In most cases, it is an employer's express or implied promise of a tangible benefit that is viewed as objectionable conduct during a union election campaign. Normally, a union promise of benefits is not considered objectionable conduct since a union is not capable of delivering on a promise of benefit without the employer's acquiescence. Under those circumstances, it is the employer who will ultimately provide the benefit, not the union. However, in Go Ahead N. Am. LLC, the NLRB ruled this summer that a union local's promise that employees would not have to pay union dues that their former employer failed to deduct from their pay, improperly granted a benefit that interfered with an employee vote on decertifying the union. The dues issue began when the former employer failed to deduct and remit union dues as required by the collective bargaining agreement. The union sent the company an e-mail requesting an explanation, but took no other action to collect the dues and also did not inform the employees that it was waiving the delinquency. During a subsequent decertification campaign, the union promised that it would waive collection of the dues that the employer failed to deduct. In directing a second decertification vote, the Board found that the union's waiver of back dues was "an objectionable grant of a tangible benefit . . . that employees reasonably would infer that the purpose of the union's expressed willingness to forgive the obligation was to induce them to support the union."