NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSDdfNT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 Rodney E. Dennis, Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee

 (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company ( (Southern Region)

 Award Number 23552
 Docket Number A51-23748

 STATHMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to reimburse the meows of Force 1166 at the rate of $6.40 per day far lodging expenses (System File C-M-753/MG-2545)·

 (2) Bemuse of the aforesaid violation, the members of Force 1166 listed below tech be allowed #6.40 per day during the period beginning an February 20, 1979 sad ending on March 31, 1979.

 Jackie Lo Adkins Timothy D, ptkios Roger D. Bennett Michael D. Crave F>maett B. Cyrus Floyd C. Duncan Larry E. Graham Ralph A. Gwinn

Douglas R. Reath
 Davie L. Johnson
 David A. Martin
 James E. Nutter
 Mark C. Riclmmond
 Charles C. Rononello
 Larry D. Sifers
 James L. Utterback

 OPINION OF BOARD: With this claim, the Organization is seeking on behalf of
 seventeen members of Force 1166 a $6,40 daily lodging ellw
 sace. Its basis far requesting this payment is an alleged violation of Arbitration
 Award 298 that is, company cars were not available for use by the gang from
 April 197 to April 17, 1979 and therefore the seventeen named Claimants are en
 titled to the daily lodging allovaax from February 20, 1979, through April 17,
 1979r a period of sixty data (which is all that is allured as pay on n retroactive
 basis). The organization also seeks payment of its claim of an alleged violation
 of a time Limit rule, since it contests that Carrier did not respond in denying
 its claim within the 60 days allotted.

 Carrier argues that for over a year, cars were made available to Force 1166. During this period, not one employs chose to use the care, but instead stayed at their homes and dro were subsequently moved to another location where they were put to use. No complaint about availabil were removed from Force 1166 and sees elsewhere.


On Marsh 31, 1979, a request was made for company cars for Force 1166. These cars were supplied on April ly, 1979. Carrier paid the Organization's claim for the period from March 31, 1979 to April 17, 1979, but denied the remainder. It also denied the Organization's claim for failing to meet the 60-day requirement by demonstrating that it received the claim on May 1, 1979, and it responded to the claim on June 29, 1979, which was within 60 days of its receipt.

 This Board has carefully reviewed the record of this ease axes is of the opinion that (terrier has not violated the procedural portion of the agreement (Rule 21-h IA and B), nor has it violated Rule 67 of the schedule Agreement. Carrier presented evidence that it received the instant claim on May 1, 1979, and that it responded on Jute 29, 1979. That is within the 60 days required by Rule 21.

 After its initial allegation on this point, the Organization failed to refute (terrier's argument that it did, indeed, respond to the claim in a timely manner and that the claim was properly before the Board on the merits. As to the merits of the use, Carrier relies on Third Division Award No. 12839, Referee Hamilton, for support of its position. The Board also relies on Award No. 12839 in upholding Carrier's position. Carrier made company cars available, as required, for over one year, but no one used them. They were removed and seat elsewhere. No one complained about not having cars for over a year from the time they were removed. When Carrier received a request for company cars for Force 1166, it immediately proceeded to obtain cars and make them available.

 It paid Claimants the required $6.40 allowance from the day the request for cars was made until the cars were actually made available. Carrier has met the requireme
        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 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 Agreement was not violated.

Axesd Nwnber 23552
 Docket Number MW-23748

 Claim denied.

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National I4tilroad Adjustment Board

 Hy

        'ie Breech - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago Illinois this 10th day of March 1982.

 Page 3

 NATIONAL RAILROAD AWUS240T HOARD
 By Order of Third Division