ELI-Id.iras: The Board, upon the record as a, whole and all the evidence,
 . finds that the parties hereto are Carrier and Employe within







                  "Therefore, ercept where provided for by agreement, effective January 1, 1575, the company will not reimburse employees for meals wnen an employee starts and ends his workday at his headquarters."

              This letter vas followed by a "Bulletin Notice", dated December 1&, 1974, iron the Director, Communications to "All Communication Workers", which reads as follows:

                    i

                                `'f` P.L. Board NQ. 15'40


                  "The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that meals , not connected with an overnight lodging ww ny _ri~om home are not a reimburseable expense.


                  "Therefore, effective January 1, 2975, employees will not be reimbursed for meals vrhen they stpxt and end their work day at their headquarters."

              ·The instructions in the above noted communications were protested by the Organization which requested that the Carrier return to the past practice of paying for meals while away from headquarters under the agreement. The Carrier in its letter of hebru-ry 13, 1975, in reply - to the letter of January 31, 1976 from the General

              Chairman, stated in part: -


                  "Apparentlys our difference of opinion concerning . meal allowances is simply a hatter of defining "necessary expenses". 'rn© Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the purchasing of meals

- only becomes a "necessary expense" wheat the em- .
                  ployee is required to secure away.-from-home

                  lodging for the night. Your interpretation of

                  Rule 1't as outlined in your letter does not en- .

                  tail the'reimbursement of "necessary expenses",

                  but, in actualityf it entails the dispensing

                  of additional income. fur thermos e, it is ob

                  vious that your interpretation is based on past

                  practice, however, past practice c"nnot rullIfy

      - the clear stipulation of a rule."

              Tn that letter the Manager of Labor Relations suggested

              that if the Organization was not satisfied with Carrier's

              position the requirement of handling at lower levels

              would be waived and such matters could ba submitted to him.

              The Internal Revenue Service ruling referred to 3n Carrier's communications dated December 16 and 1S, 1974

. ( is found in the instruction book entitled "Your Federal
              Income Tax", IRS Publication ho. 17 (1975) on pages 69 and 70,

                  -3- p. L. Board No. 1540


pursuant to the communications of December 16 and Is, 1974, Carrier did not pay for meals during the month of January 1975 but resumed doing so in February 1975. Therenfter, the parties agreed to have the matter resolved by -this Board.
 Because of the merger of the Illinois Central Railroad and the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad several agreemenu are involved in this dispute which pertains to all . electrical workers who perform road work on the property. The Organization relies on Rule 12 and 16, Illinois Central
                    y

Railroad (Section A Agreement); Rule 22, 7, 9, 11 and 12, Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company (Section A Agreement); Rule 12C and 17, Illinois Central Railroad (Section B ' Agreement); and Article 4, Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad (Section B Agreement). At the hearing the parties agreed that Rule 12, effective April 1, 1935, Illinois Central Railroad Company (Section A Agreement), was representative of all the rules involved as all deal with the same subject and are essentially the same. Thus iv would not be necessary to reproduce all the Rules in this decision. Rule 12 reads as ,follows

 "Where meals and. lodgings are not provided by the rwilroad, actual expenses will be allowed and employees will receive a21 expense allowance not later than the time they are paid for . services rendered." However, reference is made to Rule 3.7 in Carrier's letter of February 13, 1975., l~ is part of the Illinois Central Railroad (Section B Agreement), effective April 1, 1935 and
                            .-~1 k~. ~.o Board No. 152C__----.


            while it is essentially the same as Rule 12y quoVod-ab;ve, iv Nvill be reproduced here for clarity. Rule 1'T follows:


                  "Where vneF;is and lodging are nod: furnished by the railroad, or when the service requireients make the

    . , purchase of meals and lodging necessary wrhixo away

                  from home point employees will be paid necessary

                  expenses." .

            The EFrgganization disputes Carrier's right to use the. instructions for preparing tax returns in the above noted .

            ' IRS publication as a basis for varying the terms of the agreements. Moreover, the Ear ganiza cion urges that. the relied on Agreement provisions and the past practice under then require Carrier to follow the procedures of the Railway Tabor Act, as amended, bofore changing the working conditions of the employees.

            Carrier on the other hand argues that the 5'rS ruling or instruction is relevant·to the dispute and contends that unless an overnight stay is involved meals are not necessary expenses. It relies on the statement in the IRS instruction which says "only when you are traveling away from home overnight on business" are meals and lodging deductible. Carrier, also argues,, that the aforementioned Rules 12 and 1? do not require the payment of meals where ran overnight stay is not involved and the pest practice of paying for such meals cannot nullify the clear provisions of the Rules. Carrier alleges further that the term "meals and lodging_


must be read as an entity so that no liability for paying l for meals arises unless lodging is also required.
            The parties have subirritted Pvrards from this as well ms other Divisions bearing on the question of the effect

·s.

