Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37010
Docket No. SG-36497
04-3-00-3-726
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert Perkovich when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
( (former Missouri Pacific Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad (former Missouri
Pacific):
Claim on behalf of E.L. Mitchell for payment of $19.50 in expenses,
account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
particularly Rules 5 (c) and 7 of the Ancillary Mobile Signal Gang
Agreement when it failed to reimburse the Claimant for Noon meal
expenses incurred on November 3 and 4, 1999. Carrier's File No.
1213655. General Chairmen's File No. S-5-C-7-002. BRS File Case
No. 11402-MP."
FINDINGS:
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.
Form 1 Award No. 37010
Page 2 Docket No. SG-36497
04-3-00-3-726
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The Claimant at all relevant times herein was assigned to Gang 2639 which
was working in Little Rock, Arkansas. While so assigned, the Claimant lived in
Jacksonville, Arkansas, 19 miles from midtown Little Rock. On the two days in
question, he submitted a request for reimbursement for noon meal expenses. Those
requests were denied because he returned home on each day. The claim was based
on the fact that the Claimant was assigned to a mobile gang and the amount of the
claim was based on the maximum allowable. Thus, the Claimant did not provide
receipts or proof of the amounts expended for noon meals on the days in question.
Claims submitted under identical circumstances have found their way before
the Board and they have been denied. For example, in Third Division Award 36632,
a dispute that arose on this very same property between the very same parties, the
Board found that because Rule 5(c) allows reimbursement only for "actual"
expenses, a claim will fail for lack of proof in the absence of receipts or other
evidence proving the amounts expended. Moreover, similar language in other
Agreements has been interpreted in the same fashion. See e.g., Third Division
Awards 33650, 27967, 27039, and 26458. Accordingly, this claim must also fail.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of May 2004.