Você está na página 1de 13

LABOR RELATIONS DIGESTS (2

nd
Meeting)
Topic: LLO VS UNION VS WORKERS
ASSOIATION
L! S"e#te ig!# !nd ig!#ette $!cto#%
&' Di#' o( BLR
$!ct):
La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory Provincial
(the Company) and Metro Manila Sales Force
Association (the local union) applied for and was
granted chapter status by the ational
Association of !rade "nions (A!")#
Sometime later$ %& local union members signed
a 'oint letter withdrawing their membership in
A!"#
!he local union and A!" filed a petition for
certification election which alleged that () of the
*+ sales personnel of the company were
members of the local union# !he petition is
supported by no less than ,-. of the sales
force#
Moreover$ there is no e/isting recogni0ed labor
union in the company representing the said
sales personnel# Li1ewise$ there is no e/isting
C2A and no certification election in the last &3
months preceding the filing of the petition#
!he company opposed on the ground that it was
not s uppo r t e d b y at l ea s t %+. ( now
3-.) of t he proposed bargaining unit
because4
(a) of the alleged () members of the l ocal
uni on$ %& had wi thdrawn pri or to the
f i l i ng of the pet i t i on$ and
(b)&( of the alleged members of the union
were not employees of the company but were
independent contractors# !he 2L5 (2ureau of
Labor 5elations) director denied the company6s
ob'ection
I))"e:
78 the withdrawal of %& union members from
A!" affected the peti ti on f or
cert i f i cat i on el ecti on (i nsof ar as the %+.
re9uirement is concerned)
*e+d:
:;S
!he SC reversed the decision of 2L5$ it
appearing that the %& union members
has wi t hdrawn thei r support to the
pet i t i on 2;F85; the f i l i ng of sai d
pet i t i on#
<t would be otherwise if the withdrawal was
made AF!;5 the filing of the petition for it would
then be presumed that the said withdrawal was
not free and voluntary (may be procured through
duress$ coercion or for valuable consideration)#
<n other words$ distinction must be made
whether the withdrawals were made before or
after filing of the petition# 2efore= presumed to
be voluntary# After=involuntary
5eason for distinction is that if the withdrawal
was made before filing of the petition$ the names
of employees supporting the petition are
supposed to be held secret to the opposite party#
Logically$ any such withdrawal or retraction
shows voluntariness in the absence of proof to
the contrary#
Moreover$ it becomes apparent that such
employees had not given consent to the filing of
the petition> hence the subscription re9uirement
has not been met#
SC held that &( members of the respondent
local union are dealers and independent
1 | P a g e
contractors$ thus they are not employees of the
Company#
7ith the withdrawal by %& members of their
support to the petition before the filing thereof$
ma1ing a total of (-$ the remainder of % out of ()
alleged to have supported the petition# Such
number can hardly be said to represent the
union#
M!ct!n Wo#,e#) Union & A-oiti.
$!ct)4
?efendant Cebu Shipyard @ ;ngineering 7or1s$
<nc# in Lapu lapu City is employing laborers and
employees belonging to two rival labor unions#
SeventyAtwo of these employees or laborers are
affiliated with the Mactan 7or1ers "nion while
the rest are members of the intervenor
Associated Labor "nion#
8n ovember 3)$ &B*($ the defendant Cebu
Shipyard @ ;ngineering 7or1s$ <nc# and the
Associated Labor "nion entered into a
CCollective 2argaining Agreement6 D the
pertinent part of which$ Article E<<< thereof$
Freads thusG4 CD
The [Company] agrees to give a profit-sharing
bonus to its employees and laborers, to be
payable in two (2) installments, the first
installment being payable in Marh and the
seond installment in !une, eah year out of the
profits in agreement"
#aid profit-sharing bonus shall be paid by the
[Company] to [$ssoiated %abor &nion] to be
delivered by the latter to the employees and
laborers onerned'
(f a laborer or employee of the [Company] does
not want to aept the profit-sharing bonus
whih the said employee or laborer is entitled
under this $greement, it shall be the duty of the
[$ssoiated %abor &nion] to return the money to
the [Company] within a period of si)ty (*+) days
from the reeipt by the [&nion] from the
[Company] of the said profit-sharing bonus"6H
?efendant Cebu Shipyard @ ;ngineering 7or1s$
<nc# delivered to the AL" for distribution to the
laborers or employees wor1ing with the
defendant corporation to the profitAsharing
bonus corresponding to the first installment for
the year &B*-# Again in Iune &B*- the defendant
corporation delivered to the Associated Labor
"nion the profitAsharing bonus corresponding to
the second installment for &B*-#
!he members of the Mactan 7or1ers "nion
failed to receive their shares in the second
installment of bonus because they did not li1e to
go to the office of the AL" to collect their shares#
<n accordance with the terms of the collective
bargaining after *+ days$ the uncollected shares
of the plaintiff union members was returned by
the AL" to the defendant corporation# Jence the
collection suit before the 5!C#
*e+d4
evertheless$ it is not to be forgotten that what
is entitled to constitutional protection is labor$ or
more specifically the wor1ing men and women$
not labor organi0ations#
!he latter are merely the instrumentalities
through which their welfare may be promoted
and fostered# !hat is the raison d,etre of labor
unions#
!he utmost care should be ta1en then$ lest in
displaying an unyielding$ intransigent attitude on
behalf of their members$ in'ustice be committed
against opposing labor organi0ations#
A))oci!ted Wo#,e#) Union /TWGO &' NLR
$!ct):
2 | P a g e
A7"$ the bargaining representative
of doc1wor1ers in South Jarbor filed a otice of
Stri1e against Metro$ the arrastre contractor in
South Jarbor$ due to unfilled vacancies and
union busting#
8ne of the A7"6s demands was that Metro must
terminate the employment of the && individual respondents
for having organi0ed Associated 7or1ers "nion
in Metroport (A7"M)$ a local chapter of A7"#
A7" had earlier e/pelled these && individual
respondents from their membership to A7" for
disloyalty and pursuant to closedAshop provision
of the e/isting A7"AMetro C2A$ sought
termination of employment# Metro initially
resisted#
;ventually$ Metro suspended the said &&
individual respondents as A7" staged a stri1e$
which conse9uently urged the respondents to
file a complaint against Metro#
Metro in turn made A7" a thirdAparty complaint
against A7"M#L5C ruled that the respondents
have the right to organi0e themselves into
a local chapter and it cannot be considered as
disloyalty finding that A7" is a national union$
hence$ their dismissal is illegal#
I))"e:
7hether or not A7"M may disaffiliate from
A7"#
*e+d:
o#
7hile it is true that A7"M is a local union and is
free to serve the interest of all of its members
and en'oys the freedom to disaffiliate$ such
disaffiliation may be e/ercised and is considered
protected labor activity only when permitted by
the following circumstances4
a)Made during the *+Aday freedom period
immediately preceding the e/piration of C2A#

