Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29697
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-28728
 91-3-89-3-115
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.

 (John T. Kain PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "This is to serve notice, as required by the rules of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, of my intention to file an Ex Parte Submission within thirty (30) days covering an unadjusted dispute between me and the Burlington Northern Railroad. This involves the question of where my established Home Zone is, as covered by the 1967 Agreement (Orange Book) Article 4 - Section 1, A and B, between the (former) Great Northern Pacific and Burlington Lines, Inc. and the BRAC employees.

 As of merger date (1970), I was employed as a Clerk in Whitefish, Montana. This, then, established my Home Zone there. In 1976, I was moved by BN to Missoula, MT., as an officer and in 1979 returned to the Union ranks. On April 10, 1982, I displaced the Agency at Bonner, MT., a job which had never been covered by a Blanket Veto.

 Mr. B. W. Potter, Director of Labor Relations for the Burlington Northern Railway in 1982, specifically stated in a letter written October 8, 1982, under item 3 that if the carrier does not invoke the veto provisions of Appendix L and the protected employee moves to a point outside his Home Zone, this then will become new new Home Zone. I met this criteria, and therefore feel that my home zone became Bonner, Mt. at that point in time.

 The company denies this fact and have-.advised me that my home zone remains in Whitefish, Mt. Upon the sale of the BN Southiine through Missoula, they instructed me that, in order to protect my job guarantee, I would have to return to Whitefish, which I have done pending the outcome of this claim."

 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.
Form 1 Award No. 28697
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-28728
 91-3-89-3-115
 The basic facts in this case are set forth as follows:
 As of August 7, 1968, Claimant was employed as a Clerk in Whitefish,
 Montana. He worked there as of March 3, 1970, the date of the Northern Lines
 merger encompassing the Northern Pacific Railway, the Great Northern Railroad,
 the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad and the Spokane, Portland and
 Seattle Railway Company. Previously on November 17, 1967, an Agreement was
 consummated by the Transportation Communications International Union (TCU)
 formerly the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks (BRAC) and Carrier to
 insure that employees affected by the planned merger were protected.

 This Agreement is known as the "Orange Book" and the protective arrangements applied to Claimant. Whitefish, Montana, was his home zone. Between July, 1970, and Sep position at Whitefish, Montana, until he was assigned the exempt position of Temporary Material Manager at Missoula, Montana. On January 1, 1977, he was assigned the exempt Material Manager Position on a permanent basis. Carrier paid him real estate benefits and moving allowances for his move from Whitefish, Montana, to Missoul moves by exempt employees.

 On March 13, 1979, Claimant relinquished his exempt status and returned to a BRAC bargaining uni
On March 26, 1979, Claimant took a leave of absence from the clerical ranks and entered a Brakeman's training program at Missoula.

 He worked as a Brakeman out of that terminal until September 24, 1979. He returned to the clerical ranks and exercised his seniority to the position of AFE Clerk at Whitefish, Montana.

 On December 1, 1980, the Burlington Northern merged with the St. LouisSan Francisco Railway Company and a new protective agreement was negotiated between BRAC and Ca under the Orange Book, who wished to be covered under the "Blue Book" had the option to choose between alternative protections.

 There is no indication that Claimant elected Blue Book coverage. While at Whitefish, Claimant occupied various clerical positions until July 22, 1980, when he bid on and was assignqd the Lead APE Material MC-1 Position in the Missoula District Accounting Office. According to Carrier this position was adverti "blanket veto," which in effect stated that an employee bidding from a home zone outside the zone where the position was located would not have his home zone changed to the new zone and could not be entitled to receive any moving or real estate benefits under the protective provisions of either the Orange or Blue Books.
 Form 1 Award No. 28697
 Page 3 Docket No. MS-28728
 91-3-89-3-115

 It was Carrier's position that since Claimant's bid out of his home zone of Whitefish to Missoula was vetoed by virtue of the notation on the Lead APE Material Clerk MC-1 position's bulletin, his home zone remained at Whitefish, Montana.

 In the interim period and up to November 1, 1987, when the Montana Rail Link Railroad completed the purchase of the Burlington Northern's "Southiine," Claimant had bid on or displaced to several positions in the Missoula home zone.

 Since the above sale created surplus clerks at Missoula, Claimant was notified that his position was abolished effective October 31, 1987, and he displaced a junior employee at Whitefish, Montana.

 By letter dated November 23, 1987, Claimant apprised Carrier's Senior Vice President of Labor Relations that it was his understanding his home zone was changed to Missoula under the "1970 Orange Book Guarantee" and noted that he believed the information that Whitefish was his home zone was incorrect.

 He indicated that if Whitefish was to remain his home zone, then Carrier was to consider the letter as official notification to obtain real estate benefits covered by Section 1 of the 1970 Merger Agreement.
By letter dated February 5, 1988, the BN Director of Labor Relations responded that Carrier records indicated his home zone was Whitefish, Montana and also pointed out that Claimant's decisions placed him in Missoula, Montana. Further, he apprised letter dated March 12, 1988, Claimant advised Carrier's Director of Labor Relations that under .Appendix L of the Clerks Blue Book that when a person covered under the Orange Book has been displaced and exercises his seniority to another position outside the home zone, Carrier may request of such employee in writing not to ex was never requested not to exercise his seniatty. He concluded that according to his interpretation transferred to Missoula.

