has been complied with and then after along lapse of time enter a claim for accumulations of pay." Awards 1289, 1806, 1811. (Emphasis supplied.)

Award 3002 (Edward F. Carter, Referee) is a further statement showing how such claims are considered:

"The record shows that the reduction of force on September 1, 1933, was made after notice to the Organization. No objection was then made. Negotiations were subsequently had in 1937 and 1941 which resulted in pay increases and still no objection was voiced. For eight and one-half years, Claimant acquiesced in the rate of pay he received while occupying position No. 365. This delay in making a claim makes it unnecessary for us to determine whether the two positions consisted relatively of the same class of work. The long acquiescence of the Claimant in the assigned rate has the effect of estopping him from now denying that it was correct and from claiming reparations for so long a period of time.

It is true that there is no statutory limitation as to the period of time in which a claim must be initiated under the Railroad Labor Act. It is also true that repeated violations of a rule do not change or abrogate it. But repeated violations, over along period of time, and we do not here decide whether in fact there was any violation, acquiesced in by the employe may give rise to the doctrine of laches and in effect operate as an estoppel, This is particularly true where rates of pay are concerned. The Claimant is estopped from asserting a claim. See Awards Nos. 2281, 2605, 1289." (Emphasis supplied.)

The attention of this Board is also invited to the following Third Division Awards: Award No. 3168, Award No. 2784, Award No. 1289, and Award No. 788.

In conclusion, the Company asserts that because of the long passage of time involved in this claim and the consequence that full details and records are no longer available regarding it, this claim should be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: In October 1936, Claimant was assigned to the position of demurrage clerk six days per week, Sunday through Friday, with Saturday as assigned day of rest. The position was not one necessary to the continuous operation of the Carrier. On February 16, 1945, it was first called to the attention of the Carrier that the Sunday work of this assignment should be compensated at the time and one-half rate. On February 21, 1945, the Carrier acknowledged the error and arranged to pay the premium rate for the Sunday work after that date. Claimant now claims reimbursement at the time and one-half rate for all Sundays worked from October 1936 to February 16, 1945.

That Claimant was improperly compensated from 1936 to 1945, a period of nine years, cannot be questioned. Immediately after the error was called to the attention of the Carrier, it was corrected. For nine years the Claimant accepted the rate fixed by the Carrier without objection of any kind. Both the Carrier and the Claimant assumed all during this time that the Agreement was being correctly applied. This Board has held many times that such acquiescence on the part of the Claimant bars any claim for retroactive compensation prior to making demand for a correct application of the Agreement. Awards 1289, 1609, 1806, 2281, 2700, 3518.

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;

No basis exists for an affirmative award.

AWARD