Louis Norria, Referee (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE. .
 (Erie Lackawanna Railway Company

 STATEMENT CHI CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Erie Lackawanna Railway
 Company:

 on behalf of W. K. French, monthly rated Foreman of Maintainers, headquartered at Patterson, N. J., New York Division, for eight hours at time and one-half rate for work performed on Saturday, November 25, 1972, the sixth day of his work week. General Chairman File #473; Carrier's File 215-Sig-.7

 OPINION CF BOARD: Claimant in this dispute is a montbly rated Foreman
 of Maintainers, Saturday being the sixth day of his
 work week and Sunday being his assigned rest day. On the Saturday here
 in issue, Claimant was ordered to work with a designated crew of Signai
 men in "replacing switch timbers" at a specific switch No. 37. Demand is
 made for compensation as detailed in the Statement of Claim.

 Petitioner contends that under the provisions of Rule 7 of the controlling Agreement, specifically Rule 7(d)s Foremen are not required to perform "ordinary maintenance or construction work" on the sixth day; that the work here involved "was unquestionably ordinary maintenance work", and accordingly the stated claim for compensation should be sustained.

 Rule 7(d) provides that ordinary maintenance or construction work not heretofore required on Sunday will not a required on the sixth day of the work week. There is no dispute on this issue; the dispute here relating to what constitutes "ordinary maintenance work."

 Petitioner directs our attention to certain new matter not raised on the property and therefore improperly before the Board as part of the appellate process. However, we need not concern ourselves with these matters (which relate to a statement made by Petitioner in a prior dispute), since they have no relevancy to the basic issues upon which this dispute must be resolved, particularly in view of the unambiguous language of Rule 7(d).

 On the merits, Petitioner argues that "what is ordinary is dictated by the nature of the work", irre As a matter of logic, we cannot agree. For, if the attendant conditions and circumstances governing the performance of the work are unusual and extraordinary in themselves, the work in issue becomes extraordinary. That in essence is the crux of this case.


In the latter context, Carrier contends that switch No. 37 here involved governs all train movements, east and west, from single track to double track territory, and that this comprises the movements of acme 50 trains on weekdays, including 38 casmutera. Whereas, on Saturday, train movements at this site are limited to 9 commuter trains. Thus, it is argued, the performance of the work in question on weekdays would result in serious disruption of such train service. The latter contention was raised specifically during the progress of this dispute on the property.

 Petitioner cites Award 18357 (Dugan) as precedent on this issue, but we cannot accept it as controlling here; nor can we follow the rationale of the narrow distincti "ordinary maintenance work". Accordingly, it has no bearing on the issues of this case.

 On the other hand, Carrier contends that this dispute in essence is precisely similar to our Award No. 17993 (Quinn), which denied the claim and in which the same parties, the same Rule and substantially the same facts were involved. The only basic difference being that there the disruption of service affected 100 trains, whereas here it affected some 50 trains. Accordingly, Carrier urges that the principle of stare decisis is applicable to this dispute, citing various precedents on this issue. See Awards 10911, 10086, 11345 and 20010, among others.

 This Hoard has consistently adhered to the principle of stare decisis, particularly where there is no showing of palpable error in the prior Award.

We concur, therefore, in the reasoning and conclusions of Award 17993. Specifically, we find that the record supports the contention of Carrier that the complete disruption of operation of 50 trains, including 38 commuter trains, cannot be classified as ordinary conditions. The work here involved, therefore, assumed extraordinary character and did not fall within the strictures of Rule 7(d) governing "ordinary maintenance work."

 Additionally, we quote from Award 2456 (Larkin), 4th Division, in which the language of the Rule was somewhat different, but which involved the identical principle
I
                  Docket Number SG-20735


          "No rule has been cited which would require the Carrier to make additional payment at the punitive rate for work performed under such circumstances. While this work did not involve such emergencies as fires, floods, other "Acts of God," or a train wreck, we can find nothing in the language of Rule 8 which requires the Carrier to pay punitive rates for week-end work where this type of extraordinary situation prevailed."


To the same effect, see Award 17993, supra, in which Rule 7(d) was specifically involved.

 Accordingly, based on the record and controlling authority, we will deny this claim.

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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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 thin Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJTISTMENT HOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of November 1975.