b);ven before the onset of the freedom period
(and despite the closedAshop provision in the
C2A between the mother union and
management) but effected by ma'ority of the
members in the bargaining unit#
<n this case$ the respondents had not
disaffiliated during the freedom period and
respondents failed to meet the necessary
ma'ority of the members in the bargaining unit
as only && (the individual respondents) out of
3+++ A7" members voted for disaffiliation#
Jence$ the disaffiliation of A7"M from
A7" is not considered a protected labor activity#
Jowever$ it was held here that the respondents
were illegally dismissed due to failure in
affording them due process$ thus$ bac1 wages
were awarded to them
Vo+,)c0e+ L!-o# Union &' BLR
-isaffiliation of %abor &nion from a .ederation
$!ct):
Kol1schel Labor "nion was once affiliated with
Associated Labor "nion for Metal 7or1ers
(AL"M;!AL)#
2oth Kol1schel and Alumetal entered into a
C2A#
!hey agreed that AL"M;!AL will apply payroll
deductions twice a month on the members of the
"<8 as membership dues and other
feesLfines$ as may be duly authori0ed by the
"<8 A? <!S M;M2;5S# !hey called this
chec1Aoff authori0ation#
Subse9uently$ ma'ority of Kol1schel6s members
decided to disaffiliate from AL"M;!AL in order
to operate on its own as an independent labor
group$ pursuant to $rt" 2/0 of the %abor Code"1
Moreover$ the same want to revo1e their chec1A
off authori0ation in favour of AL"M;!AL
3 | P a g e
8n the other hand$ AL"M;!AL assailed that
the disaffiliation is contrary to law and the
members are still obliged to pay their dues#
I))"e):
Can a local union li1e Kol1schel disaffiliate from
its mother union li1e AL"M;!AL

Should the local union still pay union
membership dues even upon disaffiliation from
its mother unionM
*e+d:
:;S# A local union$ being a separate and
voluntary association$ is free to serve the
interest of all its members including the freedom
to disaffiliate# !his right is consistent with
constitutional guarantee of F5;;?8M 8F
ASS8C<A!<8# (Art# <K$ Sec# ,$ Phil#
Constitution)

