(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company ( (Northern Region)

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to fully reimburse Roadway Equipment Repairman R. Keating at the rate of $20.00 per day for meal and lodging expense for April 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1983 (System File C-TC-1650/MG-4081).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Roadway Equipment Repairman R. Keating shall be allowed $14.50 per day beginning on April 4, 1983 and ending on April 8, 1983, both dates inclusive".

 OPINION OF BOARD: The controversy involves a dispute over entitlement to lodg
 ing expenses under the provisions of Rule 5(d). There is.
 no dispute that Claimant was properly allowed a meal allowance of $5.50 for
 each of the Claim dates.

 Briefly, Claimant Keating was regularly assigned as a Roadway Machine repair man to Surface Force 1261 established with Headquarters in Camp Cars in the vicinity of Monroe, Michigan on April 14, 1983.

 Claimant disputes that he was provided adequate bunk and locker facilities in Camp Car No. 91101 Claim dates.

 The Organization contends that all sleeping space and locker facilities were occupied in the Bun presented a letter written by the Foreman of Force 1261 in its Submission which states in pertinent part:

The Organization maintains that Claimant and the other employe had to seek lodging and meals elsewhere.


Carrier contends that fewer than four men actually stayed in the Bunk Car each night because most employes elected instead to travel home each evening and return the foll
Carrier asserts that sufficient accomodations were available and Claimant had been informed, but regardless of the availability of lodging facilities at the Bunk Car.

 The Organization argues that where Claimant ultimately obtained lodging and meals is not relevan reimbursement of lodging expenses when an employe is away from Headquarters when facilities are not provided by Carrier, even if he returns home evenings.

        The pertinent provision of the Rule involved is:


          "Rule 51 Camp Cars


        (d) For employees who are regularly employed in a type of service, the nature of which regularly requires them through-out their work week to live away from home in camp cars, camps highway trailers, hotels, or motels, if lodging is not furnished by the Railway Company, shall be reimbursed for the actual reasonable expense of such lodging not in excess of $4.00 per day".


          (Maximum reimbursement was increased to $20.00 per day effective April 1, 1983).


The record clearly indicates that Claimant returned home each night. Whether or not suitable camp facilities were available is not an issue the Board needs to decide. The Rule involved refers to "Expenses" which must be "actual". The records lacks any showing whatsoever that Claimant incurred lodging expenses while staying at home.

 The Board has addressed disputes such as the instant dispute in previous Awards. The fact patter consistent with Third Division Award No. 21089, which interprets reimbursement in terms of "actual" expenses as opposed to providing an automatic lodging allowance.

 Carrier has noted that there was no "actual necessary", out of pocket or additional expense incurred under these circumstances and thus the Employe is not entitled to any reimbursement.

        The Board does not question the conclusions contained in the Awards

                      Award Number 26055 Page 3

                      Docket Number MW-25936


cited by Claimant regarding the limitations imposed by stated exceptions. However, in order t
The Board does not find the Awards cited by Claimant in this regard as persuasive whereas the Carrier's citations are precedential to its position. In Second Division A which the Claimant continued to live at home. The Board felt that the objective of the Rule was to r
While this Board can speculate as to various possible combinations of factual circumstances under the Rule, we are, of course, confined to the record before us. The Rule it appears that, in order to prevail, Claimant was required to show a paid out expenditure, and the mere reliance upon a showing of a pro-rated portion of normal monthly rent on his regular place of residence does not suffice.

 The Organization claims violation of Rule 51(d). The Claim is for monetary damages.

 The Board concludes, in the absence of any proof of required paid out lodging expenditures, Carrier does not properly owe any damages. Accordingly, the Board finds the instant Claim without merit.

        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 the 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 denied.

                      Award Number 26055 Page 4

                      Docket Number MW-25936


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J,-~er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 11th day of June 1986.