Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE
              (Southern Railway Company


STATRKENT OF CLAM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
            Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al:


Claim on behalf of J. C. Davis for meal expense above the $9.00 Limit carrier placed on daily meal allowance." (General Chairman file: SR-63) (Ghrrier file: SG-347)

 OPIZtIOH OF HOARD: Beginning early is 19'(0, signal employee formerly housed
 in camp cars and trailers at railroad expense were required to find housing in hotels and the employee fns food and lodging. Allowance has been made by Carriers for such expenditures.

 The instant claim is for meal expense in excess of the $9 limit terrier permits fns daily meal allowance.

 Organization asserts that under Role 41 of the Agreement. Claimant is entitled to "actual necess arbitrary Limitation of $9 per day for meals, which (,terrier presently permits, is violative of the Agreement*

 Carrier asserts that Rule 41, revised effective February 16, 198, has been superseded by an Award issued by Arbitration Board Noe 298 on

 of $day to an e
 September 30j, 196T. mploye required to sobtnia his meals the Carrier to in agrestanrant or
 commissary*

 The entrant allowance of $9 a day for meals resulted fry changes made by Carriers Originally, beginning about 1970.9 Carrier decided, notxithatanding the limi employee in full far expenses incurred is utilizing outside lodging nod eating facilities. In 1974 Carrier deemed it necessary, because it felt a small percentage of employee were taking advantage of the situation, to put a $'T limit on the meal allowance. A fear years later, prompted by increasing prices, (terrier increas
(terrier takes the position that its only obligation under the Award of Arbitration Award No* 298 is to allow $3 a day for meals, that its independent determination to great $9 a day is a purely voluntary act, free of any contractual or arbitral requirement. (terrier asks that the claim herein be dismissed.
                    Award Number 2333$ Page 2

                    Docket Humber SG-23135


Organization denies that it has acceped or la bound by the Award of Arbitration Board No* 298 and insists that the only controlling criterion is Rule 41 of the Agreement which provides for reimbursement to the employee of "actual necessary expenses."

 Section V of the Award did provide that where there were current agreements in effect which included provisions dealing with the types of employs benefits provided by the Awards the Organizations party to such current agreements had the option of accepting any or all of the benefits provided is the Axard or continuing the benefits provided for in the agreements in lien thereof.

 As already indicated. Rule 41 of the Agreement was in effect at the tame the Award issued. Nevertheless., there is written documentation establishing that Organization accepted the provision of the Award establishing the $3 maul allowanc effort on the part of Organization, the evidence fails to support Organization's claim that it exerc provided in that regard by Role 41.

 In addition, we are not persuaded is the present state of the record that Carrier's unilateral action in voluntarily enlarging the meal allowance provided by the Arbitral Award nullifies the provisions of that Award or, even more to the point, reinstates or revitalizes Bale 41. The short of the natter is that Organization has not sustained its burden.

 Arbitral precedent, of coarse, has an impact on the decision we refer here. With minor differences., largely factual, the same matters have been considered in Public Law Board No. 2004, Award No. 2 and is Public Law Board Ho. 2014s Award No. 2. Most recently, the issues have again been considered in Award Ho. 23190 (Joseph A. Sickles, Referee).

 In all these instances contentions identical, or virtually identical, to those urged by Organization here, were dealt with and rejected. Be share reservations However, no patent error in apparent. As precedents, they are of cogent precedeatial value here.

        The claim here must be, and is denied in its entirety.


FIL®1M5: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, sad upon
 the whole record sad all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the (wrier sad flee Flnployes involved in this dispute are respectively terrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved Jane 21, 1934;
                    Award lumber 23338 Pace 3

                    Docket Number SG-23135


That this Division of the Acisustmeat Bawd has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement has not been violated.


                      A W A R D


        Maim denied.


                              1PATIOIdAL RAa.ROAD JDTITTMEN`r BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive ere


Dated at Chicago, n7.inoie, this 16th nay of July 1981.