"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to pay the travel allowance for workdays in the months of April, 2000; and May, 2000 to Special Machine Operator K. W. Eastman as provided in Memorandum No. 12 (System File 022-00-110-06/8-00319-373 CMP).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Special Machine Operator K. W. Eastman shall now be compensated for five hundred eighty-five dollars ($585.00)."

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

In April and May 2000, the Claimant was working as a Special Machine Operator headquartered at St. Paul, Minnesota. He operated a Mark III tamper. The Claimant resided in Wabasha, Minnesota, approximately 70 to 80 miles from St. Paul. He commuted to his job in St. Paul each workday and returned to his residence at the end of the workday. The Claimant was not directed to be away from his h,,adnnartPrc in April and IV4av 20H111_

On or about March 14, 1991, the parties entered into a Letter Agreement that allowed reimbursement for the actual reasonable cost of meals and lodging for Special iviachme Operators who agreed to remain with the position throughout the work season. This Letter Agreement was incorporated into the January 1, 2000 Agreement as Memorandum No. 12. Memorandum No. 12 provides, in pertinent part:

"It is hereby agreed that the Carrier will allow reimbursement for actual reasonable costs off meals and lodging for special machine operators assigned to special machines by bulletin on the condition that the employee will remain with the position throughout the season ....

T1_ 1__7__ !U_~ 1_

incumbents _ulC suc_h positions, wnU are CULLUM to lvugll%g reimbursement, may elect a $15.00 travel allowance for each workday he would have otherwise been entitled to lodging reimbursement . . . ."

On February 8, 2000, the parties agreed to Memorandum No. 27 which amended Memorandum No. 12. Memorandum No. 27 allowed Group 1 Rank (a) and Rank (hl Machine nnerators assigned to snecial machines by bulletin the option of reimbursement for meals and lodging in accordance with Award 298, including single occupancy corporate lodging facilities if available, or a $15.00 travel allowance for each workday he otherwise would have been entitled to

__1_ur_er_entp _n.r_________A__-_Ar_ an

The Claimant requested a $15.00 travel allowance for the 19 days hp wnrki-d in April and the 20 days he worked in May 2000. The Carrier disallowed his expense account.

n.. r.- va ~nnn .1... n____e__~__-_*_~ _ _._· vu 0 uuc ~ ~vvU, LUC lJi giL111Z2UIU11 111CU 2L dainl on the l.laimant's behalf for $585.00 in travel allowance for April and May 2000. The Carrier denied the claim contending that the Claimant's Production Tamper Operator position was a headquartered position. The Carrier maintains that Special Machine Operator positions that have a headquarters are not entitled to lodging.

Memorandum No. 12 is unambiguous. It provides Special Machine Operators who are assigned to special machines by bulletin the actual reacnnahte costs for meals and lodging provided they agree to remain on the position throughout the work season. If these Special Machine Operators are entitled to lodging reimbursement, they may elect a $15.00 travel allowance for each workday

Machine Operator is not entitled to lodging reimbursement, he is not eligible for the $15.00 travel allowance. This is condition precedent eligibility for the travel allowance. Memorandum No. 27 did not change this prerequisite.

When the Claimant worked as a Special Machine Operator headquartered at St. Paul, he was not entitled to reimbursement for meals and lodging. Therefore, he was not eligible for the $15.00 travel allowance provided by Memorandum No. 12. The Claimant commuted to his position from his residence each workday. At no time was he directed to be away from his headquarters. Rather, he started and ended each workday at St. Paul.

Under these circumstances, the Claimant was not entitled to reimbursement for his actual reasonable costs of meals and lodging and was not entitled to a $15.00 daily travel allowance. The claim is denied as a result.

AWARD