Without reference to any of the fact-bound issues arising in this case, one egregious error stands out in the Majority's reasoning: The precedent awards of this Board have found that seniority district claims are continuing claims as contemplated within Rule 12 and similar time limit rules and the Majority was wrong to hold otherwise. To hold that a seniority district violation is not such a continuing violation is to nullify the rule's provision for the filing of continuing claims . As the Board held in Third Division Award 28744:

"The Parties clearly carved out an exception to the basic 60-day Time Limit Rule for 'alleged continuing violation (s).' They may be filed at anytime. While the nature of a continuing violation is sometimes difficult to define and while it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, the Board is comp

"this was a continuing violation. If this is not a continuing violation, then Rule B Section (2) would be a nullity. All the provisions of the Agreement must be observed and given meaning and effect. ***"

In Third Division Awards 23046 and 28524, the Board clearly held that seniority district violations were continuing violations pursuant to rules allowing for the filing of continuing claims. Award 23046, in pertinent part, reads:

"In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier that the claim is procedurally defective with respect to the claimed dates of July 25, 26 and 27. We find that each date was a separate occurrence that must be separately tolled within the time limits of Rule 44 Carrier challenged the timeliness of the three dates which were not refuted by the organization during the handling on the property. We do find that the other claimed dates beginning with July 28 are valid and properly before this Board."

This Board has recognized in innumerable awards the value of well-reasoned precedent, not only in settling the immediate cases brought before it, but also to fulfill the purposes of the Railway Labor Act to effect the prompt and orderly settlement of disputes by settling issues with some degree of finality. In this connection, attention is invited to Awards Division:

AWARD 14489:

"The principle of stare decisis is a most commendable one. It puts an end to controversy where a of an Agreement permits more than one interpretation and ends the parade of disputes seeking to upset the established view. In following stare decisis we do that we would necessarily have held the same way if we were presented the issue as a matter of first impression. We merely hold that unless the precedent view is palpably wrong we must not upset it. Award 12240."

AWARD 14508:

"*** Although we retain the authority to reverse prior awards of this Board. We find no justification for doing so in this case. Our reasoning is the same as that expressed by Refree (sic) Dorsey in Award No. 11788:

'We have no hesitation or compunction in reversing prior Awards when we are convinced they are palpably wrong. But, we cannot and do not lightly regard precedent Awards; for, if we did so, it would not engender the prompt and orderly settlement of disputes on the property within the contemplation of Section 2 (4) and (5) of The Railway Labor Act, herein called the Act * * * Only if in law and in fact a prior Award finds no support should we reverse it. Certainly, where a provision of an Agreement permits more than one interpretation, we must presume that the Division, in its deliberations, considered all of them before making its selective determination. We should not at a later date with a different referee participating substitute our iudament for that in a precedent Award unless we are uneauivocallv convinced and can find that the prior iudament is without support. To apply any other test would be to foster uncertainty in the Employe-Carrier relationships in derogation of the objectives of the Act.'"

In this case, rather than refer to the precedent awards dealing with seniority district violations, the Majority improperly relied on Third Division Award 27327 for its enunciation of "The basic principles to be applied in resolving this issue ***'1. While no exception is taken here to the principles enunciated within that award, per se, it should simply be noted that Award 27327 did not deal with a seniority district violation and does not serve as precedent in a seniority district case.

Inasmuch as the precedent awards have decided that seniority district violations are continuing violations and inasmuch as the Majority here did not find those precedent awards to be palpably erroneous, the Majority was simply wrong to find otherwise. Hence, this award is, itself, palpably erroneous and of no precedential value.

Respectfully submitted,