The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Edwin H. Bern when award was rendered.
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
On March 5. 1993, ClaimauL a Signal :Maintainer, was given the following memo from Signal Supervisor R Spargo in light of Claimant's appearance in a court proceeding on behalf of the Carrier:
On March 8, 1993, Claimant purchased a pair of shoes, slacks, a shirt and accessories totaling S142.18. Claimant sought reimbursement from the Carrier for the cost of those items of clothing, which was denied. This claim followed.
The burden in this case is on the Organization to demonstrate the elements of its claim. That burden has not been met.
We need not determine, as the Organization argues, that the memo from Signal Supervisor Spargo to Claimant stating "Dress clothes No Blue Jeans" is an order to Claimant under penalty of discipline to dress accordingly. We also need not determine whether such a request for reimbursement falls under Rule 23. For the sake of discussion, we shall assume in this case as the Organization argues that Spargo's memo was an order and that Rule 23 could cover such a reimbursement request. With those assumptions. the narrow question here, then, is whether Claimant's cost of clothing for the court hearing was an "[aIetual necessary expense" under Rule 23. Form 1 Award No. 31735
The Organization's burden has not been met in this case because the fundamental assumption of the argument made by the Organization is the factual contention that Claimant did not possess "Dress clothes" and that all he possessed were "Blue Jeans". But, there is no evidence in the record to support such a factual assertion. .A11 this record shows is that Claimant made certain purchases of clothing. Therefore, even assuming Rule 23 applies to a request for reimbursement for clothing (again, an issue we do not decide), there is no evidence in this case to show that such purchases were "necessary" under Rule 23.
Just as easily as the Organization can make the assertion without proof that Claimant had to make the clothing purchases because he lacked the appropriate attire called for by Signal Supervisor Spargo, the Carrier can make the assertion that Claimant had items that would fit the description of "dress clothes" and that Claimant just saw the memo from Signal Supervisor Spargo as an opportunity to expand Claimant's wardrobe at the Carrier's expense. But, the burden is on the Organization. Simply stated, we have no proof concerning what was in Claimant's wardrobe. The Organization's burden has not been met - it has not shown that the purchases were "necessary". Under the circumstances, the claim will be denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.