STARE DECISIS (31)

Fourth Division Award No. 4086 (Lieberman) 

". . . Finally, Carrier argues that the very issue herein has been determined previously by this Board, involving the same parties and agreement, in Awards 3913, 3914 and 3969; thus the matter should be disposed of on the basis of stare decisis.

"The Board finds . . . the basic issue herein has been addressed by this Board in the three cases cited by Carrier (supra) and continued litigation does not appear useful on the same point."

Fourth Division Award No. 4119 (Scheinman)

"In addition, our findings are consistent with those of this Board in Award No. 3900. That case involved these same parties. . . . We see no reason to reach a different conclusion here. In fact, under the time honored principle of stare decisis, we are obliged, absent unusual circumstances, to follow the rationale of that award. No such circumstances exist here."

Fourth Division Award No. 3830 (Sickles)

"But, be that as it may, we find it totally unnecessary for use to resolve the apparent conflicts between the Awards.

"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."

Third Division Award No. 4569, without referee assistance the Board held:

"One of the basic purposes for which this Board was established was to secure uniformity of interpretation of the rules governing the relationships of the Carriers and the Organizations of Employes. To now add further fuel to the pre-existing conflict in our decisions upon this subject would only invite further litigation upon the subject and would be contrary to one of the basic reasons for the existence of this Board."

Third Division Award No. 25141 (Wildman)

"This same issue, involving the same Carrier and Organization who are parties to this case and the identical Agreement language and letter from the Carrier, has, as of this writing, already been the subject of two prior awards. In the first of these (Public Law Board No. 2529, Award 7) it was held, in concurrence with the position of the Organization, that the Carrier letter did not provide notice of any specific `contracting transaction' and that, therefore, with regard to the precisely described `transaction' before that Board the so-called `blanket notice' fell short of meeting the relevant notice of requirements of 4(b) of the Agreement. In the second award on this identical issue, (Award No. 24242, Third Division) the Board, finding that the prior Award was not `clearly erroneous on its face' decided the matter `in a like manner'".