This dispute concerns several claims under which the headquarters of Tie Job Gang V-100 was relocated but certain employees, the claimants, were assigned to continue work at the Gang's previous location. The organization contends that, in this circumstance, the claimants were entitled to travel time and mileage alAowance for travel from the new headquarters point to the assignment location. The organization contends that Rule 29, District Units, has no provision for a crew to have two separate headquarters.

The Carrier contends tnat Rule :::s permits the arrangement here under review without requirement for Lravel time and mileage allowance. The Carrier notes that Rule, 29-I provides that it may establish Tie installation Units "nor assigned fixed headquarters to work over a Seniority District", o,ad that Rule 29-VI.4 provides as follows:

Each employee assigned to ,: position in a District Unit established under this Agreement will receive, in addition to regular earnings, a per diem allowance

. for each working day in which he performs compensated service. This allowance is in lieu of any other allowance -or provisions by ruie, custom or practice relating to travel time, tL,,nsportation, meals or lodging, however established.

The record shows that the Claimants remained at the previous location to complete specific tasl:J in relation to the Gang's general assignment. This can be readily distinguished from a previous claim, BMWE-TC-139, in which the Carrier sustained a monetary remedy for a reassigned ._,_ployee. In that instance, accoraing to the Carriers uncontradicted statement, the employee's reassignment "was completely unrelated to the nature of his unit's work".

Further, the Carrier points to numerous position advertisements indicating headquarters as "v;.rious". While the Organization is correct that the Agreement ;toes not specifically provide f..ir more than one gang headquarters at a time, the Agreement also a,.es not prohibit the type of assignment here under review.