(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

Claim No. 1
(a) The Carrier violated the current Agreement between the Railway and its Communication Department Employes., particularly Rules 209 and 216, when it refused to allow reimbursement of meal expenses for March 19 and 20, 1973.

 (b) The Carrier allow Communication and Signal (C&S) Maintainer R. K. Wilkins his expenses as claimed for March 19 and 20, 1973.

Claim No. 2
(a) Carrier violated and continues to violate the current Communication Agreement, particularly Rule on October 5, 1973 Communication and Signal (C&S) Maintainers were refused meal expenses starting with September, 1973 expenses. Such expenses were submitted on C&O/B&O Form X-28 in proper manner as had been done and paid for at least the last seventeen (17) years.

 (b) Carrier now reimburse CAS Maintainers J1ek W. McKillop, C&O ID No. 2484272, and Ronald F. Fuller, C&0 ID No. 2484430, for the following months and amounts: McKillop: September - $10.25, October - $6.20 and November - $9.05; Fuller: September - $45.45, October - $47.30 and November - $42.70.

 (c) Carrier further pay Claimants interest on their October and November amounts due them at the rat commencing with date of November 16, 1973 for October expenses, and date of December 16, 1973 for No reimbursed in accordance with Rule 216.


Claim No. 3
(a) Carrier violated and continues to violate the current Agreement and its intent negotiated on behalf of Carrier's Communication Employes, particularly Rules 1, 209,


Maintainers named below was notified by Carrier officers on November 9, 1973 and December 6, 1973 to the effect that certain meal expenses submitted on C&0 Form X-28 for period shown below would not be allowed as in the past. As a result of this arbitrary action.

 (b) Carrier now reimburse Claimants Jack W. McKillop, C&0 ID No. 2484272, and Ronald F. Fuller, C&0 ID Nd. 2484430, meal expenses claimed on their December X-28 report filed with and refused by Carrier while working away from their assigned headquarters, such expenses claimed thereon!. McKillop - $10.55; Fuller - $41.25.

 (c) Carrier further pay Claimants interest on the above amounts at the rate of 1 percent per month, compounded monthly, commencing with date of January 15, 1974, the date such expenses should have been paid in accordance with Rule 216.

Claim No. 4
(a; Carrier violated and continues to violate the current Communication Agreeme~_ No. 2, particularl and Addendum No. 11, when on or about March 11, 1974 Division Engineer Davis refused payment and/or reimbursement of meal expenses for months of January and February 1974.

 (b) Carrier now reimburse Communication & Signal Maintainers Jack W. McKillop, C&O ID No. 2484272, for meal expenses submitted for months of January ($12.20) and for meal expenses submitted for months of January ($51.60) and February ($42.45), such expenses submitted by both employee in proper meaner on Carrier's Form X-28 for months claimed herein.

 (c) Carrier further pay Claimants interest on the above amounts at the rate of 1 percent per month, compounded monthly commencing with date of February 15, 1974 for Ja expenses, the dates such expenses should have been paid in accordance with Rule 216.

OPINION OF BOARD: The issue presented in this case is whether the Claimants,
 who are Communication and Signal (hereinafter C&S) Main
 tainers employed in Canada by the Carrier, are covered by the Communication
 Department Agreement, as contended by the Employes, or by the Signal Department
 Agreement, as contended by the Carrier. If their coverage is as asserted by
 the Employes, the Claimants are within the purview of Rule 209 of the Communica
 tion Agreement and reimbursement of their coon-day meal expenses is required.
 However, if the Carrier is correct, the Claimants are covered by the Signal De
 partment Rule 209 which expressly excludes the coat of noon-day meals from re
 imbursement.


