DOCTRINE OF LACHES (149)

First Division Award No. 12126 (Potter)

"The Employees here did not protest individually when the work in question was performed, but their duly authorized representatives had the right to raise a question later, when they learned of the facts and circumstances. There is no limit for the presentation of claims growing out of alleged contract violations in the Act."

First Division Award No. 14576 (Coffey)

"No time limit by contract being applicable to the instant claim, and their having been no unconscionable delay in handling, nor any prejudice resulting therefrom, under all the facts and circumstances of record, said claim does not constitute a state demand."

First Division Award No. 19145 (Sembower)

"Some four years elapsed between the final exchange of correspondence between the parties on the property and the filing of claimant's ex parte submission here, but as we noted under similar circumstances in Award #16346, Referee Carroll R. Daugherty, 'the Railway Labor Act contains no provision limiting the time within which claims may be filed by employees. Nor does the parties' agreement applicable to the instant case contain any such statute of limitation, 'so we must consider the claim, despite Carrier's objection that laches has run."

Award No. 14 - Public Law Board No. 382 (Zumas)

"Finally, with respect to Carrier's defense of 'laches' the Board finds it is without merit. The doctrine of 'laches' has its genesis in the courts of equity and evolved as one of the many remedies created by the equity chancellors as a means of rectifying the 'action at law' deficiencies. It was and is a unique and seldom applied concept utilized only in extraordinary circumstances."

Third Division Award No. 4454 (Carter)

"Carrier contends that the claim is barred by laches. We think not. There was no cut off date in the agreement. No limitation exists as to when a claim may be processed. The lapse of time alone will not bring the doctrine of laches into operation. Laches may operate as a defense only where there has been inexcusable delay in asserting a right which has resulted in prejudice to the adverse party. We find no such situation arising in the present case. The delay has not prejudiced the Carrier in making its defense. This being so laches cannot be successfully asserted."

Third Division Award No. 4756 (Connell)

"The Carrier has urged the defense of laches in the prosecution of this claim and states it is a 'stale claim'. Many Awards of this Board have dealt with such a defense and have held that mere delay will not preclude consideration of a claim by the Board, and the Supreme Court of the United States has held that there is no bar to a claim by limitations set up in the Railway Labor Act. Since there is no statute of limitation, the rule to be applied in a determination of laches or 'stale claims' is that of reasonableness in view of the entire factual situation, and the injury sustained, if any, by reason of the delayed prosecution of the claim. In the instant claim we do not believe the claimant guilty of laches and do not find this to be a 'stale claim', and even if we felt the claim was not prosecuted as promptly as it could have been, we fail to see any damage thereby to Carrier. The defense of laches will be overruled."

Third Division Award No. 11679 (Webster)

"The Carrier contends that in light of the fact that nineteen months elapsed between the appeal to the Carrier's highest officer and the notice of submission to the Board that this claim should be barred by laches. Laches is a principle of equity and this board has consistently held that it does not have equitable powers. This does not mean that a claim may not be barred by failure to comply with the Railway Labor Act. In this case there is no time limit rule in the Agreement and without a time limit rule it is the judgment of this Referee that the Carrier must do more than make a mere assertion of laches here to bar the claim. If the claim had, in fact, been completely settled on the property, the Carrier should have submitted proof."