 He pursued this inquiry with a further letter dated April 2, 1988, which read in part as follows: r "Please refer to the bulletin_attached, dated July 1, 1975. This includes the Agency at Bonner, Montana, and - as you can see - contains NO BLANKET VETO. After being displaced from the Missoula .Accounting office in 1982, I exercised my seniority to obtain this position. No notification was ever given to me as per Blue Book - Appendix L, Section 2. Obviously, my home zone changed to Missoula at that point in time."
 Form 1 Award No. 28697
 Page 4 Docket No. Ms-28728
 91-3-89-3-115
 By letter dated May 18, 1988, the Director of Labor Relations re-
 sponded, in part:

The Director further noted a letter would follow from the EEO Manager, explaining Claimant's benefit
By letter dated May 27, 1988, Claimant wrote the Director of Labor Relations that it was "refreshing" the Director confirmed his home zone was Missoula and therefore entitled to relevant protective benefits under the "Orange Book" and the labor contract.



The Director of Labor Relations disputed his understanding and answered by letter dated June 21, 198



Form 1 Page 5

 Award No. 28697
 Docket No. MS-28728
 91-3-89-3-115

 As indicated in my letter of May 18, 1988, however, the Carrier is willing to provide you with the applicable moving and real estate benefits under Article IX and X of the 'Orange Book.' Please advise Margaret Townsend promptly if you wish to proceed with the necessary paperwork in conjunction with this move. By copy of this letter, I am advising her that if she does not hear from you within the next sixty days, the offer is null and void."

 In the meantime by letter dated June 14, 1988, Claimant filed a Claim with Carrier's Superintendent wherein he charged that since he was directed to return to Whitefish, Montana, this action violated Orange Book, Article VII (Change in Residence), Section No. 1-d and Blue Book Appendix L No. 2. He claimed travel and meal expenses amounting to $256.04 per day for each day the asserted violation occurred beginning May 18, 1988· By letter dated June 27, 1988, Carrier denied the Claim and set forth the following reasons for its denial (in part):

 "A review of my records indicates you were regularly assigned at Whitefish, Montana as Relief Clerk fur the period August 7, 1968 through July 1, 1979, when you were placed as a Material Department Supervisor at the same location.

 Clearly then, you established your Orange Book Protection in your Orange Book Zone at Whitefish. Records further indicate that you returned to the the Extra Board at Missoula, Montana, just prior to entering the Switchmen/Brake man's Training Class at the same location. On September 24, 1979, you gave up your Switchman/-Btakeman Seniority and displaced APE Clerk at Whitefish, Montana, where you remained until July 22, 1980, when you were the successful. bidder on Bulletin WE-576-80, Lead AFE Material- Clerk at Missoula District Accounting Office.

 When your position at Missoula was abolished as a result of the MRL Line Sale, October 30, 1987, you did exercise your seniority back to your Home Zone at Whitefish, Montana on Position No. 202, displacing D. Nygaard."

 By letter dated July 11, 1988, Claimant responded (in part):
 Form 1 Page 6

 he stated:

 Award No. 28697
 Docket No. MS-28728
 91-3-89-3-115

 "Upon being displaced from Missoula, I exercised my seniority and bumped R. W. Clark from the Agency at Bonner, MT. This position had never been blanket vetoed per Appendix L. Please see an attached copy of the original bulletin verifying this fact.

 Further, the Carrier DID NOT exercise their option per Appendix L and notify me that I was being denied the right to exercise seniority for a period of ten (10) calendar days, during which time they could request me in writing not to exercise my seniority.

 Mr. B.W. Potter, former Director of Labor Relations, specifically addressed this problem, saying that if the Company does not invoke the veto provisions of'Appendix L and the protected employee moves to a point OUTSIDE HIS HOME ZONE, the new place will become his Home Zone."

 The Superintendent responded by letter dated August 3,

 "As previously reviewed with you, you initially left your home zone of Whitefish, Montana, through a voluntary bid and subsequent move to a veteod positi in the home zone of Missoula, Montana. You have indicated in your letter that you subsequently exercised your seniority to displace R. W. Clerk (sic Bonner, Montana, on a position within the Missoula, home zone. The provisions of Appendix L of the current Schedule Agreement (Blue Book) requiring protected employees to change theJr.residence to a point outside their home zone, as referred to in your letter, would not be applicable in the instant circumstances."

 1988 wherein

 At this point Claimant apprised the Superintendent by letter dated August 8, 1988, that he was forwarding the Claim to the General Chairman of the "Transportation Union" for further processing and the Local Chairman at Whitefish, Montana appealed the Claim by letter dated August 19, 1988. It was the Local Chairman's position that when Claimant exercised displacement rights over the Bonner, Montana Agent-Telegrapher position in 1982, Claimant's home zone became Bonner, because Carrier did not veto his displacement.

