Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12429
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12151
 92-2-90-2-294
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Hyman Cohen when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division of TCU PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company (CSX Transportation, Inc.) (hereinafter "carrier") violated the provisions of June 1, 1979 Upgrading of Helpers and Apprenticeship Agreement, when on January 3, 1989 the carrier offered to upgrade Carman Helpers and Painter Helpers to Carman Tentatives and Painter Tentatives positions respectfully without first obtaining an understanding between the proper Labor Relations officer and the General Chairman of the Craft in accordance with the aforementioned Agreement.

 2. That the Carrier Eurther violated the Agreement when they granted these employes an improper retroactive seniority date which affected other employes.

 3. That accordingly, the carrier should be instructed to return those individuals to their former classification as Helpers that the carrier allowed to be upgraded in violation of the aforementioned Agreement.

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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes 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.

As a result of the merger of several railroads to create the existing Carrier, freight car heavy repair functions of the various railroads, to a great extent were transferred to the Raceland Car Shops. In light of the magnitude of the program, there were not enough journeymen painter and carmen
 Form 1 Award No. 12429
 Page 2 Docket No. 12151
 92-3-90-2-294

 employed at Raceland to perform the necessary work. Prior to 1989, the Carrier recalled every tentative painter and tentative carman on the Raceland rosters. The Carrier resorted to soliciting journeyman painter and carmen who had been furloughed on other locations at the former C&0 Railway and various General Chairmen representing the craft in question on other lines of the Carrier were requested to assist in finding journeymen who would be willing to work in the 1989 repair program. Furloughed machinists were also offered jobs in the carman craft at Raceland.

 Despite the efforts of the Carrier, a shortage of painters and carmen continued to exist. In order to fill the vacant jobs, the Carrier found it necessary to offer Painter Helpers and Carman Helpers the opportunity to be upgraded to tentative status. The instant grievance arises out of the Carrier's action of unilaterally upgrading Painter Helpers and Carman Helpers, who had previously relinquished their respective Helper positions, without first entering into a "special written agreement" as provided by Article II, Section 3, Paragraph (d) of the June 1, 1979 Agreement.

 The dispute between the parties involves an interpretation and application of Article II, Section 3, Paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) which, in relevant part, are set forth as follows:




Form 1 Award No. 12429
 Page 3 Docket No. 12151
 92-3-90-2-294
 Article II, Section 3, Paragraphs (b) and (c) refer to two (2)
 distinct groups of employees. Paragraph (b) applies to "Helpers promoted to
 tentative or temporary mechanic: under agreements in effect" prior to the June
 1, 1979 Agreement. This group of employees is to be contrasted with "[E]mploy
 ees promoted under this Agreement" or, in other words, employees who will be
 promoted in the future under the June 1, 1979 Agreement, that are included in
 Paragraph (c). The parties reinforced the rights of the employees referred to
 in Paragraph (b) by providing in Article IV, the following:

Thus, an employee who had been upgraded under an Agreement prior to June 1, 1979 was an employee "whose status was determined prior to the effective date" of the June 1, 1979 Agreement. It is implicit in Section 3, Paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) that although the employees referred to in Paragraph (b) had been promoted they also had the right to return to their former classifications with the right to be upgraded again in the future.

 This is borne out by the reference in Paragraph (d) to "Employees returned to their former classification under paragraph (c) ....' These employees "forfeit all accumulated tentative mechanic seniority" under the terms of Paragraph (c) and "will not again be considered for upgrading except by special written agreement between the General Chairman and the appropriate Labor Relations Officer." It is of great weight that the forfeiture of accumulated tentative mechanic seniority and the express prohibition for considering the employees described in Paragraph (c) for upgrading except by special agreement contained in Paragraph (d) applies solely to the Paragraph (c) employees. By its express terms, Paragraph (d) does not apply to the employees described in Paragraph. (b).

 It is axiomatic that to expressly include one or more of a class in a written instrument must be taken as an exclusion of all others. Thus, by expressly providing that the terms of Paragraph (d) apply to employees described in Paragraph (c), must be taken to mean that the parties intended to exclude the employees described in Paragraph (b).

 In filing the instant: grievance, the Organization alleged that the Carrier violated Paragraph (d) when it offered promotion to Painter Helpers and Carman Helpers "after the Helpers had already refused to be upgraded since June, 1979." The Organization failed to identify any employees whom it alleged had been upgraded improperly. After the Carrier pointed out the Organization's failure to identify the Helpers, the Organization identified eight (8) Painter Helpers, whom it alleged were upgraded in violation of Paragraph (d).
 Form 1 Award No. 12429
 Page 4 Docket No. 12151
 92-3-90-2-294

 The eight (8) employees who were identified had been promoted in the r,rr
 past and subsequently had returned to their former classification. All eight
 (8) employees had been offered promotion again on or about January 3, 1989.
 Five (5) of the employees, G. Caines, G. Leesburg, D. Ramey, G. Shope and E.
 Cook, were previously promoted to the tentative painter position under
 Agreements in effect prior to the June 1, 1979 Agreement. Thus, they are
 employees included within the intent and meaning of Section 3 (b). The re
 maining three (3) employees did not serve sufficient time to be upgraded to
 journeyman, but were upgraded to "tentative."
 Based upon the "on-property record," Article II, Section 3, Paragraph
 (d) of the June 1, 1979 Agreement has not been violated. Moreover, the Organ
 ization has not satisfied its required burden to establish that the Carrier
 violated Article II, Section 3, Paragraph (d) of the June 1, 1979 Agreement.
 Finally, it should be pointed out that the Carrier acted consistent
 with its contractual right to upgrade helpers. Article II, Section 1 of the
 June 1, 1979 Agreement, provides as follows:
 " Section 1. Upgrading Order
 In the event of not being able to employ mechanics
 with three years' experience at the trade who are of
 good moral character and habits, qualified appren
 tices of the craft may be advanced to 'mechanic
 tentative' in accordance with their seniority. If
 more employees are needed, qualified helpers of the
 craft may be promoted. If this does not provide
 sufficient employees to do the work, persons who have
 had experience in the use of tools may be employed.
 Such employees will not be retained in service as
 tentative mechanics when qualified three-year mechan
 ics become available."
 Clearly, the Carrier acted within its rights as set forth in Article
 II, Section 1.
 A W A R D


                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:

        Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of September 1992.