Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27916
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27247
 89-3-86-3-336
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to reimburse System Equipment Operator F. Lipka for travel, meal and lodging expenses he incurred while working away from home (System Case 16.85/BMWE-1785).

 (2) The claimant shall be reimbursed for the travel, meal and lodging expenses described in Part
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.

In 1980, the Carrier and Organization agreed to a new classification of System Equipment Operator who would be required to protect assignments systemwide. The parties also agreed to a schedule of payments for employee expenses when a System Equipment Operator was assigned to work at a location distant from the designated headquarters.




Form 1 Award No. 27916
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27247
 89-3-86-3-336
 B.1 System Equipment Operators required to travel
 more than fifty (50) miles, one way, from home to
 work location, will receive actual reasonable ex
 penses not to exceed $15.00 each day for lodging
 and $10.00 each day for meals.
 Bona fide receipts will be required with expense
 accounts for payment.
 2 Traveling allowance for use of personal vehicle
 will be paid at the actual allowance for mileage
 and System Equipment Operators will be allowed time
 at the hourly rate of pay of the assigned position
 he is traveling to or from, at the rate of forty
 (40) miles per hour from home to the work location,
 on the first and last days of the assignment or
 work week for traveling, either within or outside
 the hours of the normal tour of duty."

 Claimant has submitted expenses totalling $1,150.70 for January and February 1985 under the 1980 Agreement. Carrier has declined to pay the expenses.

 According to the Carrier, personal expenses are payable only when the employee is instructed to report directly to a work site away from headquarters. To interpret the employee's personal expenses simply for reporting to work. The Carrier asserts that the Claimant reported to his headquarters each day of the claim period and, therefore, is not entitled to personal expenses.

 According to the Organization, for the first two years following the 1980 Agreement, System Equipment Operators were reimbursed for expenses whenever assigned to work away from the headquarters, regardless if they first reported to headquarters. In 1982, when the Carrier's Chief Engineer retired and a new man assumed his position, the Carrier unilaterally changed the interpretation of the 1980
The Organization argues that the Claimant's expenses are eligible for reimbursement since he was assigned work away from his headquarters. In any case, the Organization states, in this instance the Claimant did not report to headquarters on a daily basis, so he would be entitled to reimbursement even under the Carrier's more restrictive interpretation.

 We will defer for the moment the contradictory assertions of the parties concerning whether the Claimant reported directly to his headquarters during the claim period. We will address first the issue of what the 1980 Agreement requires.
 Form 1 Award No. 27916
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27247
 89-3-86-3-336

 The Organization maintains that a consistent past practice developed during the first two years of the Agreement whereby System Equipment Operators "were considered as having reported directly to their machines, rather than their 'headquarters,' on a daily basis and were reimbursed for expenses accordingly." The Carrier ma of this practice, the Organization asserts, so it must be accepted as the parties' understanding of
In its rebuttal Submission, the Carrier disputes the alleged past practice, insisting that employees consistently have been reimbursed only when instructed at the end of the day to report back directly to the same nonheadquarter location the fol if the Organization's alleged practice existed, it cannot overcome clear and unambiguous language to the contrary.

 To the extent that the Agreement's language is clear and unambiguous, it does not support the Carrier's interpretation. The unnumbered paragraph in the Agreement provides expense payments when employees are assigned to work at non-headquarters locations and required to report there at the "required starting time." Paragra vehicle "either within or outside the hours of the normal tour of duty." Therefore, the "required starting time" referred to in the unnumbered paragraph may be a time "withi not unambiguously preclude expense payments when an employee starts his tour of duty by reporting to headquarters.

 Since the Agreement is neither clear nor unambiguous, we must consider past practice to ascertai asserted the existence of a two-year practice at an early step in the handling on the property. The Carrier made no attempt to refute this assertion until its rebuttal Submission. Neither party has offered any documentary evidence to support its position. Therefore, we shall accept the Organization's position, since it was uncont
Consequently, the established practice between 1980 and 1982 indicates that the intent of the Ag outlined when a System Equipment Operator is assigned to a work location away from his headquarters, and we shall so order. There is no need for us to attempt to resolve the question of whether or not the Claimant reported to headquarters daily.

 Note should be made of an additional argument raised by the Carrier. The Claimant had indicated on his expense reports that he had stayed in Borealis and Esquire, New York during this two-month period. The Carrier insists that Claimant was never assigned to work at these locations. However, Claimant's expense reports clearly indicate only that he took lodging at Borealis and Esquire; his work sites were at various other locations listed on the second page of the expense report. Therefore, the Carrier's objection on this basis is without foundation.
 Form 1 Award No. 27916
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-27247
 89-3-86-3-336




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      4a/n"cyJ. PIV- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of May 1989.