Opinion ID: 185443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Relief for Beck and Benkert

Text: 45 Petitioner specifically challenges the award of relief to Beck and Benkert due to their alleged dishonesty during the unfair labor practice proceedings. In his decision, the ALJ found that some of Beck and Benkert's testimony was inaccurate and suspicious. See id. at 13 n.23, 21 n.41. Due to these findings, DFC maintains that Beck and Benkert should not be entitled to any relief, let alone reinstatement and backpay. While we share DFC's concern that NLRB proceedings not be tainted with false or misleading testimony, we find no basis for vacating the Board-ordered remedies on this account. 46 As in ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, the issue presented by DFC's petition is not whether the Board might bar relief to employees who offer false testimony, but whether it must do so. 510 U.S. 317, 323 (1994). In ABF, the Supreme Court answered in the negative. While the Board may be under an obligation to consider the veracity of witnesses in an unfair labor practice proceeding, it is under no obligation to foreclose relief to all those who offer inaccurate testimony or otherwise compromise the integrity of Board proceedings. Whether to penalize a party for such misconduct, rather than defer to other potential civil and criminal remedies, is a matter committed to the Board's broad discretion. Id. at 325. Therefore, this portion of DFC's petition for review is denied.