OPINION OF BOARD: At the threshold of this inquiry we are confronted with a challenge to our jurisdiction and the contention that we have no power to hear and decide this case because Mr. Belt has died since the filing of his claim and it does not affirmatively appear that any executor or administrator has been appointed for his estate or substituted in his behalf in these proceedings. As indicated in the foregoing statement of claim, the Committee has pressed this matter on behalf of his widow without any proof that she is the person entitled to claim the benefits of an award, if one is made. It is instantly apparent that in a strictly legal proceeding in a court of law, it would be necessary for technical reasons to substitute an executor or administrator for a deceased party, but we do not believe that the technical rules of pleading and procedure in a court of law can reasonably be applied to the administrative procedure outlined by the Railway Labor Act. This act is intended to be remedial and should therefore be liberally construed. It provides for administrative rather than technical legal procedure and should be viewed from that angle. In this case, as in most others, the procedure on behalf of the claimant is through representation by his Brotherhood, rather than his individual appearance through his own counsel. We do not believe it to have been the intention of congress that any other construction be given to this remedial act than such a one as will produce a hormonious relationship between Labor and Capital, which was the very basic object intended to be attained. Viewed in is most technical aspect, nothing more could be required in this case than the appointment of an administrator or executor for the estate of Mr. Belt, and the substitution of that personal representative in this case in place of Mrs. Belt and the only necessity for such a substitution of parties would arise in the event of an award to be sued upon or paid in cash to that personal representative. As will be hereinafter noted that situation cannot arise at the present moment and there is no necessity at this time for a substitution of parties. All of the rights which are being claimed on behalf of the Brotherhood for the benefit of Mrs. Belt arose and fully accrued before his death and there is certainly nothing in the Act which would extinguish those rights if they existed when he died. It is our opinion that under a broad and liberal interpretation of the Act in question, we have jurisdiction to proceed to a determination of the basic questions involved.

We come next to a consideration of whether or not there was a violation of the rules of the telegraphers' agreement entitling the employes to be compensated for monetary loss, and this involves a construction and application of Rules 5 and 19 (c) of the applicable agreement between the parties. Under Rule 5, it is guaranteed that a regularly assigned telegrapher will receive one day's pay within each twenty-four hours if ready for service and not used, or if required on duty less than the minimum number of hours excepting Sunday and holidays. Under Rule 19 (c) it is provided that telegraphers will be notified every thirty days when positions are created or vacancies occur on the divisions where they are located and the telegrapher may apply for such position within ten days from the date of such notification; that assignments will be made within ten days after close of bulletin and a successful applicant given the position within thirty days thereafter; that if not placed therein within the thirty day period the employe will thereafter be compensated on the basis of not less than the rate of position to which assigned.

Prior to June 15, 1932, the stations of Vina and Los Molinos were operated as separate telegraph offices on the Southern Pacific lines and an agent-telegrapher was maintained at each point. In May, 1932, Vina became open and it was placed on bulletin June 2, 1932. The deceased claimant H. A. Belt bid for the office which was assigned to him in the regular course of business on June 13, 1932. Almost immediately thereafter, the carrier abolished the office at Vina by consolidating it with Los Molinos, notwithstanding the fact that Belt had been the successful bidder for Vina, entitled thereto by seniority and the position duly awarded to him on June 13, 1932. He has never been permitted to occupy or enjoy that position, but

on the contrary has been forced to work at short shifts at various points which, as he claimed, in his lifetime, cost him serious monetary loss. The agency at Vina was not legally abolished by authority of the California Railroad Commission until October 30, 1937, which is the date to which monetary compensation is claimed.

