PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



On behalf of Signal Maintainer A. C. Keelin for reimbursement of $24.00 expended by him for cleaning and oiling his railroad approved watch." (Carrier file: SIG 46-102)

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant's request far reimbursement of 0.00 expended
 for the cleaning of his watch by an authorized watch
 inspector was denied by the Carrier on the basis that the claimant was not
 specifically directed. to have the watch cleaned.

 At issue is Rule 68B of the current Agreement which provides as follows:

This same issue was considered in Third Division Award 22078. In that award, the identical language was under consideration. In that case, claimant was told by his superiors to have his watch card updated. The local timekeeper advised him he would be required to have his watch cleaned before it could be approved. That decision held that the claimant could validly assume that the Carrier required him to have his watch cleaned.

 In the case before us., there was no verbal at&tement by a supervisor to have the claimant's wat Carrier's rules and regulations requires signal maintainers, among others, to carry while on duty a reliable railroad grade watch and watch certificate Form 2821. By circular, it is required that the watch be presented to an authorized watch inspector for exmi·a tion during August, September, or October of each year.


the claimant did take his watch to an authorized watch inspector and was informed that the watch had to be cleaned to meet the Harrier standards.

 The Carrier contends that the word, "required", means specifically directed, or, in effect, advance 3479 of the special Hoard of Adjustment No. 18 appears to support this position. Award 220'(8 noted Decision 3479 with approval and would have so decided were it not far the special circumstances in that case. We believe we have the same special circumstances here.

 There is little distinction between the verbal instructions in Award 22078 and the written instructions in this case. If the Harrier contends that it is not a valid interpretation of these two paragraphs when considered together to require a watch cleaning, then in light of the difficulty which has arisen with respect to this subject matter in the past, it is certainly incumbent upon the Carrier to clarify its interpretation of these too provisions taken together and to countuaicate this so that the emplqyes involved are informed of the Harrier's interpretation.

 In Award No. 22078 referred to above, it was found that the claimant, under the circumstances involved, could validly assume that the Harrier required him to have his watch cleaned while supporting the basic rule that the Carrier is only responsible for watch cleaning when it specifically directs it to be done.

 We concur with that award when it states, "We believe that it would be easy to avoid any future misunderstandings such as this by Carrier advising its employee and its time inspectors accordingly. Then any questionable expenses for watch for approval or disapproval before an employe makes a personal expenditure".

 Subsequent to &yard 22078, the Harrier did notify, by mecum, all division engineers that had jurisdiction over line officers and employes throughout its system and its mnager of time service. It provided in part:

            "We can avoid future misunderstandings of this nature if the employees are reminded that such expenses are not payable by the company unless they are specifically dl, rested to have their watch cleaned."


But that was not enough. There is no evidence in the record that the information has been transmitted to the employee in suitable form so employee are on notice when they are complying with the carrier's Rule x2 and supporting circulars.
      Award Number 23248 Page 3

      __ Docket Number SG-23275


Without such clarification, it is logical for the claimant to assume that by Rule I2, the Carrier required him under the circumstances to have his watch cleaned.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
        anrall 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 violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1981.