8# !he obligation of an employee to pay union
dues is coterminous with his
affiliationLmembership#
*ART. 241 of the Labor Code
(numbent affiliates of e)isting federations or
national unions may disaffiliate only
for the purpose of 2oining a federation or national union
in the industry or region in whih is properly belongs or
for the purpose of operating as an
independent labor group.
M!+!%!ng S!1!0!n &' R!1o)
$!ct):
Petitioner MALA:AN SAMAJA
N MNA MANNANA7A SAM#
N5;;F<;L? (MSMN) had a union security
clause provision on their C2A with respondent
M# Nreenfield <nc#
MSMN was an affiliate of respondent "nited
Lumber and Neneral 7or1ers of the Philippines
("LN7P)#
MSMN held a general membership meeting#
Many did not attend# As such they were fined
with P-+ by the union# MSMN wrote to
respondent company saying that they
deduct the P-+ from the
employees6 salaries#
"LN7P opposed and wrote to
respondent company# !he company did not
deduct#
!he imposition of P-+ fine became the sub'ect
of bitter disagreement between the Federation
and the local union resulting to the latter6s
declaration of general autonomy
!he officials of "LN7P called a Special ational
;/ecutive 2oard Meeting where a 5esolution
was passed placing the MSMN
under trusteeship and appointing respondent
Cesar Clarete as administrator#
!he said administrator wrote the respondent
company informing the latter of a certain Alfredo
Oaling1ing as local unin president and
disauthori0ing the incumbent union officers from
representing the employees#
!his action by the national federation was
protested by the petitioners#
!he pet i t i oner uni on offi cers recei ved
i dent i cal l et ters f rom the admi ni strator
re9ui ri ng them to e/pl ai n wi thi n ,3 hours
why they shoul d not be removed f rom
thei r offi ce and e/pel l ed f rom uni on
membership#
"LN7P advised respondent company of the
e/pulsion of the %+ uni on offi cers
and demanded thei r separat i on
f rom empl oyment pursuant to the "ni on
Securi t y Cl ause#
!he c ompan y at f i r s t refused but later$
when the "LN7P declared a stri1e against
them$ they subse9uently agreed#
4 | P a g e
I))"e:
78 MSMN6s disaffiliation was an act of
disloyalty to "LN7P
*e+d:
8#
A l ocal uni on has the ri ght to di saffi l i ate
f rom i t s mother uni on or decl are
i ts autonomy#
A l ocal uni on$ bei ng a separate
and vol unt ary association$ is free to serve the
interests of all its members including the
freedom to disaffiliate or declare its autonomy
from the federation to which it belongs when
circumstances warrant$ in accordance with the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of
association#
!he purpose of affiliation by a local union with a
mother union or a federation is to increase by
collective action the bargaining power in respect
of the terms and conditions of labor#
:et the locals remain the basic units of
association$ free to serve their own and the
common interest of all$ sub'ect to the restraints
imposed by the Constitution and 2yALaws of the
Association$ and free also to renounce the
affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid
down in the agreement which brought it into
e/istence#
!hus$ a local union which has affiliated itself with
a federation is free to sever such affiliation
anytime and such disaffiliation cannot be
considered disloyalty#
<n the absence of specific provisions in the
federation6s constitution prohibiting disaffiliation
or the declaration of autonomy of a local union$
a local may dissociate with its parent union#
!he evi dence on hand does not show
that there i s such a provi si on i n "LN7PPs
constitution#
5espondentsP reliance upon Article K$ Section *$
of the f ederati onP s const i tuti on i s not
ri ght because sai d sect i on$ i n f act$
bolsters the petitioner unionPs claim of its right to
declare autonomy4
#e" *" The autonomy of a l oal uni on
aff i l i ated wi th &%345 shal l be respeted
insofar as it pertains to its internal affairs, e)ept
as provided elsewhere in this Constitution"
!here i s no di sl oyal ty to spea1 of $
nei ther i s there any vi ol at i on of the
federationPs constitution because there is
nothing in the said constitution
whi ch speci f i cal l y prohi bi t s di saffi l i ati on
or decl arati on of autonomy#
Jence$ there cannot be any valid dismissal
because Article <<$ Section ( of the union security
clause in the C2A limits the dismissal to only
three (%) grounds$ to wit4 failure to maintain
membership in the union (&) for nonApayment
of uni on dues$ (3) f or resi gnat i on> and
(%) f or vi ol at i on of the unionPs Constitution
and 2yALaws#
Topic: RE2UIREMENTS O$ REGISTRATION
Topic: RIG*TS AND ONDITIONS O$
MEMBERS*I/
Ve#ce+e) & BLR
$!ct):
Private respondents 5odel ?alupan$ et al#$ are