        »5- 8.1.. Board No. 1540

        CO~e.~!

        of past practice. 'these citations are not dispositive as

        each case turns on the peculiar facts prosent in each dis

        pute, However, to the extent that these cases stand for

        the proposition that a clear end unambiguous rule cannot

        be changed by a. practice and that a practice can shed

        light on the intent of the parties where an unclear or

        vague rule is involved, they are relevant and vie will

        follow the teachings therein.

        There is no dispute as to the practice of paying far the meals involved. There is no dispute that the practice of doing so goes back a substantial period of time. Whether it goes back to R period before 1535, as the Organization contends, is irrelevant as a practice dating from approximately forty (t0) years is a substantial period of time and negates, on its face, the validity ox the argument raised by Carrier·that thevayraents for such meals were gratuities. In fact, the tyro claims mentioned in the record involving meal payment where employees returned to headquarters at the end of the day etere settled in favor of the Organization. These settlements in 1967 and 10&8 serve to reinforce the parties'.interpretation of the Rules involved as. they were settled based on the fact that Carrier's survey revealed there was a practice of paying for such meals.

        Examining the Rules in questions the find that the pay- . ment of meals. vraere an employee returns to headquarters at the end of the day is not specifically prohibited. Tn fact the Rules are silent on this paint. In the Rules Carrier

                            -6- h, lr. Board No. 1560


            underta Ices to provide "meals rind lodging". 1'77hen §.'t does

            not it agrees to reimburse the employees for. "expenses"

            or "necessary expenses". The Rules, therefore, can be

            said-to be vague and uncertain as to Carrier's liability

            in cases where the employee returns to headquarters at the

            end of the day. ?n such a, situation he woe:2d not have

            incurred lodging expense but it is altogether possible

            that he would expend money on me.-3s. The practice of

            such long duration of paying fax such meals will resolve

            the dilemma. The parties by their actions over the years

            intended the years

            ambiguous rintended here involved, to provide

            for the payments sought by the Organization.

( Carrier's argument that tree expression "meals and
            lodging" requires,an overnight stay would have some

            validity :ere it not for the practice of considering

            meals mad lodging separately, i.e.r paying for meals when

            there ryas no lodging involved. Moreover., the term "meals

            and lodging", 3n the absence of specific limitations such

            as "When employee are unubie to return to their head:-

            quarters..." or other appropriate wards of limitation,

            might be construed as a statement of the extent of

            Carrier's liability to employees in the event it did

            not provide the accomodatxons it agreed to provide in the .

            Rules. In the face of the historical practice it cannot

            be said that "meals" would be paid for only when "lodging"

            was required. (Compare Award 180?l, THIRD D>yISION.)

' =7- P. La Board ties 1540

              There remains for consideration the proximate cause of this dispute -- Carrier's interpretation of the IRS instruction to taxpayers concerning necessary expense where overnight stays are not involved to the_effect that meals cannot be paid for unless an overnight stay is involved. This Doaid, of course, is not qualified to discuss nor to interpret IRS rulings and it does not attempt to do so. However, we reject Carrier's contention that the IRS definition of no "necessary expenses" without an overnight`. stay resolves the issue. %'c Is noted that

- nothing in the IRS instruction, on which Carrier relies,
              forbids the payments sought by the Organization. The

              instructions merely delineate the tar:. liability which

              may arise from certain reimbursement's. Therefore, we

              hold that the IRS's definition of "necessary expenses"

              as well as the tax liability of Carrier and employee

              arising from payments made and receipt of such payments

              to.be irrelevant to these proceedings.


              On the basis of the foregoing, we will find that Carrier's discontinuance of paying for meals pursuant to its communications of December ZG and December 18, 3.874 was in violation of the agreements,


                  Accordingly, we :ill order that.


l

      .~z


                                '°8®o L. Board 14o0 1540


                    1. Crier cannot, under the applicable rules

                    discontinue the payment of weal expense to

                    employees can days they are n r ay from their

                  .. headquarters at meal tim6s but they start

                        arid end their :workday at their headquarters.


                        2. Carrier rill reimburse employees for the cost of heals with==held during the month of January 1975. (The proofs herein show such payments were made except for January 7975.3


    -'ORDER: Carrier will rescind its letter of December 16, 2974

    as it affects the herein Organization and the D:illetin

    Notice dated December 18, 1974, by appropriate vTitten

    notice nod; later than July t.5, 1975.

    Carrier rill reimhuwse employees r)io incurred relevant

    meal expense in January 1975 not later than thirty (Sfl)

    f.~s from date hereof.


                        C. ement~.~;"'L~'utI, r al Member


      ` ./ > · McDeVmciit. Employee`'Flem'- e~ `o t` ea·, artier .e=er


    -DATED: JULY j~, 1975

.( Chicago, Fll. -