The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee James E. Mason 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 or 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.
This dispute involves an assertion by the Organization that steel-toe safety shoes are, in fact. "tools" as that term is used in Rule 56 of the negotiated agreement which reads as follows: Form I Award No. 317.16
Claimant thereupon purchased a pair of steel-toe shoes from a supplier of his own choosing and requested that Carrier reimburse him for the purchase price of the shoes. When Carrier denied his request for reimbursement, the claim as outlined above was presented on his behalf by the Organization. After handling the dispute through the normal on-property grievance procedures without reaching a satisfactory resolution, it has come to this Board for final adjudication.
The Organization insists that while Carrier has the right to establish policies and rules relative to the use of safety equipment, it does not have the right to require the employee to provide such equipment at their own expense. They contend that Rule 56 requires that Carrier will furnish the "tools" which are necessary for the employee to perform their duties and that the required steel-toe shoes are nothing more than a required "tool" as that term is used in Rule 56.
Carrier posits that the use of safety shoes has been in general effect for several classes of employees for many years. Carrier argues that it has never reimbursed any of the several classes of employees for the purchase price of such shoes. Rather, Carrier points to a long-established program of arranging for employees to purchase safety shoes through a payroll deduction plan at a reduced cost to the employee. In this case, Carrier says that the employee did not follow the established program but rather purchased the shoes from a supplier of his own choice. Carrier insists that there is no agreement rule which requires the reimbursement here requested and rejects the contention that safety shoes are "tools."
The Board has considered all of the contentions of the parties and has reviewed the citations of authority presented by the parties. It is the Board's conclusion that there is no language to be found in Rule 56 which requires that the Carrier must furnish shoes to the employee. The FRA and Safety Rule requirement to wear safety-toe shoes while working in the areas as set forth in Safety Rule 210 does not ipso facto convert the shoes into a "tool." Rather, the shoes are a condition of employment when working in such areas. The opinions expressed in Third Division Awards 29656 and 31156 as well as Second Division Award 12726 support the conclusions reached in this case. Therefore. the claim as presented is denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.