Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29230
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29493
 92-3-90-3-427
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.
 (CSX Transportation, Inc. (formerly The Chesapeake and
 ( Ohio Railway Company)
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Transportation Communications International Union

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "Claim of G. C. Peace, claiming (8) hours pro-rata rate, $110.46 daily, 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 m.n. on October 5, 1985 account rearranged from 04 machine to I#3 machine."

 FINDINGS:
The Third 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.

Prior to 1980, the Chesapeake 5 Ohio Railway Company (C50) (now merged into CSX since August 31, 1987) and the Lakefront Dock and Railroad Terminal Company (LDTR) operated separate ore dumping and coal loading facilities at Toledo, Ohio. C separate facilities were performed by employees represented under separate contracts between TCU and
Upon due notice to the Organization, the C60 and LTDR facilities were transferred and consolidated, along with similar functions performed on the Conrail properties, effective April 1, 1980. In connection with that coordination, the former C60 Di Chairman entered into a Letter-Agreement dated March 28, 1980, reading as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 29230
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29493
 92-3-90-3-427
 "As advised during our conference on this matter,
 the coordination of the Lake front-Presque Isle facil
 ities contemplates that the coal dumping in the coor
 dinated operation will primarily be handled at the
 Presque Isle facility while ore will be handled
 primarily through the Lakefront facility. However,
 as further advised, it may become necessary, because
 of operating conditions, to handle coal loading at
 the Lakefront Dock facility and/or ore unloading at
 the Presque Isle facility. In connection therewith,
 and in connection with utilization of the Dock Clerk
 positions at the Presque Isle facility, it was under
 stood that:
 1. The positions of Dock Clerk-Ore C-25 and C-29, as
 well as the position of Swing Clerk C-373, will
 be retained in their present 'closed season'
 status and redesignated as 'Dock Clerk A2' with
 duties as are presently assigned positions of
 Dock Clerk on n3 and #4 Machines, pending the
 'opening' of I12 Machine. In connection there
 with, the hours of assignment for the position of
 Dock Clerk C-25 will be changed from 7 AM - 3 PM
 to 8 AM - 4 PM.
 2. In those cases where no loading operations are in
 progress at either No. 2, 3 or 4 Machines, the
 incumbents of Dock Clerk assigned thereto may be
 utilized to fill vacancies on other Dock Clerk
 positions having the same starting time, or to
 assist the incumbents of such other positions
 within their assigned hours. In the event that
 the vacancies referred to herein cannot be filled
 as provided in this Section 2, the applicable
 provisions of the Clerks' General Agreement will
 apply in connection with such vacancies.
 3. In the event that it would be necessary to oper
 ate the Ore Machine at Presque Isle on an occa
 sional basis, the incumbents of Dock Clerk at No.
 2, 3 of 4 Machines may be utilized to perform
 such work when no coal loading operation is in
 progress at their respective Machines. In the
 event that no Dock Clerk is available to perform
 service on the Ore Machine as contemplated in
 this Section 3, applicable provisions of the
 Clerks' General Agreement will be utilized to
 secure employes to perform service at the Ore
 Machine.
 Form 1 Award No. 29230
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29493
 92-3-90-3-427
 4. Employes so used in accordance with Sections 2
 and 3 above will be paid the rate of pay of their
 own assignment or the rate of the vacancy worked
 or position assisted, whichever is higher.
 5. The understandings reflected herein cancel and
 supersede any previous understandings in exis
 tence relative to the utilization of incumbents
 of Dock Clerk positions located at the Presque
 Isle facility, C60, Walbridge, Ohio."

