Legal Document

510 U.S. 317 ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD No. 92-1550. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 1, 1993 Decided January 24, 1994. After Michael Manso gave his employer, petitioner Freight System, Inc. (ABF), a false excuse for being late to work, ascertained that he was lying and fired him on the asserted ground tardiness. He filed an unfair labor practice charge with National Labor Relations Board (Board) repeated tardiness while testifying under oath before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who denied relief upon concluding had lied discharged cause. The reversed in relevant part, finding did not fact fire but seized as pretext discharge earlier union activities. Notwithstanding dishonesty, ordered reinstate backpay. Appeals enforced order, rejecting ABF's argument awarding reinstatement backpay employee employer ALJ violated public policy. Held: Manso's testimony preclude from granting Although such misconduct is intolerable formal proceeding, 29 U. S. C. § 160(c) expressly delegates primary responsibility making remedial decisions, including backpay, best effectuate policies Act (Act) when has substantiated practice. Confronted kind express delegation, courts must give agency's decision controlling weight unless it arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary Act. It cannot be said Board's order this case abuse its broad discretion obligated adopt rigid rule would foreclose all comparable cases. Nor can conclusions faulted reason work ultimately irrelevant whether antiunion animus actually motivated ordering effective character promotes vital interest. sanction indirectly rewarding lack candor several witnesses, whose refused credit. Moreover, categorical against might force divert attention away mission toward resolving collateral credibility disputes. Pp. 322-325. 982 F. 2d 441, affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, BLACKMUN, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, post, p. 325. SCALIA, judgment, O'CONNOR, joined, 326. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR TENTH CIRCUIT John V. Jansonius argued cause petitioner. With briefs were Jill J. Weinberg Alan Wright. Deputy Solicitor General Wallace respondent. brief Days, R. Dreeben, Jerry M. Hunter, Nicholas E. Karatinos, Norton Come, Linda Sher, Emad Arbab.* JUSTICE STEVENS Court. 1 falsehood (ALJ). former Our interest preserving integrity administrative proceedings prompted us grant certiorari consider should have precluded relief. 2 * worked casual dockworker at Inc.'s (ABF's) trucking terminal Albuquerque, New Mexico, summer 1987 August 1989. three times. first time, 12 employees June 1988 dispute over contractual provision relating so-called "preferential casual" dockworkers.1 grievance eventually secured reinstatement; also incident. 3 return short lived. Three supervisors warned likely retaliation top management— alerting him, example, "gunning" App. 96, "the higher echelon after [him]," id., 96-97. See Inc., 304 N. L. B. 585, 592, 597 (1991). Within six weeks second time pretextual grounds— ostensibly failing respond call made stringent verification procedure recently imposed preferential casuals.2 Once again, panel reinstated. 4 third came less than two months later. On 11, 1989, arrived four minutes 5 a.m. shift. At no policy regarding lateness. however, decided casuals—though other employees—who twice without good Six days later triggered policy's application nearly hour same telephoned 5:25 explain having car trouble highway, arrived. conducted prompt investigation, lying,3 new charge. In hearing ALJ, story about preceded discharge. credited most events surrounding dismissals, concluded told work. Id., 600. Accordingly, although illegally because party grievance,4 based dismissed Ibid. 6 affirmed ALJ's unlawful, respect 591. Acknowledging presumably could 590, n. 13, nevertheless emphasized conclusion "a plainly erroneous factual statement [ABF]'s reasons."5 Instead, lie "established only legitimate 17 lateness." 589. focused primarily retroactive lateness include holding "seized upon" "as again unlawful reasons 19."6 addition, though deemed even assuming validity general disciplinary treatment casuals, observed approach uniform rules dockworkers "raise[d] more questions they resolve[d]." 590. 7 order. Miera v. NLRB, 441 (CA10 1992). Its review record revealed "abundant evidence conduct towards Manso," 446, "ample evidence" cause, ibid. court regarded important confirming been provided excuse. rejected policy.7 Noting "Manso's original misrepresentation attempt avoid found result animus," reasoned wide ascertain what remedy furthered (Act). 