PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1)(a) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed-and refused to allow B. L. Watts time for traveling between his home station (Mt. Vernon) and St. Elmo, Illinois on October 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30, 1979


(b) the Agreement was further violated when the claimant was not paid mileage allowance for the use of his personal automobile therefor (Carrier's File § 214-115).
(2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violations, the claimant shall be allowed fifty-six (56) hours of pay at the extra gang foreman's time and onehalf rate and a total
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant herein was regularly assigned to a position as laborer
 in a gang with headquarters at Mt. Vernon, Illinois. The
 Track Foreman on a gang based at St. Elmo, Illinois was injured and his position
 was bulletined on October 11, 1979. During the hiatus it was necessary to fill
 the Track Foreman's position on a temporary basis in accordance with Rule 25 (d).
 No Foremen were available far the assignment and all Assistant Track Foremen
 senior to Claimant herein refused the assignment. Claimant, as the junior qualified
 employe (having held seniority as an Assistant Track Foreman) was required to
 fill the temporary vacancy. Claimant filled the vacancy for the days indicated
 in the Claim and elected to drive to and from his assignment on a daily basis.
 His claim for time and one-half for the travel time involved and mileage for
 using his personal car constitute the claim herein.
          Award Number 24768 Page 2

                    Locket Number MW-24152


The crux of this dispute, since the Rules involved are clear, is the fact of what Claimant was told with respect to the assignment and his intention of driving each day. The record is singularly devoid of real evidence on this score. According to the General Chairman (in his letter dated March 2, 1980) Claimant was told by the Poadmaster that it was alright for him to use his personal vehicle and travel to and from the temporary assignment on a daily basis. The record does not indicate anything directly from Claimant on this subject and the time and circumstances of the alleged conversation are unknown. The Carrier, on the other hand, in a letter from the Superintendent dated January 3, 1980 states that Claimant was "advised' that he would be paid for traveling to the assignment at its beginning and at the conclusion of the assignment and would receive mileage for that round trip as well. There is absolutely no indication of the circumstances of the "advised· conversation or instruction, and no evidence concerning it directly. The Board views the circumstances as confused and conflicting since both parties were remiss in their presentation of evidence. It is impossible for this Board to resolve the factual discrepancy apparent in the two positions. For that reason the Claim must be dismissed.
        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;
Viat 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


        Claim dismissed.


                              1

                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
                                    t

          Nancy ver - Executive Secretary y.


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 24th day of February, 1984 .,~ Chi;.