"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad:

Claim on behalf of E. M. Anderson for payment of $72.15. Account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 36 and 75 when on July 1, 2000 Carrier failed to compensate the Claimant for use of his personal automobile from Oregon City, Oregon to Pendleton, Oregon in connection with the relocation of his gang. Carrier's File No. 1242658. General Chairman's File No. W36-066. BRS File Case No. 11688-UP."

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The record herein establishes that the Claimant drove his personal automobile some 222 miles on the claim date when his gang relocated in the middle of its work period. Although the claim asserted that the Claimant was assured he would receive mileage expense if he agreed to move his vehicle, the Carrier challenged the assertion and provided a statement effectively refuting it. The Organization did not offer any evidence to support its assertion.

The record also establishes that the Carrier provided transportation for the employees to the new work location and, for those employees who left their personal vehicles at .the old location, the Carrier provided transportation back to their vehicles at the end of the work period. Employees who, like the Claimant, did drive their vehicles to the new location were allowed to do so on paid time.

The Organization relied on Rules 36 and 75 to support the instant claim. Rule 36 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

"If a mobile unit is moved and employees assigned thereto are not able to move their vehicle during the time the mobile unit is being moved, the employees will be returned to the location of their vehicle at the Company's expense."

The text of Rule 75, in its entirety, reads as follows:

"When employees are requested and are willing to use private automobiles for Company-use, an allowance will be made at the established automobile mileage allowance paid by the Company to its employees."

Although the Organization advanced several contentions in an attempt to fit the operative facts to available Agreement language, a careful review of the cited provisions show that they do not support the Organization's position. The quoted portion of Rule 36 would apply only when an employee is not able to move his personal vehicle to the new location. It is clear on this record that the Claimant was able to move his vehicle and did so on paid time. Moreover, the Carrier's obligation under the Rule is to return the employee to his old location; it does not require

payment of mileage expenses to a new location. Therefore, Rule 36 is not applicable to the facts at hand.

The record is also devoid of any evidence showing that the Claimant was required by the Carrier to move his vehicle to the new location. From the evidence in this record, it is also clear that the Claimant relocated his vehicle as a matter of voluntary choice for his own convenience. Under these circumstances, nothing in Rule 75 requires payment of the mileage allowance sought by the claim.

Given the foregoing considerations, we must find that the Organization failed to satisfy its burden of proof to establish a violation of the Agreement. Accordingly, the claim, as presented, must be denied.

AWARD