(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
 ( (Chesapeake District)



a) Carrier violated the C&0 Railway Chesapeake District Signal Agreement, particularly Rule 64(c) and past practice, when it refused Signalman Max B. Baker for loss of personal tools and tool box stolen from Carrier's truck on or about night of January 11, 1978, while truck was located at the Chuck Wagon Motel.

 b) Carrier now reimburse, or replace, Signalman Max B. Baker, CdeO ID No. 2614161, the sum of 350.00 to cover replacement of his personal tools and tool box required for and used for Carrier's benefit. Carrier's file: SG-546; General Chairman's file 78-8-CD.

a) Carrier violated the C&0 Railway Chesapeake District Signal Agreement, particularly Rule 64(c) and past practice, when it refused to reimburse Signal employees named below for loss of their personal tools and/or tool box stolen from C8O Railway tool and office cars while located at New Richmond, Kentucky on or about June 12, 1978.

 b) Carrier now reimburse, or replace in Kind, System Signal Gang employees named below for amounts shown which reflect cost.of personal tools and/or tool box required for and used for Carrier's benefit:


Position CgeO m
 "Name Assigned Number Amount

 G. S. Brown Foreman 2611302
 $195.00
 P. E. Fauver Ld. Signalman 2614359 115.60
 J. C. Frye Signalman 2618563 314.00
 D. K. Patterson Signalman 2618617 852.53
 T. C. Collins Signalman 2618412

 R. S. Peery Asst. Signalman 2612337 247-51

      Carrier's file: SG-560; General Chairman's file:78-34-CD."


OPINION OF BOARD: The fact situation in this dispute is reasonably clear.
 There is in effect, on this property, a rule which provides in pertinent part., as follows:

        "RULE 64 - - SANITARY CAMP CARS, DRINKING WATER, TOOLSP ETC.


        (c) The railroad will furnish the employees such tools and equipment as are necessary to perform their work, except pocket tools usually furnished by skilled workme:n."


The Claimants identified in the Statement of Claim were regularly assigned in the Signalman't: Class when, on the dates in question - January llthp 1978 and June 12th, 1978 - due to theft, they experienced the loss of personal tools. They initially attempted to seek reimbursement for their declared value Department. When their requests for reimbursement were denied by the Claim Department., the Organization, on their behalf, initiated and progressed the claims which are quoted supra, is the only Rule which has been citedp argued and relied upon by the Employes in support of the claims. The Organization also has alleged that an established practice of reimbursement in similar situations existed on this property.

 Carrier has denied the applicability of Rule 64(c) to this fact pattern. It also denies the existence of any system-wide bona fide past practice.
                  Sward Number 23041 page 3

                  Docket Number SG-23115


Both sides raise several other peripheral arguments that we need not address as they are! not dispositive of the primary issue.

 From our review of' the entire record and after consideration of the respective arguments of the parties, this Board is convinced that the claims as presented in ibis case are neither covered by the Rules Agreement nor fall within the authority of this Board as established by the Railway Labor Act. Moreover, the proof offered in the record relative to the alleged practice fails to support the assertion that an agreed understanding or practice is in effect on this property that such losses will be paid for by Carrier. Therefore, we must dismiss the claims as presented.

        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 end the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and. Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, ass approved June 21, 1934;

 That his Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the claim be dismissed.


                      A W A R D


        Claim dismissed,


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMMT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
          utive creta:


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of October 1980.