PARTIES ) The Boston Terminal Corporation
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Maintenance of WLy Employes

 QUESTION Winether or not Mr. R. M. Wilco:: s~ould
 AT ISSUE: have been retained in the se::vice of
 the Boston Terminal Corporation aL; a
 Carpenter Foreman effective ii:l; 1,
 1965 and thereafter.
 OPINION On November 27, 1964, 1%r. Wilcox' pco_t:-on as
 OF BOARD: Carpenter Foreman was abolished. :i~ e:-:_zcised his
 seniority to displace a Carpenter ar.wozked as a
 Carpenter subsequently.

 Although the discussions on the property involved a claim for wages due Fir. Wilco.c, the issue sua:nitted to the Disputes Committee refers solely to his retention in the position of Carpenter Foreman. The Opinion in Award No. 10 states that "it is the intent of said Section 5 of Article I to maintain a work force of protected employees and not positions." There is no doubt that the Agreement of February 7, 1965, did not intend to mandate the retention of positions, but was designed to guarantee compensation to protected employees.

 Article VII, Section 3, of the Agreement requires the Committee to "confine itself strictly to decision. as to the clue stions...specifically submitted to it." Award No. S upheld that explicit provision. Where a specific question is askec, it must be answered directly. In this case a claim for compensation is not before the Committee, a.-.d t~e question m :st be answered in the negative since the Agre,:...:: :~ does not requ_re Carrier to retain certain positions.

            The answer to the Question is "~;c..'


                                      . i

                      Izo Aza = u ~~ a`-:§::~':,~r

Dated: PIashington, D. C.

        September Id, 1969