its investigation of Lozano's past after the hearing.  It suspended Lozano on March 21, 1995, the day he testified at the objections hearing, allegedly because of the misrepresentation on his application, and then discharged him on March 28, 1995.  Royalite contended before the ALJ and continues to argue here that it would never have hired Lozano if it had known that he had falsified his application, and that its policy was never to retain an employee who it later learned it would not have hired initially.  Again, however, the ALJ had evidence before him tending to show that the rule at Royalite was not so inflexible.  Bell, the manager who had hired Lozano, had hired two felons who were on parole, even though neitherlearned of his misrepresentation on the application;  it claims that the ALJ's credibility determinations were unsupported by substantial evidence;  and it argues that the Board's conclusion was nothing more than impermissible second-guessing of management's decision to enforce the "falsification policy."   For its part, the Board emphasizes the evidence that supported the ALJ's conclusions, including the company's knowledge and disapproval of Lozano's union activities, its prior knowledge of his criminal history and the fact that it waited until after he became a union activist to discharge him, and the more flexible nature of its policy regarding misstatements on applications.


13
We agree that the issues here relate to the facts found by the ALJ, and to its credit Royalite appears to realize the enormity of its burden