Parties to Dispute:


                      (

                      ( Clinchfield Railroad Company


        Dispute: Claim. of Employes:


              1. That under the terms of the Agreement, Machinist J. D. Kniceley was unjustly and improperly suspended from service of Clinchfield Railroad Company for a period of thirty days (30), beginning on the date of May 17, 1972, ending on the date of June 16, 1972.


              2. That accordingly, the Clinchfield Railroad Company be ordered to compensate Claimant in the amount of eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate for each of the following dates: May 17,

. 18, 19, 22, 23, 21+, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, June 1, 2, 5, 6,
 (".; 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15, 1972, a total of twenty-two
              (22) days.


        Findings:


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


        The carrier or carriers and the emplo~re or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.


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


        Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


        Claimant, J. D. Kniceley, under date of May 17, 1972 received the following letter notifying him of disciplinary action:


              "Mr. J. D. Kniceley:


              ` During the first three months of this year, you

              did not protect your assignment on 26 days, allegedly due

              to your illness.


l
 Form 1 Award No. 6806
 Page 2 Docket No. 6621
 2-CRR-MA-'75
 "On April 12, 1972, you were referred to a company
 physician for examination to determine whether you were
 physically able to protect your assignment. The Chief
 Surgeon subsequently advised that you are able to
 perform your duties as a machinist.
 On May 11, 12 and 15, you were again absent, again
 allegedly account of illness, yet you were observed on
 each of these dates working at a local service station.
 Obviously if you are able to work at a service station,
 you are able to protect your assignment with this company.
 For your failure to do so, you are hereby suspended from
 this company for a period of 30 days effective May 17, 1972.
 You may return to work on June 16, 1972.
 Our records further indicate that you were absent 3
 days in April 1972 for a total of 32 absence's so far this
 year. After you return to work on June i6, you will be
 expected to protect your assignment if you wish to remain
 in the employ of this company.
 Isl G. E. BCW~l`0
 G. E. Bowman
 General Locomotive Inspector"

 The instant claim was instituted by letter dated June 22, 1972 reading in pertinent part as follows:

        "Mr. Knicely was not given benefit of a hearing or a chance to defend himself of these charges. Your attention is called to rules 12 and 19 of the September 1949 agreement.


        Please consider this letter as a time claim for Mr. Knicely for 8 hrs. per day for each day he was held out of service as a result of Mr. Bowmans letter.


                        Yours truly,


                    ~s~ EARLE M. WALKER

                    Earle M. Walker

                    Local Chairman I. A. of M."


Failing settlement on the property the claim has been appealed to our Board for disposition.
 y

 'Form 1 Award No. 6806
 Page 3 Docket No. 6621
 2-CRR-MA- ' 75

        Claimant achnittedly is owner and operator of an automobile service station in Ervin, Tennessee, known as "Don's Service Center". Claimant, however, denies that he was performing repairs on automobiles on the dates in issue herein. Moreover, claimant contends that by marking off sick on May 11, 1972 he was granted permission by Carrier to be off and that his subsequent suspension for absenteeism violates that portion of Rule 12 of the Agreement which reads as follows:


              "In case an employe is unavoidably kept from work he will not be discriminated against and he shall notify his foreman as soon as possible."


        Carrier denies that its foreman granted claimant permission to take a leave of absence.


        Petitioner, on behalf of claimant, argues that Carrier violated Rule 19 of the controlling Agreement by suspending claimant without first according him an investigative hearing, albeit neither claimant nor his representative requested same. In this connection, Petitioner

,·-,; points out that Article V of the National Agreement of 1954 extends
        time limits on claims and supersedes contrary local rules such as

        Rule 19 in regard to the time and manner for filing claims or grievances.


        In addition to Rule 12 supra, pertinent Agreement provisions cited in this case read as follows:


                            Rule 19 - Grievances


              "Should an employee subject to this Agreement believe he has been unjustly dealt with, or any of the provisions of this Agreement have been violated, the case shall be taken to the Foreman, General Foreman, each in their respective order, by the duly authorized Local Committee or their representatives, within ten (10) days . ... Grievances not filed by the Committee with a representative of the Company within fifteen (15) days will not be considered.


              Suspension in proper cases pending a hearing, shall not be deemed a violation of this rule, but if it is found that an employee has been unjustly suspended or dismissed 'from service, such employee shall be reinstated with his

        Form 1 Award No. 6806

        Page 4 Docket No. 6621

        2-CRR-MA-'75

        "seniority rights unimpaired and compensated for wages

        lost, if any. No employee shall be discharged without

        being given an investigation." (Emphasis added)

        Article V - National Agreement


                  "1. All claims or grievances arising on or after

January 1, 1955 shall be handled as follows:
 (a) All claims or grievances must be presented in writing
 by or on behalf of the employee involved, to the officer
 of the Carrier authorized. to receive same, within 60 days
 from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or
 grievance is based. Should any such claim or grievance
 be disallowed, the carrier shall, within 60 days from
 the date same is filed, notify whoever filed the claim
 or grievance (the employee or his representative) in
 ' writing of the reasons for such disallowance. If not
 r _, so notified, the claim or grievance shall be allowed as
 presented, but this shall riot be considered as a precedent
 `~ or waiver of the contentions of the Carrier as to other
 similar claims or grievances."
 The record of handling of this case on the property and in the
 submissions to this Board shows a melange of conflicting and unsupported
 factual allegations, credibility conflicts and new issues interjected
 for the first time at the Board level by each of the parties. It
 should be well understood that our Board does not resolve credibility
 issues nor do we consider matters not raised and properly joined in
 handling on the property. Viewed in the light of these established
 principles this record indicates only a single issue appropriately
 presented for our consideration: "Was Rule 19 violated when claimant
 was suspended without an investigative hearing?"
 Close scrutiny of the Agreement language shows that Rule 19
 mandates an investigation before discharge of an employee but is
 silent regarding required investigations in other disciplinary
 situations short of discharge. (Emphasis added) Under well
 established arbitral rules of contract interpretation, it is said that
 where the parties specifically mention items intended to be covered,
 all things not mentioned were intended to be excluded (Exnressio unius_
 est exclusio alterius). See Third Division Awards 4-439,8172, 11-175,
 13719 _et _al. Additional impetus is given this interpretation by the
 clear and convincing evidence that the Agreement has been so applied
 for some 20 years. Moreover, Rule 19 itself allows for a hearing where
 Form 1 Page 5

 Award No. 6806
 Docket No. 6621
 2-CRR-MA-'75

 an employe believes he has been "unjustly dealt with". The thrust of the Rule is that such hearing is not Carrier instituted in nondischarge cases, however, and must be requested by the agrieved employe or his representative within certain time limits.

 Petitioner asserts that the time limits for grievance handling under Rule 19 are superseded by Article V of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954 and this is, we think, correct. But this has no effect one-way or another on this case because the plain fact is that at no time, neither within 10 days nor within 60 days, did claimant or his representative actually request an investigation. Absent such a request, we cannot find in Rule 19 the requirement for an investigation in a non-discharge case. The result in an individual case could be harsh but we cannot add to or amend the clear language agreed to by the parties. As we observed in an earlier case "... The parties, through negotiation have agreed upon provisions having to do with investigation and discipline. If the procedure is faulty then it is up to the parties to change it." Award 6001.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest:. Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST= BOARD

By Order of Second Division


BY
      osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of January, 1975.