PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CIAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

On behalf of Signal Maintainer W. D. York because he was not reimbursed far 50,E of his telephone bill from December 28, 1977 through March 28, 1978, in accordance with Rule 58 of the Agreement." (General Chairman file: SR-59. Carrier file: SG-31f0)

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant W. D. York, Signal Maintainer, submitted a bill to
 Carrier for 50% of his telephone bill from December 28, 1977 through March 28, 1978. The Employes contend that Carrier was obligated to reimburse Claimant for 50% of his telephone bill under the terms of Rule 58 of the Agreement.

 Carrier contends that it had no obligation to pay Claimant's bill for the period in question. Claimant was out of work dicing that period because of an operation due to an off-duty back injury. Claimant's position was bulletined as a temporary vacancy on January 9, 1979.



A reasonable interpretation of Rule 58 leads to the conclusion that Carrier did not violate the Agreement. As such, the claim must be denied.

 Rule 58 is clear and unambiguous. It is intended to permit Carrier to require an employee to have a telephone. This is an exception to the general policy, as articulated in Rule 58, that Carrier may not require an employe to have a telephone. If Carrier makes such a requirement it is obligated to pay one-half of the cost.

 Of course, the reason a Carrier would want this right is so as to provide an efficient method to contact the employe concerning work. The parties, in Rule 58 facilitated such contact by Carrier.
                      Docket Number SG-23031


Here, Claimant was not in a work status. He was on long-term illness. This was not a situation of intermittent illness. In fact, the position was bulletined and filled as a temporary vacancy.

 In such s situation, it is illogical to view the telephone as being required by the Company. After all, the Company did not need prompt access to Claimant so as to insure his timely availability for work. Instead, we are persuaded that `in these special circumstances a long-term sickness and the filling of the position by way of a temporary vacancy - Carrier cannot be viewed as being responsible for the cost of the telephone.

        We will dismiss the claim in its entirety.


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

 That the Carrier and the Employee Involved- in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 193+;

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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D , ~f CEI V[U~,\

                                                    v,

                                          ..... . ,~-.-, I

                                          ~~Il 1 i.`v


        Claim denied. ~`.

                            ,~C61

                            ':y o~ oo Oi L, e ' ~'i,~%

                            ~,.

                            NATIONAL RAILROAD AD~T~ BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


By
        Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of May, 1982.