# ABF Freight System, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 24, 1994 · 510 U.S. 317

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432933

## Case

- **Full name:** Abf Freight System, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 24, 1994
- **Citations:** 510 U.S. 317; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 738; 94 Daily Journal DAR 816; 62 U.S.L.W. 4092; 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2257; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 454; 114 S. Ct. 835; 127 L. Ed. 2d 152; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 1142
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Stevens, Rehnquist, Blackmun, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Scalia, O'Connor
- **Cited by:** 117 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432933

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432933. Public record. Not legal advice.