Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27829
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27602
89-3-87-3-246
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Detroit,


On behalf of SSC Maintainer F.V. Bratton, headquartered at Flat Rock, Michigan, assigned hours 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. assigned meal period 11:30 A.M. to 12:00 Noon; assigned rest days Saturday and Sunday; assigned territory the DT&I System.

(a) Carrier violated the parties' Schedule Agreement, as amended, particularly Rule 60 as evidenced by past practice, when on or about January 9, 1985, Claimant was required to sign payroll deduction order No. 38144 approving a deduction from protest.'

(b) Carrier now be required to reimburse S&C Maintainer F.V. Bratton $44.00 for the violation referred to in part (a) above."

FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



The Claimant is employed as a Signal Maintainer headquartered at Flat Rock, Michigan. Claimant broke his prescription safety glasses and put in for a new pair through Carrier's purchase procedures. When the glasses were delivered to Claimant, he was required to sign a payroll deduction form so that the cost of the glasses ($44) could be taken out of his pay over three pay periods.
Form 1 Award No. 27829
Page 2 Docket No. SG-27602
89-3-87-3-246

Claimant signed the payroll deduction form under protest and filed a Claim to recover the $44. The Claim was denied at each step by Carrier and has been placed before the Board for final resolution.

The Organization contends that for many years prior to the takeover of the DTI by the GTW, Carrier always supplied safety glasses free of charge. The Organization relies on Rules 60 and 13 to support its position:





Carrier contends that even if the DTI did supply safety glasses at no cost, the policy was not required by Agreement and could be changed by Management, as it deemed appr
This Board has reviewed the record and the numerous cases presented on both sides. The Board is in Agreement that a bona fide past practice gives meaning to an ambiguous contract term or rises to the level of a Rule if no Rule exists. The Board is not, however, persuaded that a past practice of supplying prescription saf deny the instant Claim.






                              By Order of Third Division


Attest
        Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April 1989.