Court Opinion

ID: 9552957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:19:36.614204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:25.462087
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(dissenting) — Assuming the majority is correct in its reading of RCW 41.56.122, i.e., that the statute by its terms does not apply to one who holds religious beliefs which are not part of the teachings of a church or religious body, the majority opinion ignores some fundamental problems on its way to dismissing rather cavalierly plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed below, I dissent.
As the majority correctly notes, in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209, 52 L. Ed. 2d 261, 97 S. Ct. 1782 (1977), the United States Supreme Court upheld union security provisions in collective bargaining agreements in public sector employment. The court concluded that such provisions do not violate the right of freedom of association under the first amendment to the United States Constitution, so long as membership in the union is not required and so long as the fee paid to the union is limited to payment for services rendered in the collective negotiations process. The court went on to discuss the policy reasons underlying the legislative determination to allow union security clauses, and these reasons are set out in detail on pages 459-60 of the majority opinion. Moreover, I agree that our decision in Association of Capitol Powerhouse Eng'rs v. State, 89 Wn.2d 177, 570 P.2d 1042 (1977), clearly upholds in general terms the agency shop provisions of the State Civil Service law, basing its analysis on the Supreme *463Court's decision in Abood.
My basic disagreement is with the majority's assertion that this case is "squarely within the rule" of Abood. Majority opinion, at 459. The majority neglects to note a compelling difference between this case and the facts which faced both the Supreme Court in Abood and this court in Powerhouse Engineers: namely, the legislatively enacted statutory exemption from the agency shop provisions contained in RCW 41.56.122. That statute reads in relevant part:
A collective bargaining agreement may:
(1) Contain union security provisions: Provided, That nothing in this section shall authorize a closed shop provision: Provided further, That agreements involving union security provisions must safeguard the right of nonassociation of public employees based on bona fide religious tenets or teachings of a church or religious body of which such public employee is a member. Such public employee shall pay an amount of money equivalent to regular union dues and initiation fee to a nonreligious charity or to another charitable organization mutually agreed upon by the public employee affected and the bargaining representative to which such public employee would otherwise pay the dues and initiation fee. . . .
(Italics mine.) RCW 41.56.122(1).
The problem facing this court is not whether union security clauses may be validly enacted pursuant to a legislative authority, as in Abood and Powerhouse Engineers, but rather whether the legislature may grant a statutory exemption based on religious beliefs, and distinguish between the religious beliefs of those who are affiliated with religious organizations and those who are not. The majority opinion wholly fails to recognize this problem.
The clause at issue in RCW 41.56.122(1) appears to be our legislature's response to the requirement articulated in some federal cases that an employer must make reasonable accommodation to the religious beliefs of employees. Yott v. North Am. Rockwell Corp., 501 F.2d 398, 403 (9th Cir. *4641974); Anderson v. General Dynamics Convair Aerospace Div., 589 F.2d 397, 400 (9th Cir. 1978); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (1977); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j) (1977). In previous cases brought under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, courts have drawn a line in favor of employees when employment practices affect the actual abilities of employees to observe their religions. For example, the Supreme Court has refused to sanction a state's denial of unemployment compensation to Seventh-Day Adventists who refused all Saturday employment. The court reasoned that requiring such persons to accept Saturday employment as a condition of receiving state benefits interfered directly with the exercise of a traditional and long established teaching of the church. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 10 L. Ed. 2d 965, 83 S. Ct. 1790 (1963).
The question in more recent federal cases in the labor relations area has often been either whether the employer has made a reasonable accommodation to religious beliefs, or whether whatever First Amendment interests are present must give way to superior interests of the employer, the union, and, in the area of public employment, the state. See, e.g., Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 77, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113, 97 S. Ct. 2264 (1977). In upholding the discharge of an employee who, like plaintiff herein, asserted a right of nonassociation on religious grounds, one court has explained:
The First Amendment commands us to be vigilant in protecting the free exercise of religion, but religious conscience cannot be a superordinating factor in every situation. The hand of government is not to be stayed where a compelling governmental interest outweighs the infringement upon First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has repeatedly taught us that the First Amendment's protection of religious conscience is not absolute when a religious opinion is translated into an act or a refusal to act.
(Italics mine.) Gray v. Gulf, Mobile & O. R.R., 429 F.2d 1064, 1072 (5th Cir. 1970). See also Yott v. North Am. Rockwell Corp., 602 F.2d 904 (9th Cir. 1979); Linscott v. *465Millers Falls Co., 440 F.2d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 1971). Other courts have been more skeptical of the hardships claimed by an employer or union as a result of some employees' failure to pay union dues or assessments under a union security clause. These courts have remanded the actions for more adequate proof of the alleged hardships before deciding whether there has been a "reasonable accommodation." Anderson, at 400; Burns v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 589 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072, 59 L. Ed. 2d 38, 99 S. Ct. 843 (1979).
