In the on-property exchange of correspondence between the parties, the Organization argued Carrier failed to promptly advise Claimant of its decision following the Investigation, which was issued 30 days after the Investigation. It may appear to be somewhat arbitrary to keep someone suspended from service waiting 30 days to be advised of the discipline, but inasmuch as the parties have not established a window of time in which a Claimant is to be notified of the discipline, this Board declines to do so. Nothing has been established that shows Claimant was in any way unduly harmed by the delay.

Regarding the merits of the dispute, Carrier has clearly met its burden of establishing the substantial evidence necessary to impose discipline.

Clearly established was Claimant's insistence that he not be asked to "double-bunk," that he was to be housed in a single room. This is confirmed by the General Manager of Rancho Grandc Motel wherein that only once did he ask that Claimant double-bunk because of the Super Bowl Game on January 24, 1996, following which it was stated that Claimant advised the front desk manager at the motel that he should not be expected to move in with another Santa Fe employee.

Claimant fully admitted that he double billed for the evening meal on two different dates, contending it was one way he could recover some of the 80 hours overtime due him - time he did not claim. This is not an acceptable reason for the double bill.

Under the circumstances, Claimant breached the trust necessary to continue as an independent machine operator for this Carrier. Dishonesty is a dismissable offense, and since this Board is not aware of any mitigating circumstances that would tend to lessen the discipline, Carrier's assessment to dismiss will not be disturbed.