Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 Award No. 37877
 Docket No. SG-37711
 06-3-03-3-37

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:


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

 The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.
 Form 1 Award No. 37877
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-37711

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


      n *;__ *_ ;a A; *_. a _ _.:__ ,.ss ,._.; ,. *H., ~_

      a al Laca AV aaiu uaoruLc YTcrc givCra uuc iiv~a.c va iicaaang LAI,.a.vaa.


By letter dated December 8, 2001, the Organization alleged the Carrier's violation of CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94, particularly the definition of System Signal Construction Gangs, their purpose and what constitutes "construction work." The violation claimed by the Organization was due to the Carrier utilizing System Signal Construction Gang Nos. 7X13 and 7X15 to install new cables on October 25 and 26, 2001 at the W. B. Tower at MP 75.5.


The language at the center of the dispute comes from CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94. It states in pertinent part:


      "Construction Work - That work which involves the installation of new equipment and systems and the major revision of existing systems, and not work which involves maintaining existing equipment or systems. Replacing existing systems as a result of flood, acts of God, derailment or other emergency may also be construction work.


      System Signal Construction Gang - A gang used to perform year round construction work throughout the territory covered by the B&O Agreement."


The Organization argues that the work performed was work that did not belong to the System Signal Construction Gangs, but was work that belonged to district forces holding Baltimore West End seniority.


The Carrier argued that what was assigned to these two System Signal Construction Gangs was the replacing of existing signal cables. It held an "emergency existed when the signal system was suspended after finding signal cable grounded and not within FRA and CSXT accepted tolerances." In short, the Carrier maintains that this was an emergency.

Form 1 Award Nn- 37X77
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-37711

                                              06-3-03-3-37


      mL , u a carey _ _J ~,_·_ _ _.~ .*.,_

i l,c Board r,ar elutly reviewed this record. 1 tte Carrier claimed that it was an
 emergency because the "signal system was suspended" due to discovery of serious
 problems which required new cables. The Organization stated that it was not an
 emergency arguing only that the work was known through routine signal
 inspections a full year in advance. Our review of the record finds no probative
 evidence to effectively rebut the Carrier's emergency defense. Nor is there any
 proof that the work performed was routine maintenance of existing systems.

Additionally, the Board finds that the issue at bar has been considered in one form or another countless times (Third Division Awards 37520, 37485, 37484, 37334, 37333, 37286, 37250, 37249, 37194, 37125, 37122, 31116 and others). In Awards


'I7ARA and Z7ARG tha R~o.·~l_~*.,C ,a a1,., 1.,; h s s0 , u---a t: a., lL.-4 a_
 ... .v. ... .... , ., , varuru ouo,uar,~.u 'ua, a.la1l11o, vuL allc isUa14 11114) L11aL Llle
 overwhelming Award history supports dismissal of this claim, rather than denial.
 Unless the Organization can come up with proof that the work performed by the
 Carrier was work that "involves maintaining existing equipment or systems," which
 is that work routinely performed by division forces, it is proper for System Signal
 Construction forces to do the work. This has been found by an extensive line of
 Awards. This Referee has previously considered this issue in Third Division
 Awards 36861 and 36862. Other Referees have issued Awards reviewing different
 circumstances, but the identical issue between these same parties and similarly
 denied the Organization's claims (Third Division Awards 37114, 37111, 37109,
 37014, 36691, 36681, 36679, 36634, 36363, 36206 and others).

 Accordingly, the Board considered the doctrine of stare decisis in its decision.
 In stare decisis, meaning "precedent" the principle is that there are enough
 decisions already; that parties in future conflicts should understand what the
 ..t...._., _ .__ b,e, ..__ ,;_ _ _f _ ,. _

outcome wall be, as a met line of cases dictates the precedent. Tile Board read all Of the preceding Awards and more. We rind that these are the same parties, with the same contractual Agreement (CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94) rearguing similar disputes. Therefore, we will dismiss this claim as barred under the doctrine of stare decisis.


                        AWARD


    Claim dismissed.

Fnrm 1 A..1-7 N.. 2^10'7'7
 ~.... a-a TV as to t. V. J IV I i

 Page 4 Docket No. SG-37711
 06-3-03-3-37

      This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders

that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      Rv Plrtlar nF Third 71Saricinn

                          v v. uaaaa.Ya.aoavaa


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of August 2006.