dissenting.
I dissent from Part III of the court’s opinion upholding the ALRA determination that the University’s failure to hire Arthur Petersen for the summer of 1979 was not an unfair labor practice. On this issue I would *1310remand for factual findings under AS 23.-40.110(a)(1).
It is clear from the record that the University of Alaska weighed Petersen’s role as a union negotiator as an important factor in evaluating his application for summer employment.1 Correspondence between University administrators and Petersen establishes this fact. For example, the Chancellor of the University of Alaska, Juneau stated the following in a letter to Peterson:
Since you are a member of the negotiating team, [the Director of Arts and Sciences] feels that he cannot depend on your presence on campus during the course of the summer session. The students deserve to have not only the best qualified person but also one who will be here consistently and uninterruptedly during the duration of the offering of the class.
The University of Alaska contends, and the majority agrees, that this factor was considered only to the extent that Petersen’s status as negotiator would cause frequent absences from Juneau during the summer session.
It is self-evident that all collective bargaining activity consumes time and energy. Employees who rise to the level of central participation in union affairs, such as a union negotiator, are unusually vulnerable to management action based upon the premise that the employee's ability to do his job is compromised by the “mere fact” of dual demands on his time. In the face of such an explanation, which will always be plausible, it is unduly burdensome to require that the aggrieved employee prove the existence of a subjective antiunion animus on the part of the employer. Rather, it should rest upon the employer to show that sound business reasons provided an independent basis for its action.
The United States Supreme Court has recently held that some employer conduct is so inherently destructive of collective bargaining rights that “it carries with it a strong inference of impermissible motive ... even if an employer comes forward with a nondiscriminatory explanation for its actions.” Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB, - U.S. -,-, 103 S.Ct. 1467, 1474, 75 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983). There the Supreme Court also said that:
On the other hand, if the adverse effect of the discriminatory conduct on employee rights is “ ‘comparatively slight,’ an antiunion motivation must be proved to sustain the charge if the employer has come forward with evidence of legitimate and substantial business justifications for the conduct.”
- U.S. at -, 103 S.Ct. at 1474, quoting NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, 34, 87 S.Ct. 1792, 1797, 18 L.Ed.2d 1027, 1035 (1967). In cases of implied antiunion animus the Supreme Court held that the employer’s business justification should be balanced against the invasion of collective bargaining rights. Id. See also Great Dane Trailers, 388 U.S. at 33-34, 87 S.Ct. at 1797, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1034-35; NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 287, 85 S.Ct. 980, 985, 13 L.Ed.2d 839, 846-47 (1965).2
*1311In my view the failure of the University to hire Petersen for the summer 1979 term was an action which carried serious implications for Petersen. To the extent that the denial was explained in terms of Petersen’s conflicting obligations to the union, its tendency to discourage union activity was compounded. In the spectrum of employer actions described in Metropolitan Edison, I would not view the adverse impact upon Petersen’s collective bargaining rights as “comparatively slight.” Rather, I consider the denial of employment as the type of decision which is “inherently destructive of protected employee rights.” In such an instance a federal court would not reject Petersen’s claim, as the majority has done, for his failure to show actual antiunion bias.3
AS 23.40.110(a)(1) provides that “a public employer or his agent may not .. . interfere ... or coerce an employee in the exercise of his [collective bargaining] rights.” Because I view the action taken in this case as coercive, I would order a remand placing the burden upon the University to show that an independent business justification existed for its decision not to hire Petersen, and that this decision would have been taken irrespective of Petersen’s activities as a union negotiator. See NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2469, 76 L.Ed.2d 667 (1983).
. The ALRA found that Petersen’s union activity was not a factor in the University's decision to deny him summer employment. Given the documentary evidence to the contrary, this finding is not supported by substantial evidence on the whole record. See City of Fairbanks, v. Alaska P.U.C., 611 P.2d 493, 495 (Alaska 1980).
. See Gorman, Labor Law at 133 (1979):
In effect, section 8(a)(1) could be rewritten as follows: It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to take action which, regardless of the absence of antiunion bias, tends to interfere with, restrain, or coerce a reasonable employee in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7, provided the action lacks a legitimate and substantial justification such as plant safety, efficiency or discipline. Thus construed, section 8(a)(1) requires that the Board strike a balance between the interests of the employer — which are not specifically accorded weight in the statute but which Congress surely intended be considered in administering a statute designed to further industrial peace and efficiency — and the interests of the employees in a free decision concerning their collective bargaining activities.
Gorman notes that the test for “coercion” is objective. It is not necessary for the employee to show actual coercion, or employer intent to coerce. “[I]t is sufficient if the General Coun*1311sel can show that the employer’s actions would tend to coerce a reasonable employee.” Id. at 132-33.
. See also NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., -U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2469, 76 L.Ed.2d 667 (June 15, 1983) where the Court upheld the NLRB rule that, under § 8(a)(1), once the employee has shown that his protected conduct “was a substantial or motivating factor” in the adverse action, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show “by a preponderance of the evidence that the [adverse action] rested upon the employee’s unprotected conduct as well and that the employee would have lost his job in any event.” Id. at -, 103 S.Ct. at 2473.