NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-21035
Joseph A: Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
STAMIENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa
Fe Railway Company:
In behalf of Southern Division Signalman J. L. Redwine for reimbursement for lodging expenses fo
/General Chairman file: 2-B-025. Carrier file: 14-760-40-1/
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a regularly assigned Signalman, was stationed
at Brenham, Texas. Between August 6 and August 24, 1973,
he was assigned as Relief Signal Maintainer at Temple, Texas. During that
period of time, Claimant continued to reside in his rented apartment in Tem
ple, Texas. When Carrier refused reimbursement for lodging expenses, Claim
ant submitted a claim, citing a violation of an April 14, 1972 Letter Agree
ment:
' "(b). A signal gang employe used away from home station
to provide vacation relief, while actually providing such
vacation relief, will:.
(1) be allowed actual necessary meal and
lodging expense, such meal and lodging expense
allowance being confined to working days of the
position protected and on rest days or holidays
if held on such days at relief point under provisions of Section ll-(a)-4 of this Article II,
but not applicable on any day when the individual
lodges or takes meals on signal gang outfit cars,
or occupies the living quarters of the employe
relieved."
He argues that his home station, during the applicable period, was
the camp cars of Southern Division Signal Gang No. 6 (his regular assignment)
under the authority of Article II, Section 14:
"Section 14.--Camp cars, as referred to in Sections 8 of
Article VIII, will be the home station, as referred to in
these Sections, for employes assigned to such cars."
Award Number 21089 Page 2
Docket Number SG-21035
The Organization does not deny that Claimant's lodging expenses
remained constant, but argues that the only exceptions to the cited rule
occur when the employe is lodged in outfit cars or occupies the living
quarters of the employe relieved. Neither of these exceptions are present
and, according to Claimant, numerous Awards have held that the inclusion
of one or more exceptions in a rule excludes all others.
Carrier has noted that there was no "actual necessary", out of
pocket or additional expense incurred under these circumstances and thus
the employe is not entitled to any reimbursement.
We do not question the conclusions contained in the Awards cited
by Claimant regarding the limitations imposed by stated exceptions. However, in order to reach that
basic contractual language. The rule reimburses for "...actual... lodging
expenses." Here, the Claimant made no lodging expenditures for the days in
question except for payment of his normal and regular periodic rent.
We do not find the Awards cited by Claimant in this regard as persuasive, whereas the Carrier's
In Second Division Award 3658, the Board considered agreement language requiring reimbursement for "
the Claimant continued to live at home. The Board felt that the objective
of the iule was to reimburse employes put to "additional expense." See,
also, Award 12120, which defined "actual" expenses as "out of pocket" expenditures.
While this Board can speculate as to various possible combinations
of factual circumstances under the rule, we are, of course, confined to the
record before us. The rule refers to "expenses" which must be "actual."
Thus, it appears that, in order to prevail, Claimant was required to show a
paid out expenditure, and the mere reliance upon a showing of a pro-rated
portion of normal monthly rent on his regular place of residence does not
suffice.
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 21089 Page 3
Docket Number SG-21035
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: ~ v t,' e.
T
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of May 1976.