NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 Walter C. Wallace, Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 OPINION OF BOARD:

 Award Number 21591
 Docket Number CL-21208

 (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes

 (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company



Carrier shall now be required to declare the investigation and decision resulting therefrom suspending employe Curley from actual service for 30 days null and void.



The question presented here is whether or not Clpdmant was held out of service on April 17, 1974 pending investigation of charges against him for failing to protect his assignment on the prior night, April 16,1974. Rule 22 of the applicable agreement deals with Discipline and Grievances and provides in pertinent part:

 "(d) Investigations shall be held within seven (7) days (earlier if possible) of the date when charged with the offense or held from service ..." (Emphasis added).

 The notice of investigation submitted to the Claimant made reference to the infraction of April 16, 1974 and set a time and place for investigation


on April 30, 1974. Under the above quoted rule, if Claimant had been withheld from service on April 17, 1974 the subsequent investigation on April 30, 1974 was outside the time limits.

 The investigation conducted on the property developed testimony by the Claimant and the Carrier telephone on the night of the central incident, April 16, 1974. That testimony is in conflict. The Carrier witnesses are in substantial agreement: Claimant was due to wo and he called in about 10:50 p.m. and explained he was at home and he had car trouble and he would be an hour or an hour and a half late. He was not told to mark off for the night, instead he was instructed to come in to work. Then arrangements were made with an on-shift employee to remain over until Claimant arrived. According to Claimant, the facts are different: he called in and explai ef°ect, not to come in and to mark off for the shift, thereby losing a day's pay. Claimant did not show up for work that night but reported for work the next night in advance of his shift. At that time he was told to go home as arrangements had already been made to work his shift by someone else. Apparently, Claimant worked each day thereafter up to sad including the day of the hearing. Carrier's witnesses emphatically deny that Claimant was given permission to mark off and remain home on April 16, 1974. It is their contention that Claimant's failure to report at all on April 16, 1974 involved a failure to protect his assignment. According to Carrier witnesses his position was ambiguous on April 17, 1974. Insofar as the job in question had to be protected each day and each shift, it was essential that arrangements be made to fill that Claimant's failure to report at all on April 16 prevented Claimant from getting back on his shift the next night. According to the Carrier what happened on April 17, 1974 related to Claimant's voluntary act and did not involve a withholding from service under It:1e 22.

        During the investigation Claimant testified that on prior oc-

casions when he called with a legitimate reason for being late he was marked
 off for the entire date. The Carrier's witness denied this was a policy of/,
 the Carrier. No additional evidence along these lines was submitted on the'
 property. In the Organization's submission in the panel discussion before
 this Board reference is made to several awards. of this Division;' Awards
 20227, 20148, 20014, 19910 dealing with the same parties which/is offered
 as confirmation of Claimant's testimony that it is the rale4ith this "-
 Carrier to mark employes off for a day when they are late over fifteen
 minutes. We believe the time for such evidence is passed and even assuming
 their relevance, that was a matter for development on the property. This
 Board has no authority to consider arguments or evidence for the first time.
                        Award Number 21591 Page 3

                        Docket Number CL-21208


The investigation on the property resulted in the finding that Claimant had failed to protect his assignment on April 16, 1974 and he was suspended from service for thirty days. This finding was based upon substantial evidence. It is not the province of this Board to substitute its judgment for the C Award 17914 (Quinn); Award 16074 (Perelson); Award 13168 (Abler). The hearing officer chose to believe the version of the facts set forth by the Carrier and chose not to give credence to Claimant's version of what occurred. On this basis there is no justification for his absence on April 16, 1974. Moreover, the explanation provided by the Carrier that this job must be manned every shift and it followed the prudent arrangement of planning ahead for April 17, 1974, was not challenged on the property. In addition, there is no evidence or explanation that contradicts Caarier's claim that claimant_was free-to work_every day until the investigation other than the date in question. We have some difficulty with Employee Exhibit "G" which purports to be a letter from Kenneth L. Morhardt (a witness at the hearing). Whether this document is properly a part of the record, we cannot determine. It is dated subsequent to the investigation._-It-is;=sufficient to pontout_that,~r_V its lack, of clarity casts considerable doubt on its value as proof. ,

 The Claimant's case is based upon the allegations of his representatives that he was held out of service pending the investigation. This is not a substitute 9213 (Weston). In order to satisfy the burden of establishing that he was held from service within the meaning of the We do not find it in this record and we axe required to conclude that Claimant was not withheld from service pending the investigation. On this basis the Awards of this Division dealing with the propriety of holding an employee out of service pending an investigation have no applicability here. See Award 20305 (Blackwell) and Award 19601 (O'Brien).

 The Organization places some reliance upon Third Division Award 16632 (Heskett) where it was held a hearing that was void ab initio could not be a basis for further charges. We find this award has no application here. The very q rule had been violated and insofar as the investigation had properly held it had not.,, there could be no question of making Claimant"suffer because of Carrier's wrongful acts."

 We conclude Carrier did not conduct an investigation outside the time limits and on this basis all portions of this claim are denied.
                      Award Number 21591 Page 1+

                      Docket Number CL-21208


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


        That the parties waived oral. hearing;


That the Carrier and the Eaployes 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 h as jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        The claim is denied in accordance with the opinion.


                        NATIONAL RA=OAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: z:~-AIA.4.'

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of June 1977.