(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company:

 On behalf of C. M. Caskey, Gang 1373, for reimbursement of $2.38, the amount due for lunch on a rest day, March 24, 1973, under paragraph 5 of the Agreement of August 11, 1972.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, and his Foreman, were called by Carrier at
 10:30 A.M. on one of Claimant's rest days to perform signal work. They worked through the normal lunch hour, and returned to headquarters at approximately 3:00 P.M.

 Claimant asserts that he ate lunch after the normal lunch hour; but before returning to headquarters, and that he expended $2.38. A refusal to pay the expense item


The Employees concede that Claimant left and returned to headquarters on the same day, so that e if he left two (2) hours in advance of assigned working hours or was held away from headquarters two (2) hours after assigned working hours. In this regard, Claimant urges that there are no assigned working hours on a rest day, and thus, Claimant was called out 45'4 hours in advance of his assigned working hours on his next regularly scheduled work day.

 Carrier states that the Rule was never intended to apply in the manner suggested by the Employees, nor does the plain language indicate such a result. Further, it urges that the record establishes that Claimant did not, in fact, eat lunch on the day in question.


Although the urganfaation makes various appeals as to why its position is the more appropriate of the too contrasting views, we do not feel that it has demonstrated that the language of the Rule supports the claim. In order to estabiich its contention, the Employees must establish that there are no assigned this rece)rd, must rely upon the elapsed hours until commencement of work on the following Monday. Yet, the Rule talks in terms of the same day, and then refers to the two (2) Lour provisos. But, those two (2) hour periods would seem also to refer to activities during a Lay - not 45~ hours prior to a normal starting time. Moreover, Claimant seems to suggest that meal expenses must be provided whenever an employee works more than two (2) hours on any rest day. While that assertion would appear to be a logical conclusion to the Claimant's argument, we.find no basis for such an interpretation of the language o "two (2) hour argument", logic dictates that such a period of time is overly stringent, and that work fnr any period of time on a rest day would suffice to activate expense reimbursement. We are unable to conclude that the facts of this record support the claim.



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







ATTEST:
        xecutive secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this pith day of January 1976.