(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond, and ( John H. McArthur, Trustees of the Property of ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 The Carrier shall reimburse the employes named below for the week-end travel expenses each incurred from January through June, 1972.










OPINION OF BOARD: The basic facts involved in this dispute are not seriously
 in contention. The Claimants are B 6 B employes headquart
 ered in camp cars on Carrier's Susquehanna Division. They are regularly
 assigned from Monday to Friday each week, with Saturdays and Sundays designated
 as rest days. From January through June, 1972 (the period here involved),
 Claimants were living in camp cars away from their respective homes. Inasmuch
 as there was no work to be performed during weekends, Claimants visited their
 homes. Petitioner contends they were entitled to be furnished with transporta
 tion to make such weekend trips to their homes under the provisions of Rule 7
 E-1, which reads as follows:

                  Docket Number MW-20821


        "Employes living in camp or,outfit cars on portions of the railroad where there is no passenger service will be furnished necessary transportation to the n railroad passenger service is available to make week-end trips to their homes."


However, such passenger service was not available, having been discontinued by Carrier. As a result, the claims; i.e., car mileage allowance at 90 per mile for each weekend trip to and from their homes.

 Carrier does not contend that the amounts claimed are improper, exaggerated or excessive in terms of since "passenger service" was not available Rule 7-E-1 does not apply and that Carrier is not required to compensate Claimants for ab alternative means of transportation, use of their cars. It is urged, further, that this Board has no authority to rewrite the Agreement and that. our sole function is to apply the Agreement as written. In short, where no Rule exists supporting the claim, we are not at liberty to supply one.

 Petitioner does not disagree, but maintains nevertheless that a basic element of Rule 7-E-1, passenger service, was eliminated by unilateral action of Carrier and that the Board is empowered, therefore, to substitute an alternate method of transpor
Carrier counters that the payment of car allowance in the past was due to error and that, having discovered such error, it discontinued the practice in October, 1971.<
We are sympathetic to the position of Claimants, recognizing that their desire to visit their homes over weekends is a legitimate and understandable objective. We are weight of authority holding that the Board is required to apply the Agreement as negotiated between the principals. Were we to substitute other language for that specifically contained in the Rule, we would indeed be rewriting the Agreement. Prior Awards ar
See Awards 7166, 8538, 9212, 10585, 12818, 14531, 15533, 16552, 17579, 18379, 19060, 19555, 19819, 20276 and 20383, among many others.

 Petitioner cites a number of prior Awards on well established principles, with which we have no quar on the factual issues which confront us here or which concerns interpretation of the specific Rule before us.
                  Award Number 21023 Page 3

                  Docket Number MW-20821


Carrier, on the other hand, cites' as precedent several prior Awards dealing with similar factual situations on weekend travel allowance. Although these Awards deal with Rules not precisely the same as Rule 7-E-1, the principles involved are ident basically 'on the finding that "the rule is intended to assure employes free transportation on the Carrier's rail facilities when such are available; we find no obligation for subsidizing weekend transportation to home and return when other means are used." The "other means" consisted of private car usage as against Carrier's "rail facilities" provided for in the Rule but, in fact, not available.

        See Awards 12351, 16745, 18304, 18861, 19138, 20286 and 20287.


We acknowledge the validity of Petitioner's contention that where an ambiguity exists in an Agreement, it is permissible in appropriate circumstances to refer to "pas "where railroad passenger service is available" is precise and unambiguous. The basic element upon which the Rule hinges, "passenger service", no longer exists. This does not render the Rule "ambiguous", but renders it inoperative in its precise context. Obviously, a new Rule is required consistent with current conditions of travel facilities.

 As demonstrated above, the Board is without authority to supply such new Rule. Accordingly, we do not sustain Petitioner's contention on the latter issue.

 We quote from Award 17519 (Rohman) which summarizes our position succinctly.

        "In order for us to construe the Agreement as the Organization argues, we would be required to add to the terms thereof. We recognize that our function is limited to interpreting the Agreement as negotiated by the parties. We lack the power to add, amend, alter, or abrogate any provision of the effective Agreement."


Nor are we authorized to enter an area of resolution which is exclusively reserved to the principals
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing findings and on the basis of established precedent we are compelled to deny the claim.
                Award Number 21023 Page 4

                Docket Number MW-20821


        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 not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1976.