447. II 8 question we granted narrow one.8 We assume correctly unlawfully assume, importantly, are concerned ramifications proceeding ALJ. recognize disqualified profiting adopted flat precluding so testifies. As comes us, issue rule, do so. 9 False intolerable. neither reward nor condone "flagrant affront" truth-seeking function adversary proceedings. States Mandujano, 425 564, 576-577 (1976). Knox, 396 77 (1969); Bryson States, 64 Dennis 384 855 (1966); Kay 303 (1938); Kapp, 302 214 (1937); Glickstein 222 139, 141-142 (1911). If knowingly exploited by criminal prosecutor, wrongdoing "inconsistent rudimentary demands justice" vitiate judgment become final. Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 112 (1935). any judicial administrative, deliberate falsehoods "well may affect dearest concerns parties tribunal," Norris, 300 574 (1937), put factfinder "to disadvantage, hindrance, delay extracting truth cross examination, extraneous investigation means." Perjury severely sanctioned appropriate 10 submits victim always winning That contention, inconsistent our appraisal misconduct, raises countervailing concerns. Most Congress' delegate decisions authorizes take affirmative action back pay, will [the Act]." 160(c). Only cases does statute restrict authority reinstatement.9 This case. 11 When Congress agency make specific determinations, "arbitrary, statute." Chevron A. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 837, 844 (1984). Because involves views merit greatest deference. consistent throughout long history administering Act.10 explained half century ago: "Because relation peculiarly matter competence, enter allowable area guard danger sliding unconsciously confines law into spacious domain policy." Phelps Dodge Corp. 313 177, 194 (1941). 13 concern seriousness ill-advised repeat tardiness, say fault 14 Notably, credit see, e. g., B., 598, those findings, 585. unfairness sanctioning witnesses' obvious. advocates devote unnecessary energy disputes credibility. rely "other civil remedies" testimony, cf. St. Mary's Honor Center Hicks, 509 502, 521 (1993), rather exception familiar well within discretion. 15 16 ordered. Notes: James D. Holzhauer, Timothy Bishop, Daniel Barney American Trucking Associations amicus curiae urging reversal. Briefs amici affirmance Federation Industrial Organizations Marsha Berzon Laurence Gold; Lawyers' Committee Civil Rights Under et al. Herbert Wachtell, William H. Brown III, Norman Redlich, Thomas Henderson, Richard T. Seymour, Sharon Vinick, Mitchell Rogovin, Randal Milch, Robert Bell, Jr., Donna Lenhoff. Carl Uehlein, Joseph Santucci, Stephen Bokat, Robin Conrad, Mona Zeiberg Chamber Commerce curiae. classifications: regular seniority list, nonpreferential casualsABF 589, A supplemental agreement negotiated April created classification certain rights. 585-586. required dockworkers—to available phone prior shift foreman needed them worker risked "protect shift"; failures authorized workerId., 597. issued written warning May 6, failed call. 19, supervisor asked summon just 8:30 answer, dialed number dial fearing misdialed. permission instead sign form verifying responded. then discharged. special discriminated class, 600; both discriminatorily applied Manso, 600, 11. management overheated wife pick up deputy sheriff stopped speeding ensuing rush. plant manager looked highway nothing, officer officials—and ALJ—that alone Specifically, held dismissal §§ 8(a)(1), (3), (4) Act, 49 Stat. 452, amended, 158(a)(1), unequivocally established treat dishonesty "in itself independent basis action."Ibid. noted supervisors' threats "strong motivation relies refusing enforce orders where engaged serious misconduct. See,e. Precision Window Mfg. 963 1105, 1110 (CA8 1992) (employee extent activities threatened kill supervisor); NLRB Magnusen, 523 643, 646 (CA9 1975) padded card oath); Commonwealth Foods, 506 1065, 1068 (CA4 1974) (employees theft employer); Breitling, 378 663, 664 1967) confessed stealing employer). limited petition: "Does forfeit finds purposefully testified falsely during hearing?" Pet. Cert. i "No shall require individual suspended discharged, payment if cause." C.§ SeeVirginia Elec. & Power Co. 319 533, 539-540 (1943). stated Virginia Electric determinations stand "unless shown patent achieve ends fairly Act." 540. concurring. 