PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
 DISPUTE ) and

QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the
 February 7, 1965 Agreement, particularly Article
 I, Section 1 and Article IV, Section 1, whon it
 removed Mr. G. W. Fischer, Jr. from the position
 of Rate Analyst on June 15, 1965 and rofuced to
 thereafter compensate him at the normal rata of
 compensation of thn position to which he was re
 gularly assigned on October 1, 19669
 (2) Shall the Carrier be required to compensate Mr.
 G. 6d. Fischer, Jr. at tbct normal ruts of compen
 sation of the position to which he was regularly
 assigned on October 1, 1964, coms:sncing with
 June 16, 1965 and for each date thereafter?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: A brief summary of the facts indicate that the Claimant
 was appointed to the position of Rate Analyst on October 1
 1960--one which is excepted from promotion, assignment
 and displacement under the Rules of the effective Agree
 ment. Thereafter, on June 15, 1965, the Claimant was
 relieved of his assignment, allegedly due to inefficiency. In due course,
 by virtue of the normal exercise of his seniority, the Claimant displaced
 a junior clerk at a lower rate of pay. The difference in compensation
 amounted to approximately $96.00 per month.

 The pertinent portion of Section 3, Article IV, provides as follows:

Thus, the basic issue posed herein is whether such can be considered 'a voluntary action?

 In support of its argument, the Carrier urges that we adhere to the precedent previously established by this Board 1n Award No. 13. In that Award, the Board held that the disqualified employee who bid in on a lower rated position had voluntarily exercised his seniority. Unquestionably, consistency in interpreting; Agreements is es·:enti"l, otherwise, issues would never be resolved. We are cognizant
                    _ 2 _


of the fact that the significance of precedent as stare decisis in the adjudication of arl>itral matters is debatable and contentious. D theless, logic impels us to be guided by a previous decision whic settled an issue involving the same parties under the identical E unless palpably in error. True, under a different factual situat the one presented here, we probably would have been more reluctat follow the previous Award. Therefore, under the circumstances pt herein, in our view, this Claim warrants a denial.

                      Award


          Answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the negative.


                C~t!


                      Mu ay M. Rohman

                      eutral Member


Dated: Washington, U . C.
      .January 24, 1969


.3 .Ii
 ~'~>
 Gr'~

        t=y

~~a ~c~