The record in this dispute is voluminous; however, a study of the whole record indicates that the answer to the basic issue in question can be readily derived from a comparative analysis of the following rules from the two agreements: Sunday and Holiday work (Rule 206 of each Agreement); Holiday Pay (Idle 206h of each Same Day (Rule 209 of each Agreement); Gang Headquarters (Rule 217 of each agreement) and Seniority Districts (Rule 405 of the Signal Department Agreement and Rule 408 of the
The aforementioned Signal Department Rules make specific references to Canadian employee and Canada while the Communication Department Rules contain no such references. holidays in both the United States and Canada for which a qualified employe will receive pay while the comparable rules in the Communication Agreement only list United States' holidays. Similarly;. Signal Department Ruse 217 designates Ridgetown, Ontario as the gang headquarters for the Canadian seniority district gang and three Michigan locales as gang headquarters for United States seniority district gangs; in contrast the corresponding rule in the Communication Agreement designates only Gr reasonable inference to be drawn from the inclusion of Canadian references in the Signalli%%n's Agreement and the omission of such references in the c munication Agreement is that the Communication Agreement was intended to cover employee in the Unite both the United States and Canada. This conclusion is further supported by the Employes' admission that C&S Mainttiners in Canada, including the Claimants, are covered by the holiday pay and seniority rules of the Signalman's Agreement (Rules 206' and 405 respectively) and not by the corresponding rules of the Communication Agreeme
Wholly apart from the above analysis, Rule 405 of the Signalman's Agreement and Rule 40& of the Communication Agreement, both of which define the seniority districts in which they apply, are particularly informative in delineating the employe cov Rule 405 specifically establishes a seniority district called the Canadian Division as well a provides that "seniority rights of employes will be restricted to one district." On the other hand, Rule 408 of the Communication Agreement provides only for a seniority district "composed of that part of the Pare Marquette District West of the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers" which ex#.ludes all of the Canadian division territory. Clearly, the establishment of the foregoing seniority districts by the two agreements shows that the Signal Department Agreement applies to employes in both the United States and Canada while the Communication Agreement is limited solely to employes in the United States. Furthermore, if it had been the parties' intent to include the Canadian Division or any employes thereof within the provisions of Rule 408 of when the 1953 Agreement was written or when the 1967 revisions were made. However, it is apparent on choose to do so.


The Employee concede that the Maintainers employed in Canada were covered by the Signalman's Agreement up to the execution of. the Communication Agreement in 1953 and with evidence establishing that these employee are still covered by the Signalman's Agreement and no 209 of the Signalman's Agreement which expressly prohibits the reimbursement for noon-day meals applies in this case.

 This finding is not altered by the Employee' contentions: (1) that the Scope Rule of the Communication Agreement includes the present Claimants, and (2) that a past practice allowing reimbursement for noon-day meal expenses has been established.

 The Employes assert that the parties' intent to have the Communication Agreement apply to C&S Ma following portion of the Scope Rule of t11t s9reaslenti


The Employes note that the above passage expressly includes employee in the United States. It is then argued that, since the Canadian Maintainers were covered by the Signalman's Agreement prior to the execution of the Coamunication Agreement in 1 clear evidence of the parties' intent for the communication Agreement to cover C&S Maintainers in both Canada and the United States. However, this construction of the quoted l any rules of contract interpretation which would support a construction requiring the express inclus inclusion of Canadian employes. On the contrary, the express provision of the Agreement including employes in the United States indicates that a comparable provision concerning Canadian employee would be required before the coverage of the Communication Agreement could be extended to such employes. Moreover, it must be noted that when parties intend to cover certain employes by an agreement, they generally include provisions expressly accomplishing the intended coverage and, at the very least, use methods less obscure than the indirect method asserted by the Employes in the instant case.
Canadian employee have received noon meal expenses over a long period of time
 and that such past practice has just recently been terminated. In this regard,
 the record reflects that there have been cases in the past where a supervisor
 on his own initiative authorized the reimbursement of meal ex peases by the Car
 rier; however, the record also reflects that these decisions have been made by
 employee who do not have the authority to bind the Carrier at a policy-making


level. Prior Board Awards have recognized that actions taken by an operating officer do not constitu and that such an interpretation can only result from the actions of the General Chairman and the designated officer of the Carrier. Third Division Awards 18064 and 18045. The Employee have failed to offer any evidence to show that an authorized officer of the Carrier has interpreted the two agreements to sanction the reimbursement of noon-day meals for Canadian employee, and thus the Employee' evidence falls far short of showing a firmly established past practice which could prevail in this case. Even if a past practice had been established, prior Board decisions have held that unambiguous provisions of the.Ag Division Awards 17916 and 13994. Based on the foregoing and consideration of the whole record, it is clear that Rule 209 of the Signalman's Agreement was intended to cover the Claimants in this case. Consequently, their claims must be denied.



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: ~f/' ~~ J
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of July 1976.