SPECIAL BOARD OF ADTUSTMENT No. 280
PARTIES ) The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO )
DISPUTE ) St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
STATEMENT of CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the effective Agreement when it failed and refused
to reimburse Dragline Operators J. B. Smith and C. W. 47hitus and Dragline Operator
Helper L. D. Adkinson and G. W. Hudson for meal expenses incurred while away from
their permanent headquarters during the month of January,
1956,
and during months
subsequent thereto.
(2)
The Carrier now be required to reimburse each of the claimants referred
to in Part (1) of this claim in the amount of meal expenses each incurred during
January
1956,
and during months subsequent thereto because of the violation referred
to in Part (1) of this claim."
FINDINGS
: The employees state that the carrier has not furnished the claimants
proper outfit cars under Rules
8-2
and
8-4
of the effective Agreement
and have entered exhibit photographs showing views of the interior of a typical
outfit car which the Carrier furnishes to the claimants for the preparation of
their meals. The claimants should be compensated for meal expenses while they are
away from their permanent headquarters.
The carrier states that due to the fact that it has furnished outfit
cars for the claimants it is not obligated to reimburse them for meal expenses
incurred while away from their permanent headquarters and they rely upon the agreed
Interpretation of Rule
7-14
which reads as follows:
"Interpretation. . .
Rule
7-14:
Employees occupying the position of dragline operator,
dragline operator helper, weed burner operator, disc machine operator,
and other similar positions, will be allowed actual necessary
traveling expenses when they are away from their permanent headquarters
and do not have outfit car or cars assigned to them for their
accommodation."
The Board finds from the examination of the exhibits submitted by the
employees that the photographs show this outfit car has contained therein a stove
and that this complies with the agreed upon Interpretation of Rule
7-14.
This
- 2 - AWARD N0. 1
Interpretation does not state what type of stove should be furnished to these
claimants. Neither does Rule 8-2 or
8-4,
the Rules relied upon by the employees,
state what type of cooking facilities should be furnished in the outfit cars.
The Board further finds that if the outfit cars furnished to these
claimants are not adequate for the cooking of meals, it is a matter of negotiation
between the carrier and the organization to set up rules setting forth what type
of accommodations will be adequate.
The Board further finds that the evidence submitted by the employees
and admitted by the carrier that certain dragline operators and helpers were paid
meal expenses and lodging when they were furnished an outfit car cannot be taken
into consideration in this claim as no amount of past-practice can change the
unambiguous language of the Rules of the Agreement.
The Board further finds that the carrier has furnished outfit cars to
these claimants
which contained
a stove for the cooking of meals and that the
carrier has not violated the effective Agreement.
Claim denied.
(s) Thomas C. Begley
Thomas C. Begley, Chairman
(s) A. J. Cunningham (a) M. L.
Erwin
A. J. Cunningham, Employee Member M. L. Erwin, Carrier Member
Tyler, Texas
September 30,
1959