1(a) At Bluefield Yard, West Virginia, on July 31, August 7 and 14, 1956 a yardmaster received and copied messages from the train dispatcher.
(b) Carrier shall now compensate in the amount of a day's pay each: M. A. Mills on July 31, 1956; B. H. Miller on August 7, 1956; A. C. Scott on August 14, 1956.
2(a) At Kinney, Virginia on June 6, 1956 an Assistant Yardmaster received, copied and delivered a message from the train dispatcher at a time when the operator was off duty.
(b) Carrier shall now compensate T. D. Carter, Operator at Kinney, in the amount of a minimum call payment.
3(a) At Buena Vista, Virginia on June 17, 1956, a clerk received, copied and delivered a message at a time when the Agent-Operator was off duty.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The agreements between the parties are available to your Board and by this reference are made a part hereof.
Bluefield Yard is a freight yard located at Bluefield, West Virginia on the Pocahontas Division of the Carrier and is a terminal for both Pocahontas Division and Radford Division trains and the mine run trains and switchers serving the coal fields in that area. The Carrier's division offices are also located at Bluefield and there is a telegraph office, known as "BF" Office, which provides continuous service and handles communication business of both the division offices and Bluefield Yard.
On July 31, 1956 Yardmaster Tyree employed at Bluefield Yard, by use of the railroad telephone, received and copied the following message:
On August 7, 1956 Yardmaster Tyree employed at Bluefield Yard, by use of the railroad telephone, received and copied the following message:
On August 14, 1956 Yardmaster Tyree employed at Bluefield Yard received and copied the two following messages:
All material used in this submission was presented to or was known by the Employes while this claim was being progressed on the property.
OPINION OF BOARD: The issues involved herein are not materially distinguishable from those recently adjudicated by this Board in Awards 10425, 10525, and 10823-in which the same Parties were involved, the same Agreement, and virtually the same theories of argumentation. Actually, this is a companion case to the one decided in Award 10525-which pertained to the uniting of 36 claims.
We are cognizant of the fact that we are not compelled to follow our own current Awards on the same property; however, repudiating these recent decisions (in which three neutral referees participated) could possibly result in chaos on the property and be tantamount to an act of irresponsibility on our part. Referee Garrison stressed the pitfalls in this regard in a well-written treatise prepared some twenty five years ago.
Although the debates between these Parties are not one-sided (their respective argumentations being almost frustratingly equal in force), we are not at all prepared to say that our said prior current precedential Awards on this property are palpably erroneous.
On the basis of the aforementioned Awards, Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the present Claim must be denied. By authority of Award 10823, we are justified in sustaining Item 6 of the Claim. We are of the opinion that this portion of the Claim, which clearly pertains to the operation and movement of trains and involves a station where there was a duly assigned and available agreementcovered employe, the agent-operator, should be allowed.
Having resolved this matter on the grounds set forth above, we do not reach other issues raised by or in behalf of the Parties.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respec tively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934; 11306-36 786