PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 TO ) and
 DISPUTE ) Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
 QUESTION
 AT ISSUE: (a) Did Carrier violate and does it continue
 to violate the February 7, 1965 hw diation Agree
 ment when Mr. C. H. Adams, Signal Maintainer,
 was not recalled to compensated service on the
 Cumberland Division by March 1, 1965?
 (b) Should Mr. Adams now be recalled to service
 on the Cumberland Division?
 (c) Should Mr. Adams nova be allowed pay for all
 travel time, meals, lodging expenses, and any
 wage loss incurred for each working day co;:,,^.:encing
 March 1, 1965, that he is obliged to work on
 another seniority district due to Management's
 failure to recall him to service on his own seniority
 district by March 1, 1965?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: On October 1, 1960 Claimant cans regularly assi.-r.ed and
 held a Signal Maintainer's position on the Cumberland
 Division with headquarters at Miller, west Virginia.
 On February 2, 1965 his position cans abolished and he
 was unable to displace on any position on his seniority district.
 On February 3, 1965 Claimant accepted a position in the Signal
 Department of Carrier's Akron-Chicago Division. He remained there
 until June 1, 1965 when he returned to Miller, West Virginia as a
 Signal Maintainer.
Both parties are in agreement that only the (c) portion of the Issue To Be Resolved is in dispute since Claimant has returned to his home seniority district and compensation adjustment were made when they did not equal his guarantee.

 The only question, therefore, is whether Claimant is entitled, under the February 7, 1965 Agreement, to travel, meal and lodging expenses incurred while working away from his home seniority district.

 The Organization bases Claimant's right to recover on the grounds that."Carrier failed to recall Signal 'Maintainer eldams to a position on his seniority district on March 1, 1965, in accordance with the provisions of Article I, Section 1 of the Mediation Agreement."

                  _ 2


There is no provision in Section 1, Article I o-= the February 7, 1965 Agreement which requires Carrier to recall a protected employee to his hon:c seniority district or. March 1, 1965. Carrier's contractual obligation is to restore to active service on March 1, 1965 qualified employees who are "on furlough" as of the date of the Agreement. Claimant was not "on furlough" as of February 7, 1965; he was "in active service" in another seniority district. There is no provision, in any event, for the payment of travel, meals and lodging under the Agreement.

                  AWARD


Parts (a) and (b) of the Issue are not in dispute; part (c) is answered in the negative.

Nicholas H. Zu.. s

Neutral Tfemb


Dated: Washington, D . C.
 April 23, 1969