members of the "niversity of the ;ast
;mployees6 Association (";;A)# ;ach received
a Memorandum from the ";;A charging them
with spreading false rumors and creating
disinformation among the members of the said
association# they sent a letter to the Chairman
and Members of ";;A6s ?isciplinary
Committee$ informing them that the memo was
vague and without legal basis$ therefore$ no
5 | P a g e
intelligent answer may be made by them# !hey
li1ewise stated that any sanction that will be
imposed by the committee would be violative of
their right to due process#
!he ?isciplinary Committee issued another
Memo e/plaining that the collective reply letter
submitted earlier were not responsive to the first
Memo# Failure to properly reply would be
construed as an admission of the truthfulness
and veracity of the charges# 5espondents
issued a denial for the second time#
;rnesto Kerceles$ in his capacity as president of
the association$ through a Memorandum$
informed 5odel ?alupan$ et al#$ that their
membership in the association has been
suspended and shall ta1e effect immediately
upon receipt thereof# Kerceles said he was
acting upon the disciplinary committee6s finding
of a prima faie case against them#
A result of which$ a complaint for illegal
suspension was filed by the private respondents
before the ?epartment of Labor and
;mployment$ ational Capital 5egion(?8L;A
C5)# !he 5egional ?irector of the latter
rendered a decision adverse to the petitioners#
!he petitioners appealed to the 2L5A?8L;$ but
the same and the motion for reconsideration
were denied# 7hen appealed before the Court
of Appeals$ said petition was still denied due
course for lac1 of merit# Jence$ the petition is
now elevated to the Supreme Court by way of
petition for review on certiorari#
ISSUE:
7hether or not the assent of %+. of the
members of the union is re9uired to confer
'urisdiction upon the 2L5 or L5? in intraAunion
conflicts#
*ELD:
!he Court ruled in the negative# !he %+.
support re9uirement needed to report violations
of rights and conditions of union membership$ as
found in the last paragraph of Article 3(& of the
Labor Code$ is not mandatory# !he court
reiterated its pronouncements made in the case
of 5odrigue0 vs ?ir#$ 2L5$ as follows4
The assent of 6+7 of the union
members is not a fator in the
a8uisition of 2urisdition by the 9ureau
of %abor :elations is furnished by $rtile
22* of the same %abor Code, whih
grants original and e)lusive 2urisdition
to the 9ureau, and the %abor :elations
-ivision in the :egional ;ffies of the
-epartment of %abor, over <all inter-
union and intra-union onflits, and all
disputes, grievanes or problems arising
from or affeting labor management
relations,< ma=ing no referene
whatsoever to any suh6+7-support
re8uirement" (ndeed, the offiials
mentioned are given the power to at
<on all inter-union and intra-union
onflits (0) <upon re8uest of either or
both parties< as well as (2) <at their own
initiative"
W0en t0e &io+!tion di#ect+% !((ect) on+% one
o# t3o 1e1-e#)4 t0en on+% one o# t3o
1e1-e#) 3o"+d -e eno"g0 to #epo#t )"c0
&io+!tion'
AMALGAMATED LABORERS5 ASSOIATION
& IR
Amalgamated LaborersP Association lodged a
complaint in the Court of <ndustrial 5elations
(C<5)$ for unfair labor practices of the <ndustrial
Peace Act$ against former employer and
respodents$ 2inalbagan Sugar Central
Company$ <nc# (2iscom)$
2<scom answered in counterclaim#
At the hearings$ only &+ (3regular @ ) seasonal
wor1ers) of the () complainant laborers
appeared and testified# C<5 rendered 'udgment$
that the &+ employees be reinstated#
6 | P a g e
"pon the &+ complainantsP motion to determine
the actual money due them$ Chief e/aminer of
C<5 reported the amount of P,B$,--#33#
<n the interim$ Atty# Leonardo C# Fernande0 (a
respondent herein) filed in the same case Q
C<5 Q a Rotice of AttorneyPs Lien#R Je alleged
therein that he had been the attorney of record
for the laborers and that the laborers have
voluntarily agreed to give his attorneyPs fees on
a contingent basis 9uivalent to 3-. # Atty#
Fernande0 alleged that the original agreement
was %+.$ but upon pleadings of Arsenio 5eyes$
"nion President$ he finally agreed that his
attorneyPs fees be reduced to only !wentyAFive
Per Cent (3-.)
Atty# Iose "r# Carbonell (a petitioner herein) filed
in court a R?ischargeR informing C<5 of the
discharge$ release and dismissal Q of Atty#
Leonardo C# Fernande0 as one of the lawyers of
the complainants#
Atty# Fernande0 replied# Je averred that the
grounds for his discharge were Rmalicious and
motivated by greed and ungratefulnessR and that
the un'ustifiable discharge did not affect the
already stipulated contract for attorneysP fees#
C<5 resolved 2iscomPs and complainantsP
motions for reconsideration ob'ecting to the