 Less than three months after the coordination, the first of a number of disputes arose regarding the assignment of work by the Carrier to employees in the Dock Clerk classification at the Presque Isle facility. That lead case was decided by Public Law Board No. 3450, Award 37 on July 24, 1990. Because that decision is pivotal to our disposition of the present case, we quote it verbatim:








Form 1 Award No. 29230
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-29493
 92-3-90-3-427
 The Organization contends that Carrier's action
 constituted a rearrangement not in conformity with
 the requirements of Section 2 of the March 28, 1980
 Agreement, and that, as a result, Claimant is en
 titled to compensation as provided in Rule 24(c) of
 the Clerks' General Agreement. The Organization
 notes that Section 2 permits rearrangement only 'to
 fill vacancies on other Dock Clerk positions having
 the same starting time, or to assist the incubments
 of such other positions within their assigned hours,'
 neither condition existing here.
 The Organization urges that there was no Dock
 Clerk position assigned to work at Coal Machine No. 2
 during Claimant's shift, and that Claimant was not
 rearranged to fill a vacancy within Section 2.
 Additionally, it points out that Claimant had not
 filed a letter of rearrangement. It concludes that
 Claimant is entitled to 'be paid a minimum day at the
 pro rata rate of his regular position, in addition to
 the amount to which [he is] entitled for working
 position to which arranged' within Rule 24(c). Ac
 cordingly, the Organization seeks that the claim be
 sustained.
 Carrier, on the other hand urges that it acted in
 accordance with the various Agreements. Carrier
 maintains that it is within its authority to estab
 lish a position on machine No. 2 for one day, and
 that, Section 2 authorizes the utilization of Claim
 ant to fill the vacancy thus established. In Car
 rier's view, Section 2 authorizes the shifting of
 Claimant to perform his tour at another machine.
 In Carrier's view, Organization has failed to sus
 tain its burden of proof. Carrier argues that the
 Organization did not, and can not, prove that the
 Agreement was violated when Claimant was asked to
 perform the same duties, during the same hours, for
 the same amount of compensation, merely because the
 machine was number 2 rather than 4. Accordingly, for
 these reasons, the Carrier asks that the claim be
 denied.
 After careful review of the record evidence, We
 are convinced that the claim must be sustained. This
 is true for the following reasons.
 Form 1 Award No. 29230
 Page 5 Docket No. CL-29493
 92-3-90-3-427
 First, the language of Section 2 of the March 28,
 1980 Letter Agreement clearly provides that an in
 cumbent of Dock Clerk positions No. 2,3 or 4 may be
 'utilized to fill vacancies on other Dock Clerk





















While the above matter was awaiting decision by Public Law Board No. 3450, a number of other similar claims were filed. Among those was the present claim filed by the Cl on the property, the Carrier linked some twenty four of those related claims, specifically including the present claim with the case then pending on appeal which resulted in Public Law Board No. 3450, Award 37. In that connection, the final denial letter by the Director of Labor Relations, dated March 25, 1987, reads in pertinent part as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 29230
 Page 6 Docket No. CL-29493
 92-3-90-3-427

































Subsequent to the issuance of Public Law Board No. 3450, Award 37, however, Carrier refused to consider that decision authoritative precedent, alleging that: 1) "the present case is materially different" and/or 2) "the reasoning in Award No. 37 was flawed and the conclusion erroneous."
 Form 1 Award No. 29230
 Page 7 Docket No. CL-29493
 92-3-90-3-427

 It has long been recognized and accepted in labor-management arbitration generally, and in railr prior decisions involving the same facts, issues and Parties should be considered authoritative prec judicata and stare decisis do not technically apply in arbitration. But considerations support the principle that final and binding decisions interpreting and applying a contract provisio to pinch," the proper forum for obtaining relief is the bargaining table, not continual adjudication of ostensibly settled matters. In following such reasoning, the Board held in


To like effect the Board held in Third Division Award 3229:

Application of the foregoing principles requires that we sustain the present claim. The reasoning of Public Law Board No. 3450, Award 37, is not demonstrably flawed nor is that decision palpably erroneous. Carrier has not persuasively demonstrated that the facts of the present case are materially and sufficiently distinguishable to warrant a different conclusion.

 For all of the above reasons, and for the reasons set forth in Public Law Board No. 3450, Award 37, which we adopt and confirm, the present claim must be sustained. For reasons not entirely clear on this record, the Organization's Ex Parts Submis hours and thirty-five minutes. Accordingly, the claim is sustained only to the extent of seven hours and thirty-five minutes.
 Form 1 Award No. 29230
 Page 8 Docket No. CL-29493
 92-3-90-3-427






Attest: 00e 000,
 )Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of May 1992.