holding that an employee forfeited his remedial rights under the Act by violating company policy and then lying under oath about the incident
How later courts described this case
- holding that an employee forfeited his remedial rights under the Act by violating company policy and then lying under oath about the incident
- noting that the NLRB should look "beyond the company's asserted reasons to evaluate all circumstances involved in the firing"
- “The Board’s order can be sustained only on the grounds articulated therein.”
- questions about whether employees had discussed wages with one another were coercive because employer had unlawfully prohibited employees from discussing wages
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
For the reasons stated in part III of the opinion, I concur. I do not think that the cases previously decided by the Board, Bullock’s, 1 Roadway Express, Inc., 2 and W.R. Grace Co., 3 resolve the issue whether the AU and the Board can consider information beyond that originally known to and cited by the employer in deciding whether the employee was or was not discharged for engaging in an unprotected activity. I therefore would not decide that issue until the Board has itself directly considered it.
. 251 N.L.R.B. 425 (1980) (supplemental decision and order).
. 271 N.L.R.B. 1238 (1984).
. 240 N.L.R.B. 813 (1979).