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant vas a member of a test crew headquartered in camp
 cars at South Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. During the claim period
 he was temporarily filling a Signal Maintainer position at Adams, Wisconsin, 60
 miles away from South Beaver Dam. Adams was Claimant's legal address and his
 mother's home.

 Claimant was paid $3.50 per day expenses by Carrier based on the negotiated interpretation of Award of Arbitration Board No. 298. Claimant however, requested payment






            "(b) On days they remain away from headquarters over

            night they will be compensated on basis of straight

            time, exclusive of meal period, for regular hours

            and at rate and one-half for time worked outside

            thereof. They will be allowed eight consecutive

            hours off duty within the ten hour period preceding

            the starting time of their next regular work period.

            If required to travel from one point to another be.

            tween conclusion of work period and 10:00 PM, will

            be compensated for such travel time at straight time

            rate, with a minimum allowance of one hour and not to

            exceed three hours. If not allowed eight consecutive

            hours off duty within the ten hour period preceding

            starting time of the next regular work period, will

            be allowed compensation at straight time rata for any

            such time not allowed. When not permitted to return

            to headquarters for rest days or holidays, as specified

            in rule 13, will be allowed compensation on basis of

            s minimum of eight hours at rate and one-half, Actual

            necessary expenses will be allowed."


It should be noted that Rule 17 provides that all employees will have a desig. nated headquarters and further that "Camp cars to which an employe is assigned will be the designated headquarters."

 Carrier asserts that there is no real evidence presented by Petitioner relative to the "actual n at no time did Carrier question the Expense Reports submitted by Claimant, per se.

 Carrier argues, in its submission, that Rule 19 above was superseded by the provisions of the Memorandum Agreement of December 23, 1969 which was adopted in lieu of Section I, II, and III of Arbitration Award No. 298. Again, this argument was not raised on the property and is not properly before us. Additionally it should be noted that there is no evidence in the record to indicate that Rule 19 was
The issue then becomes whether or not Claimant is entitled to actual expenses under Rule 19 while living at home, having already been paid $3.50 per day for meals. There have been.a number of Awards on this issue, with opposite conclusions. Upon examination, the Awards cited by Carrier either deal with "home station" as distinct from headquarters or different Rules, and are not persuasive in their reasoning. We affirm the reasoning represented in those cases holding that when a claimant is away from headquarters he is entitled to reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses (when meals and lodging are not furnished by Carrier) regardless of whether his work location was at his "home". For example, in Second Division Award 5001 we said:
                    Award Number 20011 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-19737


          "The only question here is whether the expenses claimed were "actual necessary", for it is undisputed that Claimant was away from headquarters and not furnished meals or lodging. In determining the question, the fact that Claimant maintained a home for his family and himself at St. Cloud is not controlling. He is entitled under Rule 10 to a actual expenses incurred while in St. Cloud whether or not he slept or dined in his own home there,"


See also Awards 16463, 10923, 17536, and Second Division Award 5435. Rule 17 and 19 are clear and unambiguous and, as distinguished from the reasoning in Award 12030, we do not have the authority to rewrite them. The Claim must be sustained.

        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

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: e
        Executive S cretary


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