Chief ;/aminerPs 5eport$ and also respondent
Fernande0P Amended otice of AttorneyPs Lien#
2iscom complied with the order of deposit#
Atty# Carbonell filed M5 on grounds that C<5
has no 'urisdiction and 3-. award as attorneysP
fees of Atty# Fernande0 is e/cessive$ unfair and
illegal# M5 was denied and cashier of the court
was ordered to disburse to Fernande0 the
amount of P&B$B%)#)& representing attorneysP
fees and deducting therefrom all legal fees
incident to such deposit#
Petitioners herein$ Atty# Carbonell$
Amalgamated LaborersP Association$ and the ten
employees$ appealed from the resolution of C<5$
direct to this Court#
ISSUE:
&# 78 C<5 is bereft of authority to
ad'udicate contractual disputes over
attorneysP fees as it is not a labor
dispute#
3# 78 the verbal agreement relating to
payment of attorney6s fee is validM
*ELD:
&# !he case is within C<5Ps 'urisdiction# <t
has been held that Ronce the Court of
<ndustrial 5elations has ac9uired
'urisdiction over a case under the law of
its creation$ it retains that 'urisdiction
until the case is completely decided$
including all the incidents related
thereto#R
!o direct that the present dispute be
lodged in another court as petitioners advocate
would only result in multiplicity of suits# !he
application to fi/ the attorneysP fees is made
before the court which renders the 'udgment#
3# !he parties herein 'oin hands in one
point A the ten (&+) successful
complainants in C#<#5 Case should pay
as attorneysP fees %+. of the amount
ad'udicated by the court in the latterPs
favor (P,B$,--#33)#
Atty# Fernande0 e/hibited a contract before the
() employees have even filed their complaint in
C<5# !he stipulated fee is %+. of whatever
amount the &+ might recover shall be divided
e9ually (Rshare and share ali1eR) amongst Atty#
Carbonell$ Atty# Fernande0 and the union
president# <t was signed only by ) of the &+
winning claimants# 7hat happened to the
othersM 7hy did not the union intervene in
the signing of this contractM Petitioners dispute
said contract# !hey say that Atty# Fernande0
re9uired the&+ to sign the contract only after the
receipt of the decision#
!he court stri1es down the alleged oral
agreement that the union president should share
in the attorneysP fees# !he union president is
7 | P a g e
not the attorney for the laborers# Je may see1
compensation only as such president# An
agreement whereby a union president is allowed
to share in attorneysP fees is immoral# Such a
contract we emphatically re'ect# <t cannot be
'ustified#
A contingent fee must be reasonable$ but the
stipulated %+. attorneysP fee is e/cessive and
unconscionable# !he &+ complainants
are mere laborers@ may have not reached an
educational attainment comparable to that of
petitioner Carbonell or respondent Fernande0
who$ on the other hand$ are lawyers# 2ecause of
the ine9uality of the situation between laborers
and lawyers$ courts should go slow in awarding
huge sums by way of attorneysP fees based
solely on contracts# For$ as in the present case$
the real ob'ective of the C<5 'udgment is to
benefit the complaint laborers who were
un'ustifiedly dismissed from the service#
Topic: RIG*TS O$ LLO
L! !#+ot! S"g!# ent#!+ & IR
!he main thrust in this Appeal by Certiorari
against the then e/isting C<5 is its alleged lac1
of 'urisdiction over money claims for overtime
services on Sundays and legal holidays by
employees still forming part of the labor force of
petitioner firm$ La Carlota Sugar Central#
ISSUE:
&# 78 ordinary 'udicial tribunals or
respondent Court has competence to
pass upon the matterM
3# 78 there was lac1 of procedural
processM
%# 78 in'ured parties of the union must
file charges as individualsM
*ELD:
&# 5espondent Court was vested with the
re9uisite power# As a matter of fact$ this very
petition yielded the impression that its stand was
not too strongly entrenched in law# For there
were indications even then that respondent
Court was the proper agency to decide such
issue#
this Court$ affirmed the underlying principle to be
Sthat where the employer employee relationship
is still e/isting or is sought to be reestablished
because of its wrongful severance (as where the
employees see1s reinstatement)$ the C<5 has
'urisdiction over all claims arising out of$ or in
connection with employment$ such as those
related to the Minimum 7age Law and the
;ightAJour Labor Law# After the termination of
the relationship and no reinstatement is sought$
such claims become mere money claims$ and
come within the 'urisdiction of the regular
courts#H
3# !he court disagreed# <n the main resolution
challenged$ respondent Court after stating that a
previous order was already final and e/ecutory
ruled that the employees named in the
;/aminer6s 5eport were entitled to the additional
