Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 T DIVISION
 and . 37637
 Docket . 1
 -0 -3-

 T Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert . ' rien when award as rendered.

 (Brotherhood f Railroad Signalmen EARTIES, T DISPUTE:

,STATEMIENT OF CLAIM:










The iDivision ft Adjustment t Board, upon the whole record and all the
 evidence, finds that:

 e carrier r 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

Fr Award No. 37637
 o1
 Docket No. SG-38108
 Page 2
 __ __

In the fall f 200 , hen this dispute arose, the Claimant was assigned to Signal
 aorkeoy through Friday with tur n Sunday s is rest
 days... Signal n traveled tifft locations on the pro sr

Between October 1 an November 1, 200 , the Claimant- qua t
 Jefferson, Texas. Friday, November 1, 0 , t Claimant s 'se t his
 headquarters (work it) was changed fro Jefferson, Texas, Blue in s,
 issouri, distance of 555 miles. On Monday, November 4, 2002, the Claimant
 reported to Blue Springs, Missouri, after his two rest days. The Ca r*rier did not
 transport the Claimant to his new work point. Rather, he used his personal vehicle.

 The Claimant was entitle to be reimbursement for using his private vehicle'
 because the Carrier i not furnis transportation to Blue Springs, Missouri. He
 claimed 555 miles at the Carrier's authorized automobile mileage allowance. This is
 ilea between s, s, n Blue Springs, is°. Carrier
 compensated i f ilex, t difference ila t 1 i nie t

travel to his new work point (Blue Springs) and the mileage to his old work point (Jefferson).




Texas, distance f 559 miles. Again, the Carrier i not furnish transportation t
 Sulphur Springs, his a 1 cati. n , yr , , t
 Claimant use is personal vehicle t travel to Sulhr Springs, Teas. . He claimed 559
 miles, the distance a his work poi t Springs) n i i
 (Sulphur Springs). Inasmuch t distance between Clai t's residence
 and 1 uri (132 miles) was less a t distance ti s (436 miles) as not given n mileage allowance.
Louisiana. Wednesday, November 2, a s advised t s i
 a a uee , ka s s, distance f 177 7 miles. After the Thanksgiving
 iY n irst , t Claimant reported t e, ss, n Monday,
 December , 2 2, s instructed. Because rir i furnish Claimant
 transportation t i r point, sis personal vehicle. 1 i
For ar
 e Docket o: 1

 iles, the distance between his former work point (Mansfleld) and his nroint (DeQueen). Inasmuch as the distance between the Claimant's residence and De Queen (11 miles) as less than the distance from his residence to Mansfield (17 miles) h not allowed any mileage allowance for the use of his private veicl to tvel t DeQueen, his new work point...

 n December 1, 200 , the Organization fled a claim on behalf f the Claimant
 for 471.3, which it contends is the difference between the automobile allowance Claimant is entitled to pursuant to Rule of the Agreement en the parties an

 the automobile allowance that the Carrier approve for his travel to his new work
 locations n November 4, over r 25 and.December 2, 2002.

 rrieni the claim contending that in accordance l) t
 limant was properly travel this a k points in excess of the
 travel that would have been required had he returned o his former k point.
 Rule , relie on n by both parties, provides as follows:

      "TRAVELING FROM ONE WORK POINT TO ANOTHER


      (a) i spent traveling one k point t another (during

      regular assigned hours, outside of regularly assigned hours or on

      rest r holiday) shall i fort t straight tie rte.


      (b) n lye who is not furnished es f transportation y. e

        railroa company from n work point t another n who s

        other forms f transportation for this purpose shall,

        reimbursed r t cost such other transportation. If ' he uses

        is personal automobile for this purpose in the absence of

        transportation furnished t a railroa company shall be

        reimbursed r such us f his automobile the Carrier

        authorized automobile le mileage allowance. If an emplovee's work

        oint is change during his absence fro the work point n rest

        day- r holiday this paragraph shall M ]21v tang y mileage he is

        re ire ed to travel to the new work point in excess of that reguiret..'

          return the former r point." (Emphasis .)

Form 1 a. 37637
                                          of . 1

                                          _ _3®_


The Claimant's change of work points t the end his workweek November
 1 November 1 and November 7, Z002 o not fall squarely within a literal i f
 Rule 5 (b). For instance, arguably language of le 5 ) relied on b the
 rganization in support f the claim is inapplicable to the Claimant because hi not
 travel "fro one work point to anoter." Rather, has release fro a one
 location, s off work n his rest days and the Thanksgiving holiday, and tn travele
 to his new work location at the beginning of the following workweek.n the other
 hand, it can a argued that the last sentence of Rule (b) relied on by the Carrier was
 inapposite tthe Claimant because e s notified of the three changes his rk
 points while hs still t for point.

 Because literal application l() ill not resolve tssu t
 oard, it is necessa to rule 58 i its entirety t ascertain hat it
 No. 298 intended hen it crftt is contractual provision years .

    In our judgment, Rule 5 intende to compensate an employee the

    itionl cost he r she incurs hen required to travel to a new work point after his or

her rest days or holidays t a new work int is farther fro is r residence
 than the former work point. Tat employee s vied f the n i i
 work points t the en of the eecannt alter t intent f Rule .

 When interpreting us contract provisions, construction t would
 lead t unreasonable result should a avoided, if possible. T Organization's
 application f l5 ) would lea to n unreasonable result, in the Boaropinion.
 d's The Claimant is eeking n automobile mileage allowance for 5 miles n over
 , 20 2, although traveled only 123 miles. . For December 2, 2002, he requested an
 automobile mileage allowance 177 miles alth hough he commuted only 11 miles. Such
 windfall was not the intent of f Rule 58(b) in our view..

 Organization's application of Rule 5 ) old penalize t Carrier for
 ivin employees the courtesy f notifying t f change in their work inf r t
 following workweek they ere released t the en f the workweek for their rest
 days r okays. The Carrier could have iteunil after the Claimant e
 e work t begin his rest days an Thanksgiving holiday before notifying is ne point. f it done that, t Organization agrees that t Claimant

 would note entitled to t ii mileage tclaimed v ,
 s 11 c , 2002.
 Form 1 Award No. 37637.
 -38108
 Page 5, Docket-No. SG
 05-3-03-3-539

The Organization argues that Third Division Award 31505 is analogous to the dispute before the Board, but we respectfully disagree. In Award 31505, the siLynal employee used his personal vehicle to drive.directly from his fixed headquarters on seven consecutive days then returned to his fixed headquarters after performing service outside of his fixed headquarters'. We agree with Award 31505 that the signal employee there was entitled to be reimbursed for his mileage. . However, those circumstances are patently distinguishable from the instant case because the Claimant in the case before us did not use his personal vehicle totravel directly from one work point to.anot her.


For all the foregoing reasons, we find that the Claimant is not entitled to the travel mileage that he claimed and the claim is denied as a result.*


                        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 19th day of October 2005.