(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company

(1) The Carrier violated Rule 1 of Article 3, and Rule 1 of Article 5 of the current Agreement by not assigning Mr. Richard Ulum to the position of B&B Lead Mechanic; position advertised in Circular No. 155 (System File 300-42/2579).

 (2) That Mr. Richard Ulum now be allowed the difference in what he received as B&B Mechanic and what he should have received as B&B Lead Mechanic.

Claimant (Richard Ulum) holds seniority as a B&B Mechanic as of November 9, 1970 in District No. 4. Jerry Ulum holds seniority as a B&B Mechanic as of March 1, 1971. Neither employee held any seniority as a B&B Lead Mechanic at the time.

 Both employees submitted applications for the Lead Mechanic position. Carrier assigned Jerry Ul~mm to the position.

 The Organization protests the assignment, citing the following Rules:











The Organization asserts that the relative seniority of the two employees as B&B Mechanics should control promotion to Lead Mechanic.

 Carrier points out that Article 3, Rule 14 designates separate seniority for certain employee groups and that Lead Mechanic seniority and B&B Mechanic seniority is not interchangeable. Having so noted, Carrier points out that seniority in one class does not control promotions to positions in
The same basic question concerning these same parties has been considered on a number of prior occasions. The Organization states, in its Ex Parte Submission, that denial Award 11587 is of no precedential value because it dealt with a rule which has since been amended. In addition, it asserts that Award No. 19 of Public Law Board No. 76 is distinguishable on factual grounds and is not of precedent value because it failed to recognize essential differences in issues, rules and facts when it followed Award 11587.

 In its Reply to Carrier's Submission, the Organization distinguishes Award 19707.

 While we are not prepared to dismiss the above cited Awards out-of-hand, and hold that they do not speak to the essential question before us, even assuming that they are not directly pertinent to this issue, we are confronted by even more recent Awards involving these same parties. Award 20062 sustained a claim based on certain contractual language of preference of g But, the same Referee, in subsequent Award 20085 considered a situation much more analogous to the i citing as authority, Award 11587.

We have thoroughly reviewed all of the pertinent Awards between these parties concerning the bas individually, and as they relate one to another. We feel that those Awards have consistently disposed of the dispute against the Organization for reasons highly pertine basic contractual provisions presented for our consideration.

 In this type of situation, it is of little moment that reasonable minds may have differed in as In the final analysis, the interests of labor-management stability are best served by a basic predictability of Awards.


After a thorough review of the above cited Awards, the Board is of the view that they speak to the issue and that no compelling consideration has been adva




That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and






                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~ i -
 xecutiveSecretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of June 1974.