compensation#
Further4 S!he contention of the respondent that
the overtime pay due the petitioners are already
included in their salary as agreed upon by them
is without foundation for any agreement to waive
one6s overtime pay is null and void as the same
is contrary to law#H
<t was therein li1ewise stated4 SConcerning the
last issue$ the Court believes that the wor1ers
are entitled to the amount paid to them during
the entire period stated in the report# Concerning
the period prior to &B-* it appears that there are
no records e/isting in the company for such
periods# <t$ therefore$ behooves on the
petitioning "nion to prove by secondary
evidence the matter of services rendered on
Sundays and legal holidays so as to enable the
Court on the basis of such evidence to
determine and compute the additional
compensation in favor of the petitioners#H
8 | P a g e
%# Petitioner firm alleged that only respondent
ational Sugar 7or1ers "nion and respondent
Iose Killanueva were named as parties# <t is its
contention then that those employees whose
statutory rights for overtime pay as found in the
challenged orders were not respected had to file
the action as individuals# !his is not correct#
<n Liberty Manufacturing 7or1ers "nion vs# CF<$
this Court reiterated the view that a labor union
has the re9uisite personality to sue on behalf of
its members for their individual money claims# <t
would be an unwarranted impairment of the right
to selfAorgani0ation through formation of labor
associations if thereafter such collective entities
would be barred from instituting action in their
representative capacity# 5ight to self
organi0ation is respected under the Constitution
and may enter into C2As#
8nce such a collective contract is entered into$
its benefits e/tend to all the laborers and
employees in the collective bargaining unit# !hat
would include those who do not belong to the
labor organi0ation that was chosen to represent
the employees#
GOLDEN DONUTS IN' & NLR
$ATS: Private respondents were the
complainants in three consolidated cases
submitted with the Labor Arbiter#
Complainants were members of the Oapisanan
ng Manggagawa sa ?un1in ?onut (OM??A
CF7) whose C2A with the corporation e/pired#
the management representative$ and the
President of the "nion$ both panels were able to
agree on the rules regarding the negotiation$
including the time$ date and number of days the
panels had to meet#
?uring the negotiations$ the management panel
arrived late causing the union panel to wal1 out#
!he management addressed a letter of apology
to the union and re9uested for negotiations to
resume# !he union panel did not show up
despite letters from management advising the
former of the C2A meetings# !he union struc1# A
compliant was filed by Nolden ?onuts to declare
the stri1e illegal#
Counsel for the union and stri1ers pleaded for a
compromise whereupon both parties would
desist from continuing their cases against each
other# !he Labor Arbiter rendered a decision
upholding the dismissal of private respondents
and ruling that they were bound by the
compromise agreement entered into by the
union with petitioners# Private respondents
appealed to the L5C$ claiming that the union
had no authority to waive or compromise their
individual rights and they were not bound by the
compromise agreement entered into by the
union with petitioners#
ISSUE: 7hether or not a union may
compromise or waive the right to security of
tenure and money claims of its minority
members$ without the latter6s consent#
*ELD: o# Absent a showing of the union6s
special authority to compromise the individual
claims of private respondents for reinstatement
and bac1wages$ there is no valid waiver of the
aforesaid rights# !he 'udgment of the Labor
Arbiter based on the compromise agreement
does not have the effect of res 'udicata upon
private respondents who did not agree thereto
since the re9uirement of identity of parties is not
satisfied# A 'udgment upon a compromise
agreement has all the force and effect of any
other 'udgment and is conclusive only upon
parties thereto and their privies# private
respondents are not bound by the compromise
agreement entered into by the union without
their consent# !hey have not waived their right to
security of tenure nor can they be barred from
entitlement of their individual claims# Since there
was no evidence that private respondents
committed any illegal act$ petitioner6s failure to
reinstate them after the settlement of the stri1e
amounts to illegal dismissal#
9 | P a g e
ME6S*URN OR/ORATION AND SAMM7
*OU4 vs#
ME6S*URN WORKERS UNION
$!ct):
8n Iune ,$ &BB)$ the regular ran1 and file
employees of MeAShurn Corporation organi0ed
MeAShurn 7or1ers "nionAFSM$ an affiliate of the
February Si/ Movement (FSM)#

