Claimant, during March - April of 1984, was assigned to the position of Semi-Tracto. Trailer operator (hereinafter STTO). During that time, claimant submitted requests for special travel allowances, which were rejected by Carrier. By letter dated June 29, 1984, the Organization filed claim on behalf of Claimant for the travel allowance.
Claimant is entitled under the Agreement to the special travel allowances.
The Organization's position is that Section (g) of the ' December 1, 1983 Agreement entitles Claimant to ten dollars per week for performing work away from his home division. The organization contends that Claimant's home division was Radford, Virginia and that the Radford division became the Roanoke division as a result of the 1983 Agreement. The Organization further contends that Claimant worked away from that home division on several occasions. The organization rejects Carrier's allegation .hat Claimant had no home division and was therefore ineligible for the travel allowance. The organization maintains that every employee has a home division, and that Carrier officials have admitted that an employee with a home division beside his name in effect has a home division, and is entitled to the ten dollar allowance when working outside it.
The Carrier's position is that Claimant is not entitled under the 1983 Agreement to the special travel allowance, due to the fact that Claimant had no home division from which to travel.
Carrier initially cites Roster No. 7945, which includes Claimant's name, position, and seniority date. Carrier argues
that since this roster showed r_j home division for Claimant, it stands as evidence that no home division existed. Carrier additionally cites Roster No. 7958, covering foremen, which clearly states each employee's home division. Carrier argues that if STTO employees had home divisions, they would be specifically listed on the roster. Carrier alleges that the STTO positions were established solely to transport track machinery, and that it would be illogical to infer that such employees were restricted to "home divisions", since the equipment operated by those employees was for use on the entire system.
Carrier therefore conten's that Section (g) of the 1983 Agreement is inapplicable, since it mandates payment only when an employee is "...working off of his division seniority." Carrier argues that absent a "division", Claimant cannot claim right to compensation under this section.
After review of the rec.jrd, the Board finds that the organization's claim must be denied.
The organization has failed to sustain its burden of proof in the present case. In order to prevail, the organization must establish that Claimant had entitlement under Section (g) of the 1983 Agreement. In ordrr to establish such entitlement, it is necessary to establish that Claimant in fact had a home