(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmea PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Robert W. Blaachette, Richard C. Bond and ( John H. McArthur, Trustees of the Property ( of Penn Central Transportation Compapy, ( Debtor

 STATEMENT CIP CIJ11M: Claim of the General Comeittee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the former New York, New
 Haven and Hartford Railroad Company:

On behalf of the following nix emp7,oyees of the Boston Seniority District for meal expenses as a result of being required to work overtime continuous with their regular tour of duty on November 22, 1972, the meal expenses claimed for 5:30 p.m. and 10:30 P.m.:








OPn1ION OF BOARD: Both parties agree on the basic facts which give rise
 to this claim. !or a number of yqars the former New
 Haven, and later the Penn Central, paid a meal allowance for qmployes uho
 worked overtime, pursuant to Rule 14 of the Agreement. Rule 14 reads:



Carrier's first defense to the claim is that a dispute within the meaning of Section 3, gets subsection, (i) of the Railway Labor Act, does not exist because claim is not "predicated upon nip provision of the Signalmen's Agreement." Carrier have recognized that Rule 14 does not contain language which specifically covers the payment of a meal allowance. However, the employes have taken the position that the meal allowance was paid as part of a mutually understood meaning of Rule 14. C interpretation of the Agreement which is within the jurisdiction conferred upon this Board by the Railway Labor Act.

 In their presentation of the cue the employee have referred to the parties' Merger Protection Agreement. A large number of cases have held that the proviso in the Merger Protection Agreement means that disputes arising under that Agreement mutt be referred to the Disputes Committee established for that purpose. There is, however, no reasonable application of the Verger Protection Agreement in this case since it has its origin in the.perties' Schedule Agreement.

 There is no evidence that any mutual understanding ever took place which resulted in payment of the meal expenses. Carrier, at some point, unilaterally undertook the payment. It in equally clear that Bale 14 does not in any way provide fox the payment of meal expense. This is not a case in which the payment came about as a result of a mutually understood and agreed interpretation of ambiguous language. The mployes have stated that the payments had been made "without benefits of an'actual rule stating that the meals would be paid for." That statement is no more than the admission of an obvious fact, since it is apparent that the employee could not have contended to the contrary, given the language of the controlling Agreement. There is no doubt that the practice has been to pay meal expenses for em`pIdyes working overtime. It Agreement even arguably supports the practice and that Carrier made the payments an a unilateral bas the employes that such payments would be made.

 The Board has long recognized that custom and practice can be used to give meaning to ambiguous language since it then shows what the parties themselves heve.'held the language to mean. In this case we are faced with an entirely different application of sustos and practice because there is no ambiguous language for.the practice to give meaning to. A long series of cases, decided by this Board, have held that Carrier may discontinue a practice which it has begun u agreement rule. Ea those cases the Board bas felt bound by its statutory !unction, which is to settle disputes over the meaning and application of agreements. It has long recognized that it is without jurisdiction to make an agreement for the parties, where they themselves have not done so.
                    Award Number 21218 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-20966


The Railway Labor Act provides mother avenue in the event the Carrier makes a change in working conditions which is not in conformity with its obligations under the Act. Nothin gives the Hoard the Authority to impose an agreement, where none exists. That is the basic posture in which claimants find themselves.

 It is not difficult to understand either the chagrin of the em. ployes who see a payment they had been accustomed to receiving withdrawn; or the Carrier's view that it in not obliged to continue a payment which 14 not authorized by the Hales, despite the fact that it pas continued over a long period of time. There are cases which appear to be oat of the mainstream of the Hoard's holding continues for a period of time becomes the rule, regardless of the fact that there is no agreement or rule to support than. The Hoard does not believe that those cases reflect the majority holdings of this Hoard and declines to follow them.

        FINDIN(iB: 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 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the claim must be denied.


                    A W A H D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJTJSTMMT HQRRD

                          Br Order of Third Division


ATTEST: i
 Executive Secretary

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