18 I join agree expressed SCALIA. caught procedural niceties fails sort out simple instances right wrong some redress latter. very least, proceed assumption perjury committed, Government ought suggest, seemed here, one violates testimonial worse student claims dog ate homework. Tr. Oral Arg. 42. 19 opinions show quite exercised trial-related obstructs own processes. Lear-Siegler Management Service Corp., 306 393, 394 (1992) (tolling award witness, manipulation undermined "[t]he process"). seems blithe, potential disrupt workplace. Owens Illinois, 290 1193 (1988) (reinstating oath, "failed meet burden establishing employee] unfit further employment"). True, gravest consequence affront itself. But insist honesty resolution workplace And interest, too, beyond account fashioning 20 whom O'CONNOR joins, judgment. 21 ordinarily proper judge how Executive chooses exercise discretion, scope allows. For reason, dicta criticizing unintelligent (but nonetheless lawful) executive almost inappropriate. context changes, relates unitary adjudicative process begins federal court. Agency inaction undermines dishonors legal system—undermines courts. Judges properly protest, lawful (and hence unreversible) be. Such protest called present case, displayed—from initial through defense Court—an unseemly toleration course 22 awarded reinstatement, Walter Maloney week 8, 1990. placed oath—presumably standing up, hand raised, set forth Judges' Manual 17008 (1984): 23 "Do you solemnly swear truth, whole nothing help God?" 24 proceeded tribunal, concerning reported 17, broken down; wife, her pajamas up; drove rest way along way. produced assurance alone; mentioned speeding, simply work; himself trouble. Hearsay admitted (without objection) showed official, breakdown portion left disabled vehicle, there. "Manso Respondent trouble"—which meant, story. 600 punish something effect, depriving reinstatement. 25 accepted carbreakdown lie, since real filing unfair-labor-practice complaint, stark contrast today's carefully weigh pros cons using conferral protect weighed all. Indeed, apparent all, part background proceedings, worthy note. insouciance persisted makes astounding that, light "history mistreatment," "though unjustifiable, understandable." Brief 22, 15. (In context, course, plain meaning understand" "[t]o know tolerant sympathetic toward." Heritage Dictionary 1948 (3d ed. 1992).) 26 Well, am understanding whatever it, believe enforcement Title 1621 provides: 27 "Whoever— 28 ". . taken competent officer, person, administered, testify truly, willfully states... material true 30 "is guilty fined $2,000 imprisoned five years, both. ." 31 Attorneys doubtless prosecute indictments lies Nation's proceedings—not even, perhaps, cleanly nailed here. Not only, refer prosecution, impose, indeed explicitly imposing, another generally judges): denying discretionary intentional subversion 32 While correct power compel apply sanction, eminently reasonable deserve characterization Board's] discretion," ante, 325 (emphasis added). my estimation, precipice tolerable, particularly failure discuss desirability limiting 33 Denying not, contends, involve "unfairness [ABF] candor." First "indirect reward" ABF, receives Board. There world difference between mere (which fears) beneficence conferring nonmandated despite much greater evil embraces). principle perjurer rewarded judgment—even otherwise deserved—where there deny sensible tradition common law. "unclean hands" doctrine "closes door equity tainted inequitableness bad faith relative seeks relief, however improper behavior defendant." Instrument Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 806, 814 (1945) (denying perjury). McClintock, Principles Equity 26, 63, 75 (2d 1948). sometimes past. See, Copying Printing, 240 1276 (1979); O'Donnell's Sea Grill, 55 828 (1944). realistic comparison managers' disbelieved motivations firing crystalclear not. latter stuff prosecutions; 34 absolute requiring denial "might credibility." Ante, intelligent conscientious supposed permitting effect—and probably occurred, surely considered, obvious this. impressed assertion "ordering interest." Assuredly does, plenty here adding (1) entry cease-and-desist subjecting severe sanctions commits similar practices future, (2) period date subsequent (3) posting notice premises, reciting commitments commitment All clear enough violating pay. Had posted included, ordered), effect 35 felt need write separately thought puts `other remedies' testimony." My impression, presentation really testimony. concur law, regret missed opportunity

Classification Label: 8