Court Opinion

ID: 9606084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:46:37.547921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:32.472959
License: Public Domain

CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting.
I am still not convinced that Anderson v. General Dynamics Convair Aerospace Division, 589 F.2d 397 (9th Cir. 1978), or Burns v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 589 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1978), provide the proper legal resolution of the problem presented in the case at bar. To require factual inquiries as to what further accommodation can be made is to adopt a rule which requires undue litigation of a question that must, in the last analysis, be one of drawing a line between two statutes which prescribe conflicting, opposite goals. To cast the burden upon the employer and the union to demonstrate further their ability to give way to Wondzell’s demands is really a roundabout way of saying that the employee’s religious scruples must take precedence over the principle of the union shop which is deeply embedded in federal labor law. In light of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977), I do not believe that the employer and union were required to give way any more than they did.
Thus, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion on rehearing, and would affirm the judgment of the superior court.