Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 Award No. 37875
 Docket No. SG-37579
 06-3-02-3-684

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:



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 I Award No. 37875
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-37579
 06-3-02-3-684


re e..oea aw properly pay claims for automobile i:ve,...,n_..,.,._,., ~;~o.i 1..,
 iuu i IV ui iease aaiv.ras~w uic.u vj .i.ei..va..o
 of Mobile Crew No. 8. The Claimants must use their personal automobiles for
 transportation to and from their residences. Their vehicles are therefore parked at
 the work site. When the Carrier moves the worksite, sometimes hundreds of miles,
 the Claimants are forced to move their vehicles to the new worksite to enable them
 to return to their residences. The Organization points out that it would be unsafe to
 leave the vehicles at a previous work site; that the Carrier is unwilling to return the
 Claimants to their vehicles at the end of each workday; and most importantly, as
 attested to by the employees, the Carrier has for at least five years paid mileage
 allowance for moving their personal vehicles from headquarters to headquarters.
 The Organization maintains the Carrier has now abrogated its practice and violated

 tha B»raumn»*

The Carrier argues that it has properly followed the Agreement. The applicable Rule is clear and has been correctly applied. The Carrier maintains that it did error in the past and improperly pay the mileage allowance to some gangs where they used their personal vehicles from one work point to another. However, those erroneous payments were not proper, not paid in most cases, and certainly not required to be continued simply because they were previously improperly paid. The Carrier denies that movement of worksites includes hundreds of miles. The Carrier denies that this mileage allowance was necessitated and proper by Agreement Rule 46. It maintains that the Claimants used the vehicles for their own personal convenience and the Carrier is not obligated to nav under the facts of record.


The Board studied the Organization's evidence of record. It is a signed statement by a dozen men of a mobile crew attesting to the Carrier's standard



practice iii cne Jynn~iieiu Seiiiurity uasirlct lot payriient nuuci tiles: Saxiae circumstances for some five years. Two of these Claimants also signed additional statements that on each of their mobile crews, they had been paid for moving their personal vehicles while changing headquarters. Clearly, there was past practice and this was not denied by the Carrier, although termed erroneous.
 Tinrm 1 A ---.a Nn 3^70^76
 i v .... i r s11a1U i~v.010 10
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-37579

Having found a prima facie case made by the Organization and the existence of five years or more of past practice, the Board carefully studied the Agreement Rule. It is important to determine if the Rule has ambiguity which this past practice establishes as an expressive intent by the parties to continue as their binding agreement. The Rule herein disputed is Rule 46 G, which states:


"An employee who is not furnished means of transportation by the

Carripr frnm nnv wnrlr nnint to annthur wnrlr nnint anA whn neae












The Board does not find this to be ambiguous languaLie. The entire Rule is
 predicated upon a situation where the employee "is not furnished means of
 transportation by the Carrier from one work point to another work point . .... 11 In
 this record, the Carrier provided means of transportation. The Claimants

rcquc~aa.u wua~aaav~aaa. Vaaaa,asc aixVVYanI.C vvlel~11 YYVUIU VG PIUpel 111 Llle AVJellue Ul transportation furnished by the Carrier." The fact that there exists a past practice does not herein control, when such language is clear and unambiguous in the Agreement Rule. There is no Rule violation in the Claimants' necessity in bringing their personal vehicles or the Carrier's necessity to aid the employees in retrieving their vehicles upon a move from work point to work point. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.


Claim denied.
 corm i Award No. 37875
 Page 4 Docket No. SG-37579
 06-3-02-3-684
that an Award favnrnhlr· to the ('laimant(el not ho marls
                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of August 2006.