We think it is apparent from the face of the record that Mr. Belt was definitely assigned this position before the office at Vina was closed and that his case comes clearly within the guarantee of Rule 5. There is nothing in the brief submitted, nor was there anything presented on oral argument to indicate any reason for doubting on this point and its has therefore become necessary to direct our consideration to the other points urged by the carrier and these are: First, that the claim is stale and is or should be barred by laches. Second, that even if the claim should be allowed, it is speculative and not supported by a sufficient record to justify an award In the words of the briefs submitted by the carrier, their position is stated as follows: "Respondent holds that the Board lacks jurisdiction of the instant claim; that award 388 (which will be hereafter referred to) is erroneous and should be overruled, and that the agreement rules do not support a claim for monetary loss of the extensive character here presented." We have hereinabove disposed of their first contention as to jurisdiction and will pass to a consideration of their second argument, which is that award 388 should be overruled. It was practically conceded on oral argument that award No. 388 is controlling if not erroneous, and a reading of that award demonstrates the necessity of this concession.

In that case, as in this one, there was a consolidation of two agencies in California on the Southern Pacific Lines, one at Gazelle and the other at Edgewood, which resulted in the ousting of telegrapher Carey, whose work was turned over to another operator. His claim for compensation for monetary loss was similar to that made in this case on behalf of the estate of telegrapher Belt, and his claim was sustained. Much that is said in that award might well be quoted in this one, but since there is nothing to be gained by repetition and since the award is available for any interested person to read, it is sufficient to say that we must adhere to the principles therein annunciated. Nothing has been urged on this hearing of sufficient weight to require us to overrule our previous holding, and we will therefore abide by it.

We have thus concluded that we have jurisdiction of the subject matter of this controversy; that Belt was regularly assigned by bulletin to the position of agent-telegrapher at Vina on June 13, 1932; that he was prevented from occupying that position, thus bringing into effect the guaranty provisions of Rule 5, and that he is entitled to be compensated for all monetary loss under provisions of Rule 19 (c), and other applicable rules, unless he is barred therefrom by some rule of laches, limitation, or "cut-off."

There is no rule of limitation or "cut-off," either in the Act of Congress or in the agreement between the parties, and since these are known as rules of repose they do not exist otherwise than by statutory provision or agreement of the parties. Laches is an equitable doctrine which is of very doubtful applicability in an administrative proceeding of this kind and we do not think it necessary to decide, and expressly do not decide, whether or not it may be relied upon as a defense in this kind of a case. For the purposes of this one opinion only, and without any intention to establish a precedent, it is enough to point out that it cannot even equitably be considered as a bar to the claim made on behalf of the estate of Mr. Belt. The record shows that consolidation of these agencies (and others) was protested by the local chairman for the Brotherhood immediately after it occurred, and that by various letters, conferences and hearings concerning this and other cases, the carrier has been constantly advised of the existence of this claim. It further appears that since the entry of award 388 on February 25, 1937, this claim has been actively prosecuted and it is fairly

inferable from the record that this claim and others had been dragged along awaiting that award. We thus feel that even if we should enter upon the doubtful ground of trying to apply an equitable doctrine of Inches, the carrier could not benefit thereby.

The last contention made by the carrier must be sustained. The claim presented on behalf of the deceased employe is of such an extensive and far reaching character that it automatically calls itself into serious question. There is nothing in the record before this board to justify the large claims which are made, and in fact on the contrary there is a flat assertion by the company that Mr. Belt actually earned more between June 15, 1932, and October 30, 1937, than he would have earned had he been retained as agent at Vina. We are quite clearly of the opinion that notwithstanding the guaranty of Rule 5, and the provisions for compensation in Rule 19 (c) the carrier is entitled to a strict accounting of the extent to which compensation shall be made under the rules. Obviously this can only be done by a remandment of the cause for the taking of such an account from available records, and on satisfactory proof. It will also be necessary as herein first above noted, that an administrator or executor be appointed for Mr. Belt's estate and substituted for his widow to receive and receipt for any sums that may be found due. It will therefore be ordered that the claim be allowed to the extent and in the manner herein indicated.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the displacement of agent-telegrapher Belt at Vina constituted a violation of the then prevailing agreement between the parties, and that he was in his lifetime and at the time of his death entitled to compensation under the provisions of Rule 19 (c).

That an administrator or executor for the estate of H. A. Belt may be substituted for his widow in this proceeding if and when anything shall be found due to his estate.

AWARD