Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to and
 Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company
 (Former Wabash)
 Statement
 of Claim: Claim on behalf of Machine Operators on the T-8 Tie Force
 for 5.5 hours at the applicable straight time rate on
 October 24, 1985.

 Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case.

 The claims in this case are a variation of those made in our Award No. 75 the findings of which by reference are incorporated herein. Here, the employees in Tie Gang T-8 left their camp cars and were transported to the work site. It commenced raining shortly after they started to work on October 24, 1986.

    The Organization asserts:


        "These employees requested to work on that said date as Machine Operators in their class and service and the Carrier failed to allow the Machine Operators to work in accordance with their working agreement..."


    The Carrier states:


        "Employees working in the gang complained to Supervisor T. King, Assistant Manager System Gang, about having to work in the rain. Mr. King told gang members that if they ceased work their pay would be stopped also... The gang refused to continue working. The Employees were then transported to the camp cars where their compensible time ended."


All members of the gang, including monthly rated Machine Operators, were paid for two and one-half hours covering the time they started work at the job site until they arrived back at the camp cars.

    Rule 23 - "Hours Paid For" in part, reads:


        "... Time lost due to inclement weather shall not _be reard,d-as7`aviolaf'1on7F this rule.


        When less than eight (81 hours are worked for convenience of

        employees,..., or when due to incTement weather,

        interruptions occur to regular establish work periods,

                      -2- Award No. 76 - 1760


        preventing eight (8) hours work, only actual hours worked, or held for duty will be paid for ...." (underscoring supplied)


If, as contended by Carrier, the Operators refused to work, then Rule 23 prescribed precisely what they are to be paid. On the other hand, if as contended by the Organization that they wanted to work but the Carrier suspended the work due to inclement weather then that represented a managerial decision contemplated by Rule 23 and they were paid precisely as prescribed by Rule 23. The Board will not second guess the Carrier. 1850 is clearly distinguishable to this case.

 The case appears similar to Third Division Awards 12689 and 17193 which denied similar claims under similar circumstances.

 Award: Claims denied.

 o ammons, Jr., Emp Member bb tello, Carrier Mete

                      :cure / «~ G,'r

                      Arthur T. van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


      h~~. z r