"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E):

Claim on behalf of D. D. Moser for payment of $255.09, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 72, when it did not reimburse the Claimant for the expense of using his personal vehicle during April, May, June and July of 1997. Carrier's File No. 144312. General Chairman's File 10750-EJE."

dates from March through July 1997, the Claimant utilized his personal vehicle to get to designated locations. In most cases, the Claimant was called out for overtime and in order to obtain a company vehicle with appropriate equipment, he had to leave his home and drive to set locations. At the end of the performance of his responsibilities, the Claimant had to return the company vehicle and then drive home. Regardless of whether he was on overtime or directed by the Carrier to see a company doctor, he was doing so "while being on the clock" and "under the direction of the company." The Organization argues herein that the Carrier violated Rule 72. The Organization argues that the Claimant was called out for overtime and is to be paid by the Carrier from the time he is called until he returns home. The Claimant is required to drive his own vehicle to the Carrier's headquarters and this is a clearly paid expense under Rule 72.

The Carrier maintains that Rule 72 does not have applicability to the Claimant's actions. The Rule has not been interpreted by practice to reimburse an employee for the use of his personal vehicle to get to a company location to obtain a Company truck with special tools and equipment to perform his overtime service. The Carrier denied the claim as lacking practice and language support.

The Rule in dispute dealing with mileage for the use of a private vehicle, states in full that:

"(b) Employes who at the direction of the Carrier use their privately owned automobiles will be compensated twelve cents (12¢) per mile regardless of the number of miles traveled."

The question at bar is twofold. How has the Rule been interpreted and applied previously? What does the Rule language state?

By letter dated November 24, 1997, the Carrier stated that "The carrier has never allowed mileage expense for employees who drive from home to their headquarter point to get a company vehicle for an overtime call." This is not refuted by the Organization and stands as fact. Additionally, and in answer to the second question, there is nothing in the language of the Rule that compensation is related to pay status. The Rule does not say that because the employee is under pay as he drives to his headquarters point that the private automobile he is using fits under the Rule. The language relates to employees "who at the direction of the Carrier . . . ." There is nothing in this record that the Carrier directed the employee to use his privately owned