PUBLIC LA?? BOARD N0. 76


              BROTY.F'RFLOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY E~WLOYES

VS.

MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY

Roy R. Ray, Referee


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
          1. The Carrier erred in failing to reimburse Claimant Machine Operator A. E. Wilhelm for mileage in the. use of his personal automobile for Carrier business for the month of June 1968.


          2. The Carrier shall reimburse Machine Operator A. E. Wilhelm for this mileage as claimed by him during the month of June 1:68.


OPINION OF BOARD:
 During June 1968 Claimant A. E. Wilhelm was a machine operator in Extra Gang No. 587. Carrier Provided the Gang with .a trailer which was designated as headquarters. During all the period involved here it was located at Brookshire, Texas (Mile Post 1048) and was the assembling point for the men working in the Gang. Carrier also provided a truck for transporting members of the Gang from the trailer or assembling point to the work site and return each day.
Wilhelm submitted a Travel and other Expense voucher for Jane 1968 claiming meal allowance of $2 per day and a mileage allowance for 612 miles at 9 cents per mile for travel from trailers located at La Grange (Mile Post 989) and Katy (Mile Post 1056) to the work location on some 14 separate dates. The Division Engineer approved the meal allowance but declined the claim 'or mileage. The latter constitutes the instant claim. The Expense Form as prcscnted by Wilhelm claimed mileage as follows:
                                              Pc.(3 N o ·"1 ~

_, ,_ : ; ;.rd No. 23
              ' Docket No. 23


          June 3, 4, 5 - travel from Company trailer located at ~T° 989

          (La Grange) to cork location at IT 1013 and return each day. -

          48 miles per day


          June 6,7,10,11,14 - travel from Com-bany trailer located at

          MP 989 (La Grange) to work location at IT 1018 and return. each _,

          day. 58 miles per day.


          June 17 and 18 - travel from Company trailer located at _-s 939 (La Grange) to work location at Mile Posts 1023 and 1024 and return each day. 68 and 70 miles per day.


          June 25,26,27,28 - travel from Company trailer located at IT 1056 (Katy) to work location at MP 7.051 and return each day. 10 miles per day.


The Company had trailers located at,La Grange and Katy and presumably had told employes that they could stay there. Neither of these trailers was designated as headquarters or as the assembling point for transportation to the work site. On June 3 to 5 Wilhelm's cYork location was near MP 1013; from June 6 to 14 it was near IMP 1018; on June 17 and 18 it was near hL°s 1023 and 1024 and from June 25 to June 28 it was at IT 1056. Wilhelm never stayed in the trailer at Brookshire (headquarters) nor in the trailer at La Grange although he had been told by the Roadmaster that he could do so. Two other men of his Gang did - stay in the trailer at La Grange while near there. Wilhelm's home is in Red Rock, Texas, some 42 miles southwest of La Grange and he travelled by his car from his home to the work loc-acion and return on all the dates_ involved in the present claim except for June 25, 26, 27 and 28 when he stayed in the trailer located at Katy. He never reported to the assembling point at Brookshire.

          The Organization contends that Wilhelm was authorized to drive his _.

own automobile from the assembly point to the work location when he was instructed
 to report to his machine location and no transportation was furnished by Carrier.
 It says that Article I Section 1C3 of Agreement No. DP-404 provides for payment
 of mileage under these circumstances.

                          - 2 -

                                            n-.,:.ttd ::o. 23

                                            Docket :;o. 23


Carrier resists the claim on two grounds: (1) Wilhelm was not authorized to use his own car in lieu of transportation furnished by the Carrier a::d available for his use. (2) Article I, Section 1 C 3 of D?-404,does not support the claim since it only provides for reimbursement for the cost of transportation from one ;cork point to another and then only when transportation is not furnished by Carrier.

 In our judgment Carrier's position is the correct one on the facts and _ is supported by the Agreement. Wilhelm could have stayed in the trailer at Brookshire and been transported to his work location by the Company truck provided for that purpose. He could have stayed in a trailer al La Grange while working near there as two other members of- the Gang did. Incidentally neither of

 them filed any claim for transportation from there to their-work location. -
 Wilhelm's decision to stay at home nights and commute from there to his work'
 location by his own car was obviously dictated by personal considerations. He
 admits that a truck was available at-Brookshire (where he could have stayed) for
 transportation but argues that with only one truck and in view of the distance
 between his work location and that of the main gang a lotof time ·-could have
 been involved in transporting him to and from work in the truck. It was not for
 him to determine that because of the time involved in transporting him to and
 from his work site he was at liberty to use his own car, and be reimbursed for

 mileage. here the Roadmaster gave no such authorization. -

 Article I, Section YC 3 of Agreement DP-404 does not support the claim. It applies only where the railroad does not furnish a means of transportation from one work point to another and the employe uses his own transportation. No such claim is presented here. The claim is not for travel from one work point to another. The Rule does not grant mileage expense for travelfrom a

                          - 3 -

pt's No--)6
 Award N'o. 23
 Pocket No. 23

 trailer used as headquarters to the work location each day. It does not grant such mileage for travel from a trailer such as those at La Grange and Yaty to the work location. The claim presented by Wilhelm was for travel between these trailers and his work location. Ile never actually travelled between these points but rather between his home and the work site. It is clear from the above that the present claim is not one contemplated by the language of Article I, Section 1 C 3 of Agreement DP-404 and is, therefore, without merit.

 A Id A R D

 The Claim is denied.

 Public Lace Board No. 76

 Roy R. Ray
 Neutral Member and Chairman

 A. J-~CUn4i-A ngham Employe Vember

 Fred R. Carroll Carrier Member

 Dallas, Texas,
 October 31, 1969