Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11837
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11562-T
 90-2-88-2-28
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
 (Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Northeast Illinois Railroad Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 The Northeast Illinois Railroad Corporation, now known as METRA, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, violated the provisions of the current and controlling agreement, in particular Rule 77, when they improperly assigned other than Sheet Metal Workers to dismantle 16 gauge sheet steel from passenger coaches numbered 301, 305, 385 and 364 at the Carriers' Western Avenue Coach Yard on the dates of January 29, 1987, February 10, 1987 and February 11, 1987.

Compensate Sheet Metal Workers D. Balestri, D. Hill, T. Nazario and L. Washington, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, in the amount of eighteen (18) hours pay, at the straight time rate, equally divided among the claimants and further it is requested that the claimants be compensated for equal time on subsequent dates that the violations occur until corrected and that a check of the records be made to determine the amount of time due on subsequent dates.

 FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Form 1 Award No. 11837
 Page 2 Docket No. 11562-T
 90-2-88-2-28

 In early 1985 Carrier began changing 12 x 2 foot letter boards on the sides of its commuter cars. It assigned the removal and replacement work to members of the Carmen's craft. Work on the first coach, No. 302, began on March 22, 1986. Sheet Metal Workers initiated a Claim contending that the work of attaching letter boards, in this instance 16 gauge stainless steel, was exclusively theirs under its Agreement. That Claim remained unadjusted on the property, was referred to this Board, whereupon it was sustained in Second Division Award 11688.

 The Claim in this Docket, filed on March 6, 1987, involves the removal, by Carmen, of letter boards from Coaches Nos. 301, 305, 364 and 385, commencing January 29, 1987.

 In both Claims the Carmen's Division, TCU, filed a Third Party brief contending that the work involved was properly assigned to its Craft under its Agreement.

 Petitioner urges that we follow Award 11688 and sustain this Claim. Carrier, argues that Award 11688 is in palpable error for several reasons. First it contends that the dispute before the Board in Award 11688 involved a jurisdiction of work matter between Sheet Metal Workers and Carmen and as such it was required to be handled as provided in the April 8, 1948, Memorandum of Agreement, reading in part:







Form 1 Award No. 11837
 Page 3 Docket No. 11562-T
 90-2-88-2-28
 crafts. If an agreement is reached between the two
 crafts, such agreement will be submitted to the Chief
 Mechanical Officer, or his representative. It is
 understood that no work will be transferred from one
 craft to another until the procedure outlined above
 has been followed and Management has agreed to accept
 any agreement that may be made between the two crafts
 with regard to transfer of work from one to the
 other."

 The dispute before us is clearly a jurisdictional dispute between Sheet Metal Workers and Carmen. The Carmen were assigned the work and claim it is theirs under its Agreement. Sheet Metal Workers contend that the work should have been assigned to its Craft under its Agreement. Award 11688 recognized that both the Carmen and the Carrier contended that the matter was a jurisdictional dispute, however, it did not comment, thereafter, on that issue.

 We are reluctant to not follow Awards between a particular Carrier and a particular Organization which resolve an earlier matter identical in fact and substance to the issue we have under review, because one of the most basic principles of any Board established pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, as expressed in Third Division Award 4569, written without a neutral, is understood to be:

However, when a jurisdictional issue is recognized in the Award we are asked to follow, but is left dangling, (and we have an identical jurisdictional issue in the matter before us), exceptions to res judica must obtain because we may not have jurisdiction to get to the merits of the matter in the first place.

 As noted above, Award 11688 recognizes that a jurisdictional dispute issue was raised by the Carmen and the Carrier, but the language of the Award ignores the matter thereafter. Contrast this with the result reached in Award 11658, adopted one month before with the same Referee participating, wherein it was decided:
 Form 1 Award No. 11837
 Page 4 Docket No. 11562-T
 90-2-88-2-28
 "Considering the full record, this Board will _
 dismiss the Claim. Dismissal is mandated when
 this Board is confronted with a jurisdictional
 dispute and dispute resolution procedures have
 not been compiled with (Second Division Awards
 11486, 11364, 11229, 11070, 11035). Appendix 10
 on Jurisdictional Dispute Procedures clearly
 applies to these parties and requires that when
 a dispute involving jurisdiction of work arises
 between crafts, the Organizations will resolve
 the dispute. Herein, there is no evidence that
 the Organization followed Appendix 10. Accord
 ingly, the Claim must be dismissed."

 In another Award adopted the same date as Award 11658, Award 11657, the Board stated:

In the case before us it is manifest that a jurisdictional dispute exists over the work involved. Petitioner was told by Carrier, when this matter was being handled on the property, that it was seeking work which Carrier considered to be Carmen's work. This clearly classified the matter as a jurisdictional Claim. Petitioner did not elect to resort to the procedural requirements of the April 8, 1948 Memorandum of Agreement which must be utilized when "... any craft makes a claim for work now being done by another craft ....

 Resort to such procedures are mandatory in jurisdictional claims, accordingly, we are left with no alternative but to dismiss the Claim before
 us as procedurally defective.See Second Division Awards 11472 and 11486.
 Form 1 Award No. 11837
 Page 5 Docket No. 11562-T
 90-2-88-2-28




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        ancy J. v - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of March 1990.

