r.









          Chicago and North Waste= Transportation Cbap&my


      STATEMM 0 F CUIN t


          "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that s


(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement and the practice thereuns
 when beginning on August 24, 1976_ it failed and refused to
 reimburse Track Supervisors and Assistant %rwman Truck Drivers
 the expense incurred for all. of their noon dray meals while away
 from their headquarters (Carrier's Me 81-3-195).
 f
            (2) Each of the claimants listed on the attachments to our letter of claix presentation now be reimbursed the cost of his noon day

- meal expanse incurred away frown his heaters for each day
      such expenses are fired subsequent to August 24, 1976."

      OPINION Off" HDARDt

      On August 24, 1976 and subsequent dates the Claimants were employed

      as track supervisors or assistant foremen - truck drivers,, and remained away

      from their headquarters overnight. There is no dispute about their entitleuent

      to expenses for lodgings or evening meals, or for breakfast and lunch on the

      second day, after remaining away from headquarters overnight. The claims are for

      expenses fur midday lunches on the first day.

      The governing rule is Rule 46 of the schedule agreement effective

      August 1, 19'74, which provides:

"Dtployee will be reimbursed for cost of neals and lodging incurred while away frvm their regular outfits or regular headquarter!r by direction of the tompAzy wh*-tier on or off their assigned territory. This Rule not to apply to employes customarily carrying mid-day lunches ad not being held awry frog their assigned outfit cars or headquarters two hours beyond normal quitting time." The Organization contends that for 15 years, from 19b1, to 1976, track supervisors were paid for their midday lunches on the first day while gray from their regular headquarters under the provisions of a Memorandum of Agreement dated May 26, 1961, which provided#
"Track supervisors will be paid actual eipenaes incurred for meals and lodging while away from headquarters in connection with their work. When required by the company to use their private automobiles in the performance of their duties they will be &].loved seven cents per sas for use thereof." The Carrier states that four of the Qaixaat track supervisors worked under the former Chicago Great Western Schedule Agreement, rather than the Memorandum of Agreement of May 26, 1961, until the achodn1e agreements were consolidated effective August 1, 1974, and did not receive expenses for midday lunches on the first dam frown 1961 until 1974. The Carrier also points out that the three Claimant assistant foremen-truck drivers were never covered by the 1961 Masorao-
    of Agreement. The carrier does not deny that claims such as these were paid

from 1974 to 1976, although it denies that it vas a universal practice. However,
 the Carrier contends that the 1961 Memoranchu w of Agreement was superseded by.
 Rule 46 of the 1974 schedule agreement, and that the practice since August 1,
 1 >74, did not change the governing rule.
 As held in Award No. 16 of this Board, our primary obligation is to
 determine the intent and meaning of the governing rule. This is especially true
 wbere the custom, tradition and practice relied on by the Organization was not
 universal, but was followed on only four of seven divisions, sometimes a fifth.

 .,. . - ` s F? l ~ ~^1v~?.,'' .'~l~'~.~. `.n: ~r.~ ~E~ .i ~yY, A

 ~'~(~r art ~.~ --rw'
        The Memorandum of Agrement of May 26, 1)" " , in effect created an

      exception to the general rule, but it was not continued in effect after August ? ,

      i 9'TL. Ar ·o rd y, it l andn no support ta these claims.

      The key issue in this case is the meaning if the phrase, "employes curtarily carrying midday lunches." The Carrier states that the second sentence of Rule 46 evidences an intent that an eargloy"who has the opportunity to carry his lunch from home in the morning, even it he chooses to buy his lunch, should not be reimbursed for cost of such meals. This appears to be a reasonable interpretation, and with regard to midday lunches, that has been the practical interpretation of Rule 46 for all ,xrloyees except trade supervisors on several divisions.

      Based upon all the foregoing, the claims oust be denied. F IND INGS:

      Public Law Hoard No. 1814, upon !e whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds as follows t


_ 1. That the Carrier and Employees involved in this dispute are, res-

      pectively, Carrier and F.hployees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Acty

      2. that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved hersinj and


              .3. that the Agreement was not violated. ..


                                AWOD


                            Claims denied.


                      Dana F. Fizchen, C a nm


            ·'_:a L--` '- ka

            . _ ~._.__ _ ~AV

      r`/t~rr~.~. a

      0. H. Berge, 7nplo ee Member R. W. Schniege, Carriereaber


      Dated An -A

                ,-,s~ ! ~1 / `~ -7 GJ~