1 - National Labor Relations Board

136 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
In the other case, 35 in which the employer's reasonable grounds
for belief was relevant, the court rejected the Board's conclusion
that an employer had violated section 8(a) (3) by discharging
employees for failure to pay dues where the employees had tendered
their dues and initiation fees to the union, only to have the
tender rejected because they refused to also sign union membership
cards. The court pointed out that an employer is liable
under section 8(a) (3) only if he discriminates against an employee
for failure to pay dues when he has "reasonable grounds"
to believe that the union has requested the employee's discharge
for reasons other than failure to tender the uniformly required
periodic dues and initiation fees. While this proviso clearly prohibits
employers from meekly complying with union demands
which are obviously illegal, the court concluded that it is not
clear how much specific information as to the illegality of the
union's request must be communicated to the employer in order
to require him to make further inquiry. Under the circumstances
of this case, however, the court found that the vague contentions
of the employees that they had tendered the dues were insufficient
to require the employer to suspect that the union's demands
were illegal. The employer knew that the employees were hostile
to the union and supported a rival union ; when the union
first requested their discharge, they indicated clearly that they
were entirely unwilling to become members on any basis whatever
; and the union's initial letter requesting discharge affirmatively
stated that the membership requirement would be fully
met if dues and initiation fees were paid. Moreover, the employer
only discharged the employees 3 months after the union's
request when a court order enforced an arbitrator's award requiring
their discharge. There was no indication that the employer
had been hostile, to, or interfered with, the dissidents'
rival union activity and the court considered the fact that other
dissident employees had joined the union, as one which might
well have strengthened the employer's belief that the remaining
employees' troubles were due to their hostility to the union,
rather than to its discrimination against them.
In concluding that, under the circumstances, the employer
had no duty to investigate the situation further, the court
observed that to determine whether a tender of dues had been
made would have required an extensive investigation which
might well have been fruitless, and even if it were clear that
tender had been made, there remained complex legal issues, con-
"N.L.R.B. v. Zoe Chemical Co., 406 F.Zd 674.