The present case differs from the cases cited above, however, since plaintiff does not contend merely that the free exercise of his religion has been impaired. Rather, he sees the statutory proviso contained in RCW 41.56.122(1) as an expression of a broad legislative purpose to facilitate the free exercise of religion and argues merely that the State may not distinguish between religious principles held by organized groups and personal religious principles by individuals unaffiliated with organized groups. Plaintiff argues that the proviso violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by favoring one type of religious belief over another. Further, he argues that proper equal protection analysis requires the court to scrutinize strictly the statute where, as here, a fundamental right, religion, is at stake. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 22 L. Ed. 2d 600, 89 S. Ct. 1322 (1969). In such a case, the court must determine if a state has a compelling interest in infringing on the fundamental right at stake. State v. Meacham, 93 Wn.2d 735, 740, 612 P.2d 795 (1980); Yakima County Deputy Sheriffs Ass'n v. Board of Comm'rs, 92 Wn.2d 831, 834-35, 601 P.2d 936 (1979). Plaintiff concludes that the state interest in labor peace, which underlies the provision for union security clauses, is insufficiently compelling to justify the legislative choice that favors only the beliefs of established religious groups for exemption from union assessments.
I find it unnecessary to analyze the case in these terms, however, in light of the United States Supreme Court's *466recent decision in Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 67 L. Ed. 2d 624, 101 S. Ct. 1425 (1981), a case which the majority wholly fails to understand. The majority asserts that the present case is factually distinguishable from Thomas, which involves a person whose religious beliefs diverged from the known dogma of the religious organization in which he held a membership. The majority concludes that Thomas' personal religious beliefs are somehow qualitatively different, for purposes of analysis, from the merely personal religious beliefs held by plaintiff. Although the opinion goes on to say that it does not matter which way Thomas is read in this regard, according to the majority, the reason it does not matter is that the case is ruled by Abood. As I have demonstrated, Abood is simply not controlling in a case such as this, where the legislature has provided a statutory exemption on religious grounds to public employees covered by a union security clause. RCW 41.56.122(1).
In Thomas, the Supreme Court upheld Thomas' refusal to make tank turrets because such work conflicted with his personal religious beliefs. The court explained:
We see, therefore, that Thomas drew a line, and it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one. Courts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs because the believer admits that he is "struggling" with his position or because his beliefs are not articulated with the clarity and precision that a more sophisticated person might employ.
Thomas, at 715. The court elaborated:
[T]he guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect. Particularly in this sensitive area, it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or his fellow worker more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.
(Italics mine.) Thomas, at 715-16.
*467I have trouble understanding how, under Thomas, this court can hold that the statutory proviso at issue here may be applied to members of a religious group, no matter what the content of their religious beliefs, and yet not apply to persons who hold religious beliefs but who are not so affiliated. In my view, this is a distinction without a difference. Is it logical in this case to deny plaintiff's request for relief because he is not affiliated with a church, yet grant him relief if he merely rejoins his Methodist Church? Apparently, the majority would permit plaintiff to maintain his personal religious beliefs without adopting the tenets of the Methodist Church and would grant him relief due to his church membership. This places an undue premium on church membership rather than focusing on sincerely held religious beliefs. The court in Thomas has made it unmistakably plain that courts cannot inquire into the quality of religious beliefs, other than to make an initial determination that such beliefs are sincerely held. See United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733, 85 S. Ct. 850 (1965); Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 26 L. Ed. 2d 308, 90 S. Ct. 1792 (1979). Although it may be true that the burden on plaintiff's exercise of his religion is much less coercive and important than the burden on Thomas, who was penalized for his religious beliefs by being declared ineligible for employment benefits, the basic analysis remains the same. If a person's beliefs are sincerely perceived as components of his or her religion, the state may not impose burdens on the exercise of those beliefs by labeling them "personal". Thomas, at 634.
Although I am in considerable sympathy with the majority's viewpoint and further agree that the consequence of my conclusion is that the proviso may thwart the legislature's desire to maintain labor peace in the public sector through union security clauses, I am of the opinion that the United States Supreme Court gives this court no alternative but to hold that the proviso must apply to all religious beliefs, regardless of whether those professing them are *468members of organized religious groups or are merely individuals whose personal beliefs serve the same function as deeply held religious values.
Stafford, Utter, and Hicks, JJ., concur with Williams, J.
Reconsideration denied December 8, 1981.