Claimant Parmelee was required by the Carrier on three occasions over a period of 18 days in 1994 to undertake familiarization trips related to qualifying on his position as a Train Dispatcher. In accordance with his understanding of Rule 13, "ROAD DAYS," he submitted travel expense claim forms on May 30, June 13 and November 28, 1994, reflecting outlays of $1450.60 incurred in that connection. Carrier allowed $971.08 of that amount, and rejected the remainder as excessive meal expenses. This is a claim for the unpaid balance.
The Organization maintains that Claimant is entitled to the reimbursement he seeks under Rule 13, which reads as follows:
Relying first on the literal language of Rule 13, Carrier maintains that it has an inherent right to make reasonable determinations regarding what constitutes "actual necessary" expenses. In support of its position. it cites a notice posted on February 20. 1991 by its Division Superintendent announcing that. effective immediately, no reimbursement would be made for meal expenses in excess of he following amounts: Breakfast: $5.00. Lunch: $7.50. Dinner: $15.00. Carrier asserts that this notification was never challenged It further argues that it re-publicized its policy without objection on July 27, 1993 in a communication that further advised employees of their need to document certain large expenses with receipts and make travel arrangements through designated service providers. Lastly, it cites several Division Awards denying similar claims on other properties under what it characterizes as "nearly identical" circumstances.
The Organization sees the dispute in distinctly different terms. It asserts that by implementing its directive relating to maximum meal allowances. Carrier has modified Rule 13 without the concurrence of the Organization as required by the Agreement. It Form 1 Award No. 32620
further argues that Carrier's policy was arbitrary, in violation of long standing past practice, and - contrary to Carrier's assertions - was clearly challenged by the Organization. It points to a letter from General Chairman F. L. McCann dated May 29, 1995 in which McCann stated that ". . . Conrail has a contractual responsibility to reimburse `Actual necessary expenses for meals and lodging. . ."' and that "members of this Organization are not bound by [your) limitations. . ." In sum, it asks this Board to reject Carrier's denial of the claimed expenses, and invites us to make an independent judgment as to their reasonableness.
For the following reasons the claims are denied. Rule 13 provides for the reimbursement of "actual necessary expenses." The parties are sophisticated and their relationship mature; had they intended a Rule that would reimburse "actual" expenses incurred, with no limitations, qualifications or refinements, they presumably knew how to strike that bargain. But, as suggested by several past Awards addressing similar claims, the phrase "actual necessary" cannot be equated with "actual" unless the Board disregards the word choices of the parties. Said another way, the Rule says "necessary," and if that word has any meaning at all, it contemplates that at the end of the day someone must make a call as to which out-of-pocket expenses are excessive and which are unavoidable. On the record before us, it is simply impossible to conclude that Carrier has contracted away its right to deny expense claims it considers to be unnecessary. See, e.g., Award 2 of Public Law Board No. 2044 (Carrier's posted meal limits found enforceable under identical "actual necessary" language.)
Although energy has been expended on the debate, having found the intent of the parties to be clear from the language they adopted. the Board finds in unnecessary to address the assertion that in failing to grieve this issue after meal expense guidelines were posted in 1991 and reaffirmed in 1993, the Organization waived its rights under the Agreement. Nor is any decision necessary in this instance on the question of whether the daily maximum meal expenses promulgated by the Carrier will always be adequate to cover necessary meal costs in the face of all variables. Claimant here sought amounts in excess of those allowed by Carrier as "necessary," and then challenged Carrier's contractual right to question those claims. We conclude here, as other Boards have frequently recognized. that under this Agreement it is the function and responsibility of Carrier in the first instance to make the determinations Claimant objects to. That said, it may be that the posted guidelines under some circumstances may be applied so rigidly as to offend the Agreement. We find only that on this record, no proof has been Form 1 Award No. 32620