5espondent
union had a pending application for registration
with the 2ureau of Labor 5elations (2L5)
through a letter dated Iune &&$ &BB)#
!en days later$ or on Iune &,$ &BB)$ petitioner
corporation started placing on forced leave all
the ran1 and file employees who were members
of the union6s bargaining unit
8n Iune 3%$ &BB)$ respondent union filed a
Petition for Certification ;lection with the MedA
Arbitration "nit of the ?8L;$ 5egional 8ffice o#
%#
<nstead of filing an answer to the Petition$ the
corporation filed on Iuly 3,$ &BB)$ a comment
stating that it would temporarily lay off
employees and cease operations$ on account of
its alleged inability to meet the e/port 9uota
re9uired by the 2oard of <nvestment#
?8L; "ndersecretary granted the union6s
appeal and ordered the holding of a certification
election among the ran1 and file employees of
the corporation#
Chou Fang Ouen alias Sammy Chou allegedly
re9uired the remaining union officers to sign an
Agreement containing a guarantee that upon
their return to wor1$ no union or labor
organi0ation would be organi0ed# <nstead$ the
union officers were to serve as mediators
between labor and management#

After the
signing of the Agreement$ the operations of the
corporation resumed in September &BB)#
5espondents charged petitioner corporation with
unfair labor practice$ illegal dismissal$
underpayment of wages and deficiency in
separation pay$ for which they prayed for
damages and attorney6s fees#
Petitioner corporation 9uestioned the legality of
the representation of respondent union#
Allegedly$ it was not the latter$ but the MeAShurn
<ndependent ;mployees6 "nion AA with
Christopher Malit as president AA that was
recogni0ed as the e/isting e/clusive bargaining
agent of the ran1 and file employees and as the
one that had concluded a Collective 2argaining
Agreement (C2A) with the corporation on May
&B$ &BBB#
I))"e:
7hether respondents can maintain a suit
against petitioners
*e+d:
either are we prepared to believe petitioners6
argument that respondent union was not
legitimate# <t should be pointed out that on Iune
3B$ &BB)$ it filed a Petition for Certification
;lection# 7hile this Petition was initially
dismissed by the medAarbiter on the basis of a
supposed retraction$ note that the appeal was
granted and that "ndersecretary ?imapilisA
2aldo0 ordered the holding of a certification
election#
!he ?8L; would not have entertained the
Petition if the union were not a legitimate labor
organi0ation within the meaning of the Labor
Code# "nder this Code$ in an unorgani0ed
establishment$ only a legitimate union may file a
petition for certification election#
Kerily$ the union has the re9uisite personality to
sue in its own name in order to challenge the
unfair labor practice committed by petitioners
against it and its members# R<t would be an
unwarranted impairment of the right to selfA
organi0ation through formation of labor
associations if thereafter such collective entities
would be barred from instituting action in their
representative capacity#R
10 | P a g e
<n view of the discriminatory acts committed by
petitioners of granting their immediate of
e/clusive recognition to another union as a
bargaining agent despite the pending Petition for
certification election AAthe results of that election
cannot be said to constitute a repudiation by the
affected employees of the union6s right to
represent them in the present case#
Topic: GROUNDS $OR ANELLATION O$
UNION REGISTRATION
ALLIANE O$ DEMORATI LABOR
ORGANI8ATION VS LAGUESMA
8n +3 March &B))$ the Alliance of ?emocratic
Free Labor 8rgani0ation (A?FL8) filed an
application for registration as a national
federation alleging$ among others that it has
twelve (&3) affiliates$ namely4
8n &- February &B)B$ the Confederation of
Labor and Allied Social Services (CLASS) filed a
petition for the cancellation of the 5egistration
Certificate issued to A?FL8#
Petitioner CLASSA!"CP$ in its Memorandum
dated 3* Iuly &B)B$ alleged that the documents
submitted by A?FL8 were simulated#
Petitioner CLASSA!"CP$ further averred that the
nine (B) resolutions of affiliation all dated *
?ecember &B), do not bear the signatures of
the members of the 2oard of ?irectors and have
not been ratified by the general membership of
each of the nine (B) unions as re9uired by Article
<K$ Section % of the Constitution and 2yAlaws of
A?FL8#
A?FL8 filed a Motion to <nhibit the 2ureau
?irector from hearing and deciding the case on
the ground that the ?irector pre'udged the
instant petition when she verbally declared that
the federation obtained its certificate of
registration through Rfraud and
misrepresentation> that the recommendation to
hold in abeyance the election at Allen Arthur$
<nc#$ was based only on her unilateral finding of
a prima faie case> that she has shown personal
interest in this petition when she made personal
calls to all locals and affiliates without notice to
the respondent$ A?FL8R#
8n ovember &*$ &BB+$ the 2ureau of Labor
5elations (2L5)$ through ?irector Pura FerrerA
Calle'a$ rendered a ?ecision cancelling the
registration of A?FL8#
I))"e:
7as the decision cancelling the registration of
petitioner rendered in violation of the due
process clauseM
*e+d:
After petitioner submitted its ob'ections to the
admission of the documentary evidence of
CLASS$ the 2L5 director should have first ruled
on their admissibility# Jowever$ without ruling on
said offer and without setting the case for
reception of petitionerPs evidence$ the said
official proceeded to render 'udgment affirming
its earlier (but already ruled as improper)
decision to cancel the registration of A?FL8#
!his is a gross violation of petitionerPs right to
due process#
!he cancellation of a certificate of registration is
the e9uivalent of snuffing out the life of a labor
organi0ation# For without such registration$ it
loses Q as a rule Q its rights under the Labor
Code# "nder the circumstances$ petitioner was
indisputably entitled to be heard before a
'udgment could be rendered cancelling its
certificate of registration#
/ROGRESIVE DEVELO/MENT VS' SE O$
LABOR
$ATS:
5espondent Pambansang Paggawa (O<L"SA)A
!"CP filed with the ?8L; a petition for
certification election among the ran1AandA file
employees of the petitioner alleging that it is a
11 | P a g e
legitimate labor federation and its local chapter$
Progressive ?evelopment ;mployees "nion$
was issued charter certificate o# B+A*A&A&-%#

