Carrier defends by arguing that Rules 29 and 40 are inapplicable to the case at hand because they pertain to travel in the performance of a work assignment. As for Rule 42, Carrier contends that the language therein clearly and unambiguously provides that the Company bear the expense of a physical examination. There is no mention that Carrier must also bear the expense of meals, mileage and salary as well, the Carrier points out. Carrier argues further that even if the language is deemed ambiguous, there have been numerous cases in which employees have been required to report to the Detroit office for physical examinations. In none of those cases has the Carrier reimbursed the employee for expenses incurred beyond the cost of the exam itself. That practice supports the Carrier's claimed interpretation of Rule 42, it is asserted.

A close examination of Rules 29 and 40, cited above, convinces this Board that they do not apply to the situation presented in this case. As Carrier correctly pointed out, Rule 29, entitled "Traveling by Direction of Management," is prefaced by the following language:

"Except as otherwise provided in these rules, employees required by the Management to travel on or off their assigned territory (including travel in camp cars or trailers) will be allowed pro rata rate for all time travelinct or waiting duringtor outside of their assigned working hours, and on rest days ....'

There is no evidence that the Rule contemplates payment for anything other than activity related to the assignment of an employee. In the instant case, Claimant had no assigned working hours; he was seeking a medical release to return to duty.

Similarly, Rule 40 applies to individuals performing service in connection with their assignment. Paragraph (a) provides for the payment of meals and lodging expenses where an employee is "required to perform work" on or off his assigned territory. The organization has not shown that Claimant was required to perform work on or off his assigned territory on the date of the claim. He was taking a return-to-duty physical, and until approved for duty and assigned to perform work, he could not make a claim for payment of expenses under Rule 40.

The remaining question is whether Claimant's expenses should have been paid in accordance with Rule 42. On that issue, we do not agree with Carrier's contention that the meaning of the term "expense" is so clear on its face that there is no need to consider extrinsic evidence. The term "expense" is not defined in Rule 42 and we have not been directed to any other provision in the Agreement which would shed light on precisely what the parties meant when they inserted the word "expense" in the Agreement. At the same time, though, we must conclude that past practice has not been proven either by the organization or the Carrier. The few statements of employees offered by the Organization of instances in which carrier reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with physical exams did not contain sufficient information so as to ascertain whether they involved physical for reentry to service following an injury, or just periodic exams.

By the same token, Carrier's assertions of past practice did not constitute strong proof either. Evidence of past practice in its favor must generally be unequivocal, clearly enunciated, and readily ascertainable over a long period of time as a fixed practice accepted by both parties. In this case, the record leaves considerable room for doubt as to whether there was any "mutual" acceptance by the parties or even knowledge of a "practice" on the part of the organization.

That being the case, we note that dictionary definitions of the term "expense" typically define the word as a financial outlay or expenditure. That definition, we find, is susceptible of an interpretation broad enough to include Claimant's mileage and meal expenses. Although it was certainly within the prerogative of Management to determine where Claimant was required to take his physical, it was also carrier's responsibility to bear the cost of those expenses incurred in connection with the physical examination. Here, Claimant was required to travel over 500 miles, round trip, over a period of 12 hours, to present himself to Carrier's physicians in Detroit. While he was not on assignment, and therefore no wages are owing, we do find that his other out-ofpocket expenses should have been r 42.

Accordingly, Claimant shall be compensated for his mileage and meal expenses incurred in connection with Carrier's directive that he obtain a physical examination in Detroit on June 9, 1987. However, that portion of the claim requesting eight hours of pay at straight time and four hours of pay at time and one-half is denied.

AWARD