PARTIES TO DISPUTE: Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
 and
 ' Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim for two hours each for the Traclomen listed below
 and six hours each for those other than Trackmen listed
 below account the Force not working on April 21, 1972
 because of inclement weather."
 (Those employees listed included 7 Trackmen, 1 Assistant
 Foreman, 7 Machine Operators)
 OPINION OF BOARD: On the date in question the fifteen employees referred to
 in the claim reported to their work location at 7:00 AM.
 It was raining. At 9:00 AM the Assistant Division Engineer
 arrived at the job site and found that none of the men were
 working. The record shows that the Machine Operators had

                  could not work because "Without the machines this unit is

                  unable to perform the installation of ties a's scheduled."

                  The inference is clear that if the Machine Operators had _

                  been willing to work the whole unit would have been working,

                  weather notwithstanding. The record also shows that the

                  Assistant Division Engineer requested that the machines be

                  started and the Operators refused to do so. There is no

                  dispute between the parties as to the above set of circum

                  stances.

                  When advised that the Operators refused to start their

_- PL Board Nor, ~~0 (2) , . AWARD No. - 11

                    machines the Assistant Division Engineer told the men to go to work or he would allow them only two (2) hours' pay for

                  · the day.

                  Petitioner, in support of the claim,, has cited Rules 16(a),

                  16(b) and 17(a) of the Agreement.

                  These Rules state, in pertinent part,. as follows:


                            16 (a) - "Regularly established daily working hours will not be reduced below eight (8) for five (5) days per week to avoid making force

                    ' reductions, . . ."


            · 16 (b) - "Trackmen and extra gang men required to

            report at usual. starting time and place

            for the day's work will be allowed a minimum

            of four (4) hours when conditions prevent

            work being performed.

            17 (a) - "There is hereby established for all employees

            covered by this agreement, subject to the

            exceptions contained hereafter in this rule and

            Rule 60 (b-2). a work week of 1?0 hours, consisting

            of five days of eight hours each, . . ."

            Petitioner alleges that., under the circumstances in the

      . instant case, the Carrier official unilaterally reduced the z

      Claimants' work day on the day in question when he told them

      to either go to work or they would be paid for only the two

      hours they had been at the work site, which was in violation

      of Rule 16(a). We do not agree. The fact of the matter is -

      that the Operators refused to go to work, were told by proper

      authority to go to work and still refused, and were therefore

      told to leave the property. Their,opportunity to work a

      normal eight (8) hour day, which they were requested to do

      · when they were told to go to work., was restricted by their

      own inaction - it was the refusal to work that put in motion

.gL Board No. 1210 6 (3) . AWARD No. 11

                    the events that followed. Obviously, an employee who refuses to go to work when directed to do so by. proper authority exposes himself to possible penalty - in this instance "no work, no pay.", However, insofar as the Trackmen are concerned, we do agree that Rule 16(b) entitles them to a payment of four (4) hours minimum when conditions prevent work being performed after they have.reported for work at the usual starting time as alleged `by Petitioner. The condition that prevented them


          ' from working, in this case, was not the inclement weather

                    but the refusal of the Operators to work. As the Carrier

                    stated, "Without the machines this unit is unable to perform

                    the installation of ties as scheduled."

                    We do not find that Rule 17 (a) has any application to the

                    factual situation presented to us. This Rule, in essence,

                    merely defines that the 40-hour week will consist of five

                    eight-hour days instead of some other combination of days

                    and hours within a week., the total of which would equal

                    forty. ,

                    Petitioner., in his submission to this Board, made much of

                    the conditions of weather on the claim date and inferred, at

                    least., that employees had the option of determining whether

                    the weather on a particular day was suitable for work. We

                    will dispose of this portion of the. argument by drawing

                    attention to Award No. 18012 which stated, in part,


      ' "It is a managerial prerogative to determine when

                    work is to be performed, as exemplified in many of

                    our awards."

                    The subject requires no further discussion.

.--rL'Board ITO. 1210 ~, (4) ., AWARD P1o.'.11
 AWARD: Claim sustained insofar as the Trackmen are concerned, i.e.,
 · two (2).additional hours' pay at their straight time hourly 1
 rate
 Remainder of the claim is Denied.
 ORCER: The Carrier shall comply with this Award within thirty (30)
 days of the date of this Award.
 C. Robert Roacriey., Neutral

 A. J °'unningham, .ogee i·:amber L. W. Burks, Carrier :ember
 Baltimore, Maryland
 March 11, 1974 -