finding no abuse of discretion when the NLRB relied on “other civil and criminal remedies” to punish victim of an unfair labor practice for lying to the Board rather than denying him administrative relief
How later courts described this case
- finding no abuse of discretion when the NLRB relied on “other civil and criminal remedies” to punish victim of an unfair labor practice for lying to the Board rather than denying him administrative relief
- recognizing that assessing the proper punishment for conduct is a policy matter
- "False testimony in a formal proceeding is intolerable. We must neither reward nor condone such a 'flagrant affront' to the truth-seeking function of adversary pro ceedings."
- “Notwithstanding our concern about the seriousness of Manso’s ill-advised decision to repeat under oath his false excuse for tardiness, we cannot say that the Board’s remedial order in this case was an abuse of its broad discretion or that it was obligated to adopt a rigid rule that would foreclose relief in all comparable cases.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Kennedy,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court and agree as well with the concerns expressed by Justice & alia. Our law must not become so caught up in procedural niceties that it fails to sort out simple instances of right from wrong and give some redress for the latter. At the very least, when we proceed on the assumption that perjury was committed, the Government ought not to suggest, as it seemed to do here, that one who violates his testimonial oath is no worse than the stu *326 dent who claims the dog ate his homework. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 42.
The Board’s opinions show that it can become quite exercised about trial-related misconduct that obstructs its own processes. See Lear-Siegler Management Service Corp., 306 N. L. R. B. 393, 394 (1992) (tolling the backpay award of an employee who threatened a witness, because such manipulation undermined “[t]he integrity of the Board’s judicial process”). The Board seems more blithe, however, about the potential for dishonesty to disrupt the workplace. See Owens Illinois, Inc., 290 N. L. R. B. 1193 (1988) (reinstating and awarding backpay to an employee who lied under oath, because the employer “failed to meet its burden of establishing that [the employee] is unfit for further employment”). True, the gravest consequence of lying under oath is the affront to the law itself. But both employer and employee have reason to insist upon honesty in the resolution of disputes within the workplace itself. And this interest, too, is not beyond the Board’s discretion to take into account in fashioning appropriate relief.