PAX Centurion - September / October 2015

Page 44 • PAX CENTURION • September/October 2015 617-989-BPPA (2772) Expires December 2014 From Lying on page 43 The truth about lying… teacher had used force to push a student against a wall. Two justices found that the public policy exception applied, even though there was no evidence that the reinstatement of the teacherwould violate a specific public policy. 435Mass. at 236-237 (Ireland, concurring in the results). After the BPPA won the case of the “lying” officer at the Appeals Court, the BPD asked the Supreme Judicial Court to review the case, which only happens in about 1 or 2 of every 10 cases. So, when the SJC agreed to take the case, we knewwewere in trouble. The SJC found that it violated public policy to force the City to reinstate this officer – this was the first time a Massachusetts appellate court had used the public policy exception to overturn an arbitration award. The Court noted that lying on a police report, filing criminal charges and lying under oath are all felonies and there is a law saying convicted felons cannot be police officers. So, even though the officer was never chargedwith any felony, the court said that reinstating himwould violate a public policy against allowing someone who commits these kinds of acts from working as a police officer. In a devastating footnote, theSJC threwout all the disparate treatment evidence, saying it was irrelevant how the BPD treated other officers. Unless you have evidence that theBPDdiscriminated against the officer because of his race or sex or some other protected category, you could bring in two dozen cases of officers getting less punishment for similar or more serious offenses, and it would make no difference. Similarly, if you could somehow produce witnesses who could testify that they had committed misconduct, that the BPD knew about it and they received no discipline at all, that, too, would be irrelevant. Cases like these, the Court said, are evaluated on their own and without regard to what hap- pened to other officers in the past. The case was shocking to many – particularly arbitrators. Most ob- servers agree that what so angered the court was the fact that the case involved a police officerwho, according to the facts found by the arbitra- tor, had lied again and again. (It is important to note, by the way, that all through this ordeal, the officer contended that hewas being punished for telling the story the way he remembered it. Recent studies on memory support the idea that different people in the same situation can have very different memories, yet none of them is consciously lying.) In the 10 years since this case was decided, the repercussions have been felt throughout the labor community, but especially in police departments. Untruthfulness is nowthe ‘go-to’allegationofmisconduct for employers looking to discharge an officer. There have also been attempts – some successful – to use the language in the case about felonious conduct to lead employers on a hunting expedition through the language of an arbitration award to find the elements of a felony (assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, for example). Those findings of fact may be enough to trigger the public policy exception, at least for police officers It would be wrong to generalize toomuch from the case – it does not mean that every termination for untruthfulnesswill be upheld on appeal, nor does it mean that every allegation of acts that could be the basis for a felony chargewill lead to a discharge. But the case doesmean that when a police officer is disciplined formisconduct that involves untruthfulness, arbitrators and courts are going to bemuchmore likely to uphold the dis- cipline. So if it was hard to defend a lie before, now it will be even harder. The Psychology of Lying P sychologists tell us that everybody lies. But most of the lying we do falls into the category of ‘white lies.’ Charles V. Ford, Ph. D., an expert on lying, describes five categories of lies: White lies are used to make social interactions more comfortable. They include self-protective lies (“Sorry, I can’t go to the party, I’m feeling sick”) and altruistic lies (“Nice haircut”; “You’ll be fine.”) Humorous lies are harmless exaggerations used to embellish a story or joke. In these cases, what matters isn’t the truth, but whether the story is funny or not. Defensive lies are the most dangerous lies and are almost never harmless. “I didn’t do it.” “I wasn’t there.” “I didn’t see anything.” Aggressive lies are the stuff of rumormongers and bad guys in the movies – you’re not just defending yourself, you’re attacking someone else. “I saw him do it.” “Did you know that he is a [fill in the blank].” Pathological lies are those told for no rational purpose, but just because the person can’t seem to stop himself. “They’re going to build a movie theater in that lot – sometime next summer.” There is a sixth category – lies of omission. Although the experts don’t like to call these lies technically, they are just as dangerous for your job. When you have an obligation to speak up and you remain silent, that is a type of untruthfulness. These can be divided into at least two categories – silence on your own behalf (you did it but you aren’t admitting it) and on behalf of someone else (you knowwho did it but youwon’t say). Both types of silent lies can subject you to disciplinary action. Note that lies that seem harmless in some contexts can turn serious when told in an employment context. “I can’t go to the party because I’m sick” may be a white lie, but “I can’t come to work because I’m sick” can subject the officer to disciplinary action. Exaggerations when you’re describing the fish that got away are fine, but work-related exag- gerations or downplaying can lead to discipline (“he was yelling at the top of his lungs” “she hit me several times” “the car was going about 90 miles an hour” “I barely touched it” “I did not raise my voice”). The time to stop the lying is at the beginning, because the more you lie about the misconduct, the harder it is to tell the truth about it. The psychologists tell us that liars are often trying to convince themselves that they did not commit the misconduct – it is much easier to lie con- vincingly to others if you’ve already convinced yourself that the lie is true.According toDoctor Ford, “the lie facilitates self-deception; people lie to others in order to lie to themselves.” If you find yourself telling people, “I know it’s hard to believe, but …” take a step back and ask if maybe it’s hard to believe because it’s not true. If you filter everything you say through a “Will this make me look bad?” filter, make sure you are not filtering out the truth from your statements. Don’t become the victim of your own deception. Knowing that many of us have a tendency to lie in our own defense when we do something wrong is not an excuse. Instead, knowing this fact about human nature should put us on notice that, when we engage in misconduct, the temptation to lie will be strong. We should be prepared to fight it. Remember: almost no one who tells a lie believes that they will be caught, yet think of how many lies are exposed on a regular basis. Knowing the wrongdoers have a tendency to lie in their own defense also means that those investigating the misconduct will be looking for signs of lying and self-deception, just as you do when investigating crimes. So, if you screw up, ‘fess up. You may take a hit, but your union and your union attorneys will do our best to see that you get a fair shake. If you screw up and lie about it too, you’re not avoiding the pain, you’re only postponing it, while making it much harder for us to defend you.