(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

(Union Pacific Railroad Company

( (former Missouri Pacific Railroad)

"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to reimburse District Welder Helper C. L. Bohannon for mileage expenses incurred while using his personal automobile in connection with the changing of work locations on the Arkansas Division as submitted to the Carrier under date of November 25, 1991 (Carrier's File 920150 MPR).

(2) .As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, the Claimant shall be allowed a mileage expense of ninety dollars and thirty cents ($90.30)."

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

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

At the time of the claim, the Claimant was assigned as a welder helper in a "online" or mobile gang when the gang changed its headquarters point. However, the Claimant elected to drive his personal vehicle when the headquarters were moved. The bang changed headquartered points seven times between April 12 and November 18, 1991. On January 4. 1992, Claimant tiled a claim for the mileage allowance for all changes in headquarters.

The Carrier argues that the claim was not timely filed in accordance with Rule 12 Section 2(a) which reads:

"All claims or grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employe involved to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same, within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based."

The Organization argues that the time limit did not start until the claim for mileage N~as denied by the Engineering Superintendent.

If the Board is to accept the Organization's position then it would allow the employees to file for expenses at any time. One purpose of the time limit Rules is that it gives the Carrier a chance to investigate the circumstances of the claim while the facts are still relatively fresh. Accordingly the Board finds that all of the claims for mileage except for the November 18, 1991 date were not timely filed and will not be considered by this Board.

As to the remaining claim the Organization has the burden to prove the Agreement has been violated. It cites Rule 21 to support its position. The portion of the rule cited reads as follows:

Section I, (c) Award of Arbitration Board No. 298 Eff. 10-15-67

2. An employe who is not furnished means of transportation by the

railroad company from one work point to another and who uses

other forms of transportation for this purpose shall be reimbursed

for the cost of such other transportation. If he uses his personal

automobile for this purpose in the absence of transportation

furnished by the railroad company he shall be reimbursed for such

use of his automobile at the rate of nine cents a mile. If an

employe's work point is changed during his absence from the work

point on a rest day or holiday this paragraph shall apply to any

mileage he is required to travel to the new work point in excess of

that required to return to the former work point."

AWARD