Oilusan claimed that there was no e/isting
collective bargaining agreement and that no
other legitimate labor organi0ation e/isted in the
bargaining unit#

Petitioner P?C filed its motion to dismiss dated
Iuly &&$ &BB+ contending that the local union
failed to comply with the rules as provided for
under the Labor code#

5espondent Oilusan submitted a re'oinder to
P?C6s motion to dismiss claiming that it had
submitted the necessary documentary
re9uirements for registration#

Oilusan further averred that no boo1s of
accounts could be submitted as the local union
was recently organi0ed#

8n its supplemental Position Paper P?C
insisted that upon verification with the 2L5$ it
found that the alleged minutes of the
organi0ational meeting was unauthenticated$ the
list of members as well as the constitution and
byAlaws did not bear the signatures of the
purported members and the same was not duly
subscribed as re9uired#

Additionally$ it prayed that MedAArbiter ;dgardo
dela Cru0 inhibit himself from handling the case
for the reason that he allegedly had pre'udged
the same#

MedAArbiter dela Cru0 held that there was
substantial compliance with the re9uirements for
the formation of the chapter#

Je further stated that mere issuance of the
charter certificate by the federation was
sufficient compliance with the rules# Considering
that the establishment was unorgani0ed$ he
maintained that a certification election should be
conducted to resolve the 9uestion of
representation#

P?C filed a motion for reconsideration$ but the
motion was treated as an appeal before the
secretary of the ?8L;$ who eventually denied
the same#

P?C filed a petition see1ing for !58 which was
granted by the court which en'oined public
respondents from carrying out the assailed
resolutions and orders of from proceeding with
the certification election#
ISSUE:
78 private respondents failed to substantially
comply with the registration re9uirements
provided by the rules in the labor code#
*ELD:
:;S#
!he provisions governing union affiliation are
found in 5ule <<$ Section %$ 2oo1 K of the
<mplementing 5ules$ the relevant portions of
which are cited below4
Sec# %# &nion affiliation> diret membership with
national union# Q An affiliate of a labor
federation or national union may be a local or
chapter thereof or an independently registered
union#
a) !he labor federation or national union
concerned shall issue a charter certificate
indicating the creation or establishment of a
local or chapter$ copy of which shall be
submitted to the 2ureau of Labor 5elations
within thirty (%+) days from issuance of such
charter certificate#
b) An independently registered union shall be
considered an affiliate of a labor federation or
national union after submission to the 2ureau of
the contract or agreement of affiliation within
thirty (%+) days after its e/ecution#
e) !he local or chapter of a labor federation or
national union shall have and maintain a
12 | P a g e
constitution and by laws$ set of officers and
boo1s and accounts# For reporting purposes$ the
procedure governing the reporting of
independently registered unions$ federations or
national unions shall be observed#
<n the case at bar$ the constitution and byAlaws
and list of officers submitted in the 2L5$ while
attested to by the chapterPs president$ were not
certified under oath by the secretary# !he
certification and attestation re9uirements are
preventive measures against the commission of
fraud#
A local or chapter therefore becomes a
legitimate labor organi0ation only upon
submission of the following to the 2L54
&) A charter certificate$ within %+ days from its
issuance by the labor federation or national
union$ and
3) !he constitution and byAlaws$ a statement on
the set of officers$ and the boo1s of accounts all
of which are certified under oath by the
secretary or treasurer$ as the case may be$ of
such local or chapter$ and attested to by its
president#
Absent compliance with these mandatory
re9uirements$ the local or chapter does not
become a legitimate labor organi0ation#
Petition granted$ the assailed resolution and
orders of respondent MedAarbiter and Sec# of
?8L;$ respectively$ are hereby set aside#
<n the case at bar$ the failure of the secretary of
P?;"AOilusan to certify the re9uired documents
under oath is fatal to its ac9uisition of a
legitimate status#
13 | P a g e

Você também pode gostar