DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS VL
VL-75 (02/08)
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Voluntary Leaving/VL 475.7
DOCKET/DATE ABR-899-3121/11-29-89
AUTHORITY Section 601A of the Act
TITLE Union Relations
SUBTITLE Requirement to Join Company Union (vs. Paying Dues)
CROSS-REFERENCE None
The claimant worked as a home health care aide. She as informed by the employer's director that she was required to join the
company union or forfeit her job. She was not given the option to retain her job by the mere payment of union dues and initiation
fees (without the additional requirement that she join the union). The claimant informed the director that she would not join the
union. This resulted in her separation from work.
HELD: Under federal statutes, it is an unfair labor practice to compel a worker to join a union. It is not an unfair practice to
require a worker to pay dues or initiation fees (which may provide the basis for union benefits, even if the worker does not join the
union).
Here, the employer's requirement that the claimant join a union was contrary to federal law. Her leaving was with good cause
attributable to the employer. Benefits were allowed.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Voluntary Leaving/VL 475.75
DOCKET/DATE Pearson v. Board of Review, 551 N.E. 2d 1021 (1990)
AUTHORITY Section 601A of the Act
TITLE Union Relations
SUBTITLE Requirement to Pay Union Dues
CROSS-REFERENCE VL 160.05, Efforts to Retain Employment
The claimant's union dues were automatically deducted from her paycheck, until she was transferred, at a reduced wage, to another
job location. There, her paycheck reflected a wage reduction, but, under a different union local, dues were not automatically
deducted. For three months, the claimant was unaware of this and accumulated $80 in back dues. When she was informed, she
signed an authorization that directed the employer to "deduct membership dues from pay." She asked if the $80 in back dues, in
addition to future dues, would be deducted. She was told no; instead, she had to pay the $80 up front or lose her job. The claimant
had no money and was already heavily in debt. She refused her supervisor's offer of a loan because she knew she would be unable
to pay him back. So she lost her job. The Board of Review denied benefits, finding that the claimant failed to exhaust reasonable
means of remaining employed (e.g., borrowing from her supervisor).
HELD: Section 601A demands that the employer not be even one causal factor in the work separation. (Court's emphasis).
In light of this, whether a worker makes a reasonable effort to retain employment must be considered in light of what the employer
has or has not done.
Here, it was erroneous to consider the claimant's effort or lack of effort to retain employment (e.g,, not borrowing from her
supervisor) without also considering the employer's lack of effort. The employer failed to inform the claimant of the need for a
new authorization and failed to offer her an alternative payment plan, which would have been permissible according to the
language of the new authorization. In short, the reasonable means of repaying the debt and retaining employment were those that
the employer did not make available; therefore, it was not relevant what steps the claimant pursued.
Benefits were allowed.
