PARTIES ) St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Transportation - Communication Employees Union

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Does an employee (extra or regularly assigned) who
 retains or obtains (by bidding or displacing) a
 regular position when such is available to him after
 December 24, 1965, retain protected status under the
 terms of Article II, even though such employee may
 not have done so prior to December 24, 1965?
 2. With respect to Article II, Section 1, as example:
 One position is advertised as vacant. There are
 three protected employees none of whom apply for the
 position and same is awarded to a junior employee.
 Does any employee lose his protected status? If so,
 which one?
 Then, for instance, in the same circumstances, the
 second senior extra employee applies for and is
 awarded the advertised position. Does any employee
 lose his protected status? If so, which one?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: It is the Opinion of the Board that because of the unusual
 facts and circumstances involved in this case and without establishing a precedent
 on this or any other carrier, that the claims should be denied except that claimants
 h. Sewell, E. C. Burden, H. J. Hooker, C. Moenning, C. E. McQuay, F. E. Ryan, R. R.
 Clark, D. R. S-1ith, and D. G. Matlock, the only remaining claimants currently em
 ployed by the carrier, should be restored to protected status under the February 7,
 1965 Agreement as of the date of this Award without any retroactive compensation.
 The claims of 0. L. Dement and G. M. Shanks who are no longer in the service of the
 carrier are denied. Because of this disposition there is no reason to consider any
 other issue raised by the parties. It is not intended to express any opinion con
 cerning the rights of claimants under any local agreements providing protective
 benefits to employees.
 AWARD N0. 333
 Case No. TCU-48-W

 AWARD
The case is disposed of as per Opinion of the Board.

 Dated: /~«/ c,., ~er r Ilf 72