 The Organization noted that Bonner was within the 30 mile home zone of Missoula, Montana, and asserted that the Director of Labor Relations office recognized this when they offered to pay Claimant's moving expenses from Missoula to Whitefish. The Local Chairman also stated the Claim was supported by Appendix L of the Blue Book Agreement.
 Form 1 Award No. 28697
 Page 7 Docket No. MS-28728
 91-3-89-3-115
 By letter dated September 23, 1988, the Superintendent wrote, (in
 part):
 "As I understand the facts of this claim, Material
 Clerk John Kain was regularly assigned at Whitefish,
 Montana, at the consummation of the original Northern
 Lines Merger, Whitefish is his home zone and he is a
 Northern Lines protected employee under provisions of
 the Orange Book Agreement. The record indicates that
 on July 22, 1980, the claimant left his Relief Mani
 fest Clerk Position at Whitefish, which was assigned
 under provisions of Bulletin 47-80 and bid Bulletin
 WE576-80 at Missoula, Montana. It is agreed by all
 that that bulletin contained standard veto provi
 sions.
 From Missoula, the claimant subsequently displaced
 the Agent/Telegrapher, at Bonner, Montana, which
 remains within the Missoula Home Zone. It is my
 understanding, that provisions of Appendix L, of the
 current schedule agreement (Blue Book) require pro
 tected employees to change their residence to a point
 outside their home zone. Clearly, the claimant was
 not required to do so in his displacement of R. W.
 Clark at Bonner, and it remains my position that his

This letter was answered.by the General Chairman on November 14, 1988. He wrote, (in part):


Form 1 Award No. 28697
 Page 8 Docket No. MS-28728
 91-3-89-3-115

 By letter dated December 29, 1988, Carrier's Assistant Vice President of Labor Relations denied the General Chairman's appeal and set forth the following reasons for the denial (in part):

The Claim was conferenced on January 30, 1989, and then appealed to the Board in accordance with the pertinent provision of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

 Ex Parts Submissions were filed with~vhe Board and a Referee Hearing was held on July 27, 1990 at the NRAB offices in Chicago, Illinois.

 In considering this dispute there are several points this Board is compelled to make.

 Firstly, the parties are const;ained by the Railway Labor Act, as amended and Circular Rule 1, of the National Railroad Adjustment Board to incorporate in their Submissions only the materials and position asserted on the property. Neither side is permitted to offer new arguments or advance new positions that were not considered during the on-situs appeals process. In the Submission before us, Carrier has raised procedural arguments that were not considered on the property namely that Claimant failed to handle his dispute in accordance with the procedures set forth under the provisions of
 Form 1 Award No. 28697
 Page 9 Docket No. MS-28728
 91-3-89-3-115

 Article XII of the November 17, 1967 Agreement and his parallel failure to process the Claim in accordance with the time limitations set forth in Rule 59 of the parties controlling Agreement. It also contended that he did not have the right to initiate an intermediate appeal which was the agreement prerogative of the Local Chairm
Specifically as we review the on-situs appeals correspondence, the central question at issue is whether Whitefish, Montana, is Claimant's home zone. Carrier contends that when Claimant bid on and was assigned the Lead AFE Material Clerk MC-1 position in the Missoula District Accounting office, the position was advertised on a bulletin containing a "blanket veto" (Bulletin WE-576-80). Thus, si blanket veto notation on the bulletin, his home zone remained at Whitefish, Montana.

 Contrawise, Claimant initially maintained that his home zone was Missoula, Montana, (see June 1~, 1988 claim letter) and then indicated that it should be at Bonner, Montana. (See, appeal letter of July 11, 1988) The Local Chairman's August 19, 1988, appeal letter requested his home zone be located at Missoula, while the General Chairman's appeal letter dated November 9, 1988, requested his home zone be located at Bonner.

 To be sure there is a stand off in positions, but we are not convinced that Claimant proved his home
Firstly a review of the initial informational correspondence particularly Claimant's November 23, 19 though he believed Whitefish was not his home zone. Secondly, he read into the Director of Labor Relation's May 18, 1988, letter a conclusion not supported by the contents of confirmed his home zone was in Missoula.

 Thirdly, as the claim progressed on the property Claimant changed his position with respect to the location of his itbde zone indicating that it was Bonner and/or Missoula. In the Superintendent's letter of September 23, 1988, which was written in response to the Local Chairman's August 19, 1988, letter, the Superintendent noted in the second paragraph "it is agreed by all that that bulletin contained standard veto provisions." This statement was never addressed in subsequent rebuttal correspondence.

 In comparing the parties respective handling of the Claim on the property and comparing the relative argumentative positions, we find Carrier's position consistently more persuasive. Consequently, since Claimant has not proven his home zone was Missoula or for that matter, Bonner, Montana, then we are constrained to accept Whitefish as his home zone. As the moving party Claimant has the responsibility to prove his claim, but we are not convinced by this record that he met this requirement.
 Form 1 Award No. 28697
 Page 10 Docket No. MS-28728

                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: ~~
 Nancy J. D v - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, I111nois, this 28th day of February 1991.

 .w.