Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 39498
Docket No. SG-38747
09-3-NRAB-00003-050167
(05-3-167)
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the
Union Pacific Railroad:
Claim on behalf of G. D. Ryan, for $14.84 expense reimbursement,
account Carrier violated Rules 33, 37 and 80, of the current
Signalmen's Agreement, when it denied payment for laundry
expense incurred by the Claimant on December 21, 2003, while the
Claimant was held away from his residence for a period of eight
days. Carrier's File No. 1395936. General Chairman's File No. W33-370. BRS File Case No. 13152-UP."
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. 39498
Page 2 Docket No. SG-38747
09-3-NRAB-00003-050167
(05-3-167)
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
This is a similar claim for reimbursement of laundry expenses as addressed
by the Board in Third Division Award 39497. As found in that Award:
"The Organization's argument lacks rule support. Rule 33 provides
for reimbursement of `meals and lodging' if not provided by the
Carrier. Nothing is mentioned in that rule about laundry expenses.
But assuming that language is somehow ambiguous, the rules of
contract construction can be used to discern the parties' intent. An
axiomatic rule of contract construction dictates that to express one
thing is to exclude another. By specifically including `meals and
lodging' and not mentioning `laundry expenses' in Rule 33, under
this rule of contract construction it is fair to conclude that laundry
expenses were not intended to be covered by Rule 33.
There is no evidence of a bona fide past practice of such payments to
warrant an interpretation to require reimbursement of laundry
expenses. See Third Division Award 34207.
Finally, the Organization's reliance upon a policy providing for such
payment is not persuasive. The Carrier asserts that policy applies to
non-agreement employees. At best, the question is in dispute and a
record with conflicting interpretations is not sufficient to meet the
Organization's burden.
In light of the above, the Carrier's procedural arguments are moot."
That rationale equally applies to this case.
Form I Award No. 39498
Page 3 Docket No. SG-38747
09-3-NRAB-00003-050167
(05-3-167)
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of February 2009.