LABOR.MEMBER'S DISSENT TO

AWARD NO. X183? , DOCKET NO. 11562-T

(REFEREE FLETCHER)


The Majority grossly erred in a Decision inconsistent with the Agreement and the various awards cited by the Employes, particularly recent Award No. 11688 pertaining to the identical subject matter.

 This decision is in error for two reasons. It disregards the evidence of record, especially the provisions of Rule 77 which clearly encompasses the work in question, and it totally disregards the principal of stare decisis.

 Concerning the principal of stare decisis, the Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board have stated in previously rendered Awards:

 Third Di-.·iFion -.war_. ?4 54'.'. ". . . we do
 2r par _..i::~: i= .._ prD p~r «_ t!~= =_ar.. ~o is~ue conflicting av;rr-.= i;m:v_~J=. z t... _ _ ~rne ; r o~:i_ _ . ~o.·t:-:e game agreement be-1:f -_:: the same

 ~ec::n'_'~iVision Award 9234: "It would be illogical and inco:.; istent with the time honored doctrine of stare dacis--for us to relitigate that issue here, predictability and consistency, which are of value to all concerned, would be destroyed." '

 Fourth Division Award 3443: "Whether phrased in terms of 'res judicata' 'stare decisis' or any other legal terminology, the fact remains that the best ends of labor-management relations are served by a basic predictability of Awards, especially when a dispute involves the same parties, same rules and same basic evidence."

 In this instance the majority has failed to recognize the provisions of Rule No. 77 of the Agreement.

 It is inconceivable to conclude that the provisions of Rule 77 stating:

      "Sheet Metal Workers' work shall consist of tinning, copperzmithing, and pipefitting***on passenger coaches and engines ***erecting, assembling, installing, dismantling and maintaining parts made of sheet copper, brass, tin zinc, white metal, lead, black, planished,' pickled and galvanized iron of 10 gauge and lighter"


does .iot in itself support the sustaining of a similar
 claim.
 This decision has erroneously disregarded the applicable agreement provisions as determined by prior awards making this a palpably erroneous award and should be so recognized.

 Labor Member

 Labor Member

 Labor Member

 Labor Member

 Labor Member

 Labor Memb

 er

CARRIER MEMBERS' RESPONSE

TO

LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT

TO

AWARD 11837, DOCKET 11562-T

(Referee Fletcher)


      In Award 11688 of this Board, we find the following:


      "The Carrier maintained that... the April 8, 1948 Memorandum of the Agreement on jurisdictional procedures had been violated."


      "The Brotherhood of Railway Carmen entered a Third Party submission arguing... the Claim was a jurisdictional dispute and should be dismissed for failure to follow Agreement procedures ...."


      "The Board finds that the disputed work is covered by Rule 77 and... is generally recognized as Sheet Metal Workers work. As such, no jurisdictional dispute exists."


      In our Dissent to that Award we pointed out:


      "Here, the Majority, by failing to abide by the dictates of the parties, has exceeded its jurisdiction ...."


and we referred to recent Second Division Award 11658 which properly concluded:

      "Dismissal is mandated when this Board is confronted with a jurisdictional dispute and dispute resolution procedures have not been complied with (Second Division Awards 11486, 11364, 11229, 11070, 11035)."


      In Award 11837, we find the following:


      "The dispute before us is clearly a jurisdictional dispute between Sheet Metal Workers and Carmen. The Carmen were assigned the work and claim it is theirs under its Agreement. Sheet Metal Workers contend that the work should have been assigned to its Craft under its Agreement. Award 11688 recognized that both the Carmen and the Carrier contended that the matter was a jurisdictional dispute, however, it did not comment, thereafter, on that issue."


      "As noted above, Award 11688 recognizes that a jurisdictional dispute issue was raised by the Carmen and the Carrier, but the language of the Award ignores the matter thereafter."

      Carrier Members' Response to Award 11837 Page 2


      "In the case before us it is manifest that a jurisdictional dispute exists over the work involved. Petitioner was told by Carrier, when this matter was being handled on the property, that it was seeking work which Carrier considered to be Carmen's work. This clearly classified the matter as a jurisdictional Claim. Petitioner did not elect to resort to the procedural requirements of the April 8, 1948 Memorandum of Agreement which must be utilized when '...any craft makes a claim for work now being done by another craft ....'


      Resort to such procedures are mandatory in jurisdictional claims, accordingly, we are left with no alternative but to dismiss the Claim before us as procedurally defective. See Second Division Awards 11472 and 11486."


Dissenters contention that the Board here ignored the, "provisions of Rule 77...and...the principle of stare decisis." However, both Awards 11688 and 11837 recognized that there was a dispute among the crafts and that the parties themselves had

 provided a specific means to resolve such matters on the ,~,,
 property. Award 11688 ignored the specific agreement of the
 parties in this regard. Award 11837 simply noted that the prior
 decision recognized this requirement but left it "dangling". It
 also noted, with substantial precedent, that such MATTERS MUST BE
 DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC AGREEMENT ON THE
 PROPERTY before any party had a right to progress the matter to
 an outside forum.

 Had Award 11688 properly applied the clear language the parties specifically provided for the prompt and orderly resolution of such matters, then there would have been no need for Award 11837, the organization's Dissent or this Response.

 --.- - v
 P. . Varga M. `WY F'nge ut

 R. L. Hicks
                              I W-Z~2- 0-f ~O'


                              M. C. Lesnik


. E. lo st'