The issue in dispute calls for a determination as to whether a timely and valid claim exists for payment of expenses to the Clamant for work performed as a Machine Operator on a Production Crew during the months of October and November 1999. The referenced expenses are those stipulated in Rule 35, "Travel Time and Expense for Employes Required to Live Away From Rome Throughout Their Work Week," Article IX, "Expenses Away From Home," and Side Letter No. 6 of a May 1, 1997 Agreement.
Expense claim forms for October and November 1999 as signed by the Claimant with a date of February 5 were submitted to the Carrier with a February 8, 2001 letter of claim from the General Chairman.
It is the position of the Organization that the Claimant was not able to more timely submit his expense account forms "through a series of events," with the following rationale being offered for the delay.
Before turning to the merits of the case, the Board will first note that we are not persuaded that the claim should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the basis of a Carrier contention that the case was not handled pursuant to Agreement Rules and procedures governing claims and grievances.
The Board finds nothing contained in Rule 35, or the record as presented, that prescribes a time limit for the filing of the expenses at issue. Nor have we been directed to any Carrier policy that calls for expense claim forms, such as those in the instant dispute, to be filed within a time certain.
As stated above, the claim was presented on behalf of the Claimant by the General Chairman in a letter dated February 8, 2001, with the letter being addressed to the Manager Track Programs/Work Equipment. The Carrier's response to the Form I Award No. 38239
General Chairman did not mention a specific Rule, policy, or instructions as issued in support of a time limit contention, per se, offering only that time did not permit a verification of the expenses as claimed. The declination letter stated:
No specific contractual time limit Agreement Rule, policy, or instructions was cited when the Carrier subsequently replied to the Organization's appeal of the claim. The Carrier's letter of denial under date of June 1, 2001 said only the following:
As concerns the merits of the claim, the Carrier offered the following in its letter of March 7, 2002 to the General Chairman:
While reason would exist under normal circumstances to question a contention that an employee was fearful of being fired for submitting an expense form, there is no question from the above Carrier statement that it did, in fact, conduct a series of disciplinary Investigations into charges of alleged expense irregularities. Thus, it would seem that the Claimant had reason to have delayed presentation of his claim until he was certain that the amounts being claimed were not going to be disputed to the extent of subjecting him to a disciplinary Hearing. Form 1 Award No. 38239
As concerns the above reference to Mr. Kluska, the Carrier's response is to a statement contained in an appeal letter of January 30, 2002, wherein the General Chairman said: "During a subsequent meeting in Alexandria, Minnesota during the first week of February 2000, Mr. M. R Kluska, of your staff, advised Claimant to get those expenses sent in for payment."
In the opinion of the Board, the Carrier refutation of the aforementioned assertion of the General Chairman that Muska had advised the Claimant to get those expenses sent in for pay should have been in the form of an evidentiary statement of record from Kluska. Certainly, the Carrier had sufficient time from the date of the General Chairman's letter (January 30, 2002) to the date of the Carrier's counter contention (March 7, 2002) to have obtained a statement from Kluska.
In regard to the expense claim forms, it is evident that the Claimant gave clear explanations for each date of a claimed expense. Nothing of record shows that the Carrier disputed the amount of expense claimed as being other than as provided under Agreement Rules. The Carrier only asserted that it was unable to "verify" the dates and amounts as claimed.
The Board finds it difficult to comprehend the Carrier's position that it was not able to verify the information provided on the expense forms ffrom its payroll and other production work records. As the General Chairman stated in several letters to the Carrier, the Claimant worked his assigned position of Machine Operator on the Production Crew from the start of the crew on April 5 through crew tie-up on November II, ?999. Certainly, the Carrier retains records for a greater period than the time here at issue.
The Board also finds lacking in support of record the Carrier's contention that "no evidence" was presented off the Claimant incurring any of the expenses. Nothing was presented to establish that the Claimant was required to submit some form of evidentiary documentation in claiming an expense not in excess of the set amounts prescribed by the applicable Agreement Rules for meals, miles, camper allowance, or weekend allowance.
In the circumstances of record the Board finds that the claim must be allowed as presented. Form 1 Award No. 38239
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identilled above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claitnant(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.