(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 failed to transfer Track Laborer Jose Neria to Extra Gang No. 50 as he had requested in accordance with Rule 17(d) and, Earlie Hooks and Roberto Bocanegra to Extra Gang No. 50 (System Files 17646 and 176-47).

 (2) Track Laborer Jose Neria now be reimbursed for all expenses incurred because of the violation referred to within Part (1) of this claim,

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a Track Laborer, requested a transfer to Gang
 450 located in G')Iton, California, the community in which he lived, in accordance with Rule 17%d). Carrier admits that it overlooked his request from March d, 1970 to September 18, 1970, improperly, and transferred two junior employe




Carrier first argues that the Claim was substantially changed, as submitted to this Board, from the claim handled on the property. We find no merit in this contention, since the Claim before us is the same Claim which was considered and denied by the Chief Operating Officer on the property (Award 13235).

 The parties are in agreement that Claimant suffered no wage lose as a result of Carrier's fiolatiun of 1;ule 17(d). Carrier also disputes the expense claim c"king the p was any evidence submitted indicatiug what expenses were actually incurred by Claimant.


Since the expenses, if any, incurred by Claimant were not incurred at Carrier's request, we do not find that the Claim was deficient in that no normal expense forms were submitted. The record does show that at a conference on the property a listing of alleged expenses incurred was submitted by Petitioner. It obviously did approximation; among other things it did not take into account time Claimant spent on vacation, or the food allowances he had already been paid. However, it is quite clear that Claimant was required to live away from his home during the work week, incurring some expense, and also drove home on weekends, both of which would not have been necessary if Carrier had complied with Rule 17(d), In Award 19185, in a related dispute, we said:

        "The conclusion is inescapable that but for the wrongful displacement of Claimant by Carrier the not have occurred. Claimant exercised his right to displace well before the time allowed for him to do so had expired... he should be adequately compensated for all damages directly flowing from the wrongful displacement. This would not only include loss of time, but also his travel and lodging expenses while absent from his home as a result of the wrongful displacement."


In this case too, we are convinced that Claimant must be made whole for any t expenses incurred as a result of Carrier's wrongful acts, even though there are no such specific provisions in the Agreement. Claimant shall be reimburse, for expenses for food during the period from March 9th to September 28, 1970 to the extent of $2.00 per day for all days on which service was performed; he shall not be paid for vacation days. This figure is based on past practice and the fact that Claimant already received a $2.00 per day food allowance; thus his food expenses will be reimbursed at the rate of $4.00 per day. He shall also be paid mileage for the same period (not including vacations) at the rate of 9k4 per mile for the first 1000 miles and 8c per mile for additional mileage, for the we Colton,California (and return). This mileage will be the standard road miles from the assigned work point to Colton, California.

        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;
                    Award Number 20012 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-19836


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


Claimant will be reimbursed for expenses in accordance with the Opinion above.

                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD d9 IV Akj/ By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


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