RES JUDICATA (30)

Fourth Division Award No. 3830 (Sickles) 

"It has long been held that resolutions of disputes between the same parties concerning the same basic issues should not be disturbed by a subsequent Referee, or Arbitrator, in this or in other industries, unless the second Referee or Arbitrator determines that the initial Award was palpably erroneous. That rule continues to apply even if the second Referee or Arbitrator might have decided the case differently had he heard the dispute in the first instance. The basis for those Awards which uphold that doctrine of res judicata is apparent when one recognizes that a predictability of Awards between the same parties tends to facilitate an orderly processing and resolution of labor disputes.

"Second Division Awards 8367 and 8412 did not resolve disputes between these parties, whereas Second Division Award 7119 concerned this Carrier and Fourth Division Award 3747 resolved a dispute between these parties.

"Accordingly, under the long established precepts of this Board, we have no alternative but to sustain the claim."

Fourth Division Award No. 2781 (Weston)

"In National Railroad Adjustment Board practice, there is much to recommend the principle of following a prior Award, particularly where it involves precisely the same issue, property and agreement as are concerned in the case under consideration. Such a policy helps to dispose of issues, avoid a multiplicity of claims and provide stable labor relations guidelines for the parties."

Fourth Division Award No. 3831 (Sickles)

"Although the record in this dispute is not identical to that in Award 3830, the same basic contention has been raised concerning the muliplicity (sic) of roles played by a Carrier Official. No purpose is served by a detailed exploration of the record in this case. Suffice it to say that our basic rationale and determination as set forth in Award 3830 is equally applicable here, and we find, under the doctrine of res judicate (sic), that Fourth Division Award 3747 compels us to sustain this claim."

Second Division Award No. 10050 (Roukis)

"Accordingly, in view of this pertinent decision and the virtual identical nature of the dispute herein, we are compelled to follow our prior rulings. The principle of Res Judicata is applicable here. (See also Second Division Award Nos. 8271, 6825 and 6778)."

Public Law Board No. 3337, Award 9 (Sickles)

"I do not minimize at all the significant importance to the Organization of Award No. 13 of Public Law Board No. 2786, and if the record convinced the undersigned Neutral that the Clerk in this case actually performed certain substantive functions on the claim dates, the concepts of res judicata would demand a sustaining award. Further, the doctrine of de minimus would not deter such a result. However, as noted above, in order to issue a sustaining award based upon the concepts set forth in Award No. 13 of Public Law Board No. 2786, it is first necessary to find that there is a similar factual background because the doctrine of res judicata demands that no (sic) only the parties to the dispute be the same, but that the precise issue be the same. . . ."

Public Law Board No. 3337, Award 12 (Sickles)

". . . it has long been held that resolutions of disputes between the same parties concerning the same basic issues should not be disturbed by a subsequent referee or arbitrator. In this regard, see Fourth Division Award 3830 in which this author stated that the doctrine of res judicata applies even if the second Referee might have decided the case differently had he heard the dispute in the first instance."

Third Division Award No. 29230 (Eischen)

"It has long been recognized and accepted in labor-management arbitration generally, and in railroad industry arbitration specifically, that prior decisions involving the same facts, issues and Parties should be considered authoritative precedent. The legalistic common-law doctrines of res judicata and stare decisis do not technically apply in arbitration. But considerations of stability, predictability and good faith relations generally support the principle that final and binding decisions interpreting and applying a contract provision should be honored. If that doctrine causes "the shoe to pinch," the proper forum for obtaining relief is the bargaining table, not continual adjudication of ostensibly settled matters. In following such reasoning, the Board held in Third Division Award 2526 as follows:

"`Whatever may be said of the soundness of our construction of the contract, our conclusion is impelled by Award No. 1852. That involved a dispute between the same parties under the same contract and upon essentially indistinguishable facts. A different conclusion than we have reached would, in effect, overrule the decision in that Award. To do this would be subversive of the fundamental purpose for which this Board was created and for which it exists: settling of disputes. When a contract has been construed in an award the decision should be accepted as binding in subsequent identical disputes arising between the same parties under the same agreement.'

"To like effect the Board held in Third Division Award 3229:

"`This identical question has been decided in accordance with the views which we here express in two well reasoned opinions of this Board. Awards 813 and 2205. We have no question of the correctness of those decisions. Even if we did have, we would doubt the advisability of deciding the matter differently today. A construction of a rule which is not unreasonable should be maintained. For it is important that neither the carrier nor the employes should be left in uncertainty as to their rights.'

"Application of the foregoing principles requires that we sustain the present claim. The reasoning of Public Law Board No. 3450, Award 37, is not demonstrably flawed nor is that decision palpably erroneous. Carrier has not persuasively demonstrated that the facts of the present case are materially and sufficiently distinguishable to warrant a different conclusion."