The Claimant's headquarters point was DeQueen, Arkansas. On April 29, 2002, at the direction of the Carrier, the Claimant used his personal vehicle to change his headquarters point to Heavner, Oklahoma. The Claimant was paid for the time spent driving to make the change. According to the claim, he was not paid proper mileage compensation.
The Organization alleges a violation of Rule 58. It argues that the Claimant is allowed reimbursement for the use of his personal vehicle in these circumstances due to the fact that the change was not made during his absence from a work point, on his rest day or on a holiday. The change was made by a morning conference call at the DeQueen, Arkansas, work point. The Claimant was informed to change work points and provided no transportation. Rule 58, "Traveling from One Work Point to Another" states:
The claim of the Organization is that the mileage requested was proper and unpaid as per Section (b) which is applicable. The distance from his former headquarters located at DeQueen and his new headquarters in Heavener was 105 Form 1 Award No. 37713
miles and improperly reimbursed under Rule 58, supra. The Organization denies the relevance of the Claimant's residence on the issue of payment for mileage and requests full mileage reimbursement.
The Carrier denied the claim. Its position is that the Claimant was headquartered at DeQueen, Arkansas. However, he was released from duty on April 25, 2002. Thereafter, the Claimant never returned to DeQueen, Arkansas. In fact, the Carrier contacted him on the morning of April 29, 2002 at his residence at Gillham, Arkansas, to change his headquarters point to Heavner, Oklahoma. The Carrier argues that Rule 58(b) applies due to the fact that the Claimant's work point changed while he was on his rest days. It further argues that after the change, the Claimant was required to travel 94 miles from Gillham to Heavener. Prior to the change, he was required to travel from his Gillham residence to DeQueen, or il miles. Because the above cited Rule applies to the difference between the 94 miles and 11 miles, 83 miles represents the excess mileage.
The Board reviewed all of the arguments herein. We are cognizant of the Organization's arguments pertaining to the home station listed as the motel assigned, the regularly assigned signal gang position, and vacation relief, among others. These arguments and issues are not persuasive. The burden of proof rests with the Organization to provide substantial probative evidence for its argument that the Carrier's actions violated the Rule. It has not done so. There is no proof in this record of any prior payment made consistent with the Organization's interpretation. If correct, prior statements, records, or Awards would suffice for a prima facie case. There are none.
Further, the Board not only notes a lack of substantive support, but also finds a recent Award over this same issue. In Third Division Award 37551, the Board found no support for the Organization's argument. We find no reason to consider that Award in error and, therefore, conclude in similar fashion that the claim lacks support and the interpretation requested must be rejected.
However, the Board notes that the final declination of January 20, 2003 by the Carrier states in pertinent part:
The Board is unsure from this record if proper payment was or was not made to the Claimant. The Board remands this issue to the parties to make sure that the Claimant was properly compensated. If the new headquarters point at Heavener was further than the former work location of De Queen by 83 miles, compensation is due for the excess mileage. If not, and the above final declination is correct, no compensation is due.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.