Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Bdard finds that the parties herein are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
Following the Investigation, which was held on July 12, 1996, Claimant was dismissed from Carrier's service
A review of the Investigation and the on-property handling reveals to this Board that Carrier met the substantial evidence criteria necessary to sustain discipline. Claimant registered at the Days Inn in Las Cruces, New Mexico, under the guise of an employee entitled to corporate lodging, then
pG B N~ . 5750handed the key to a non-carrier employee, knowing full well that the inn would bill the Carrier. The allegation, without proof, that Claimant offered to pay the Inn for the two rights billed to corporate lodging was an obvious afterthought. Claimant could very well, at the time he registered, indicated the stay was personal and that he would pay, but he did not.
Under the circumstances, Claimant attempted to defraud the Carrier out of the price of two nights stay at an Inn. Clearly, Claimant was in Violation of Rule 1.6 as well as the other Rules cited.
Reviewing Claimant's work history, it is a fact that Claimant lost about nine months service commencing March, 1983, for another unknown act of dishonesty. Claimant was fortunate that the dishonesty episode in 1983, resulted only in a rune month suspension, but, obviously, he failed to understand the seriousness in this breech of employer-employee relationship.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.