This claim arose from Carrier's decision to fill the position of a vacationing Foreman between April 24 and 28, 1989, with an employee junior to Claimant. Because of force reductions, Claimant, who held seniority as a Foreman, was working as a Trackman. The Organization alleges a violation of Section 11, Paragraph 12 (b) of the National Vacation Agreement, which reads in pertinent part as follows:
The organization maintains that Carrier failed to make an effort to observe the principle of seniority in its selection process.
Carrier, on the other hand, initially argues that the claim should be dismissed as procedurally defective, since it was not progressed in accordance with Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. The Act requires that claims be handled in the usual and customary manner. Section 2, Second of the Act further provides that:
Carrier alleges that in allowing the claim to be progressed by the Division Chairman, R. L. Robinson, rather than by the General Chairman, J. D. Knight, the organization violated the Act. Form 1 Award No. 29517
Since Circular No. 1 (issued on October 10, 1934, by the National Railroad Adjustment Board) mandates that "No petition shall be considered by any division of the Board unless the subject matter has been handled in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act...," Carrier believes that the Board lacks jurisdiction in the matter.
Carrier also suggests that the organization also disregarded the provisions of Attachment F of the Agreement, which requires that claims be progressed by the Organization's Committee:
Carrier points to Third Division Award 28249 as being dispositive of this issue. That decision, which involved the same parties and the same procedural question, called for the dismissal of the claim. It argues that this precedent should and must be followed.
The organization counters that Rule 55 of the Agreement allows for matters to be handled by the General Chairman or his designated representative: Form 1 Award No. 29517
The Carrier is correct in noting that great deference is to be paid to prior arbitration decisions where the parties, issues, and Agreement language are the same. It is well accepted by this Board that, for the sake of predictability, it is best not to deviate from prior Awards. Deviation is called for only when a previous decision is glaringly or palpably erroneous, substantially unfair, or demonstrably flawed. The decision cited by Carrier as dispositive of this dispute cannot be characterized in that manner.
Although it appears that Rule 55 of the Agreement was not addressed by the parties in the matter at issue in Award 28249, a consideration of this Rule in light of the parties' special responsibilities in progressing claims does not alter the conclusion reached by the Board in Award 28249.
There can be no argument that Rule 55 enables the General Chairman to select a designated representative to handle any number of contractual matters that arise in the course of administering the Agreement. The requirements of Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, however, must be considered in designating a representative to engage in the adjustment of disputes.
Considerable emphasis is placed on handling disputes "in the usual manner." By requiring consistency in handling, the Act reduces the likelihood of procedural error. Each party comes to know what is expected in the handling on the property and before the Board.
It is apparent from the record in this case that, traditionally, claims have been progressed by the General Chairman on this property. In this instance, however, the General Chairman wrote to the Division Manager on June 21, 1989, stating that the claim was submitted by the Division Chairman under the guidelines of the General Chairman's office. The General Chairman asked for duplicative service, with a response to the Division Chairman and a copy to himself.
The danger in designating more than one individual to represent the Organization in progressing claims is that there is no longer consistency in handling. On the other hand, were the Organization to determine that Division Chairman Robinson (or any other Organization official) would henceforth serve as the General chairman's designated representative and be the sole individual handling all claims for the Organization, for example, this would be in keeping with the General Chairman's authority under Rule 55 and would not be contrary to Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. That does not appear to be the organization's intent here, however, and therefore it must be concluded that the appeal, as progressed, was flawed and that the claim must be dismissed.