(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 and refused to allow Work Equipment Operators John E. Murpby, J. D. Wisdom and A. W. Anatey actual expenses incurred for lodging for the periods listed in the "NOTE" below (System Files 33-R-3/MW-24, 5-1-'/2; 33-R-3/ MW-24, 5-2-72; 33-R-3/MW-24, 5-26-72 and 33-R-3/MbJ-24, 8-9-72).

 (2) Work Equipment Operator John E. Murphy be reimbursed $55.92, J. D. Wisdom be reimbursed $75.20 and A. W. Anstey be allowed $43.74 which represents the difference between actual expenses incurred and the amount of reimbursement remitted to them by the Carrier.

 ROTE: John Murphy .....February 27 through March 25, 1972














foregoing text. However, the expense amounts submitted by the Claimants
 have been reduced by the Carrier. The reason for the reduction is that
 the Carrier, by bulletin, designated certain lodging facilities as
 being available to the Claimants at specially reduced rates arranged
 by the Carrier; the bulletin gave notice that the use of lodgings more
 expensive than those designated in the bulletin would result in the
 claim for lodging expense being reduced to the rate of the designated
 facilities. The Claimants did not use the designated facilities, but
 used more expensive facilities, whereupon the Carrier carried out its
 notice that the lodging expense claimed would be reduced to the
 equivalent of the designated facilities. The claim here is for the
 difference in the actual outlay by the employees for lodgings and the
 amount allowed in reimbursement by the Carrier.

 The Carrier's Submission states that its arrangement for lodging facilities reserved lodging space for the Claimants and that such reserved space "was just as much Carrier-provided as it would have been had the Carrier built and owned the buildings which housed the hotels." Thus, the Carrier contends that the arrangement complied with the Rule 37 requirement that, in the absence of an outfit car, "lodging will be provided by the Company." Contrarily, the Employees say that, since the Claimants used their own funds to pay for the lodging and received reimbursement on a trailing basis, there is no merit to the Carrier's contention.

 Rule 37 refers to three alternate methods by which employees may be lodged when performing compensated service at points away from headquarters: (1) by an outfit car; (2) by lodging provided by the compary; or (3) by reimbursement of expenses incurred by employees in obtaining lodging. The rule's use of the disjunctive "or" in reference to reimbursement of lodging expense clearly connotes that methods 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive and, consequently, if one of the methods is present, the other cannot be. Here, it is not disputed that the Carrier's arrangement required the employees to pay for their lodging and then to be reimbursed therefor on a trailing basis. This involvement of the employees' personal demonstrates that method 3 was followed in this case which, as indicated, necessarilyy excludes any possibility that method 2 was present. There is nothing wrong with the Carrier making arrangements for reduced lodging rates, in order to reduce its costs whenever possible. However, the arrangement here is not remotely analogous to the provision of lodging in a Carrier-owned building and we conclude, on the whole record, that such arrangement did not amount to "lodging. . . provided by the Company" as such term is used in Rule 37. We shall therefore sustain the claim.
                    Docket Number MW-20336


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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

        The Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD AWUSTUNT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:.
          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of September 1974.
      CARRIER MMERS' DISSENT TO AWARD 20405 LOCKET MW-20336


    .. (MAC)


        This is ,just one more award in a long line of clearly erroneous, biased and prejudicial decisions by this Referee. He states:


                "The reason for the reduction is that the Carrier, by bulletin, designated certain lodging facilities as being available to the Claimants at specially reduced

' rates arranged by the. Carrier; the bulletin gave notice
                that the use of lodging more expensive than those

                designated in the bulletin would result in the claim

                for lodging expense being reduced to the rate of the

                designated facilities. The Claimants did not use the'

                designated facilities, but used more expensive

                facilities * * °.


        In sustaining this wholly unwarranted claim, the Referee is, is effect, telling the Claimants that they are not required to comply with any of Carrier instructions - he is telling them that they can rent the Presidential suite at the most expensive hotel in town and his decision is that Carrier must pay for it. Other crafts and classes of employes on this Carrier use the facilities specified in the bulletin 'referred to by the Referee, without complaint, but the Referee feels that the three Claimants here are better than any other employes and they can thumb their noses at Carrier instructions.


        Of course, it must logically follow that such stubborn violation / of instructions, defended by this Referee, will certainly not be condoned by Carrier, but will is th disciplinary measures.


        The Award is clearly erroneous, and we must register our most vigorous dissent.


                                    . M. Youha


                                  -E:-F.-~r:-Sa woo


                                          r


                                    W. B. Jo ie


                                  Zi. Baylor