Tanduay Distillery Labor Union vs NLRC G.R. No. 75037, April 30, 1987 FACTS: Private respondents were all employees of Tanduay Distillery, Inc., (TDI) and members of the Tanduay Distillery Labor Union (TDLU), a duly organized and registered labor organization and the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file e mployees of the petitioner company. A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), was executed between TDI and TDLU. The CBA was duly ratified by a majority of the workers w orkers in TDI including herein private respondents and contained a union security clause which provides that “all workers who are or may during the effectivity effect ivity of the CBA, become members of the Union in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws shall, as a condition of their continued employment, maintain membership in good standing in the Union for the duration of the agreement.” While the CBA was in effect e ffect and within the contract bar per iod the private respondents joined another union, the Kaisahan Ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL) and organized its local chapter in TDI. KAMPIL filed a petition for certification election to de termine union representation in TDI, which development compelled TDI to file a grievance gr ievance with TDLU. TDLU created a committee to investigate its erring members in accordance with its by-laws which are not disputed by the private respondents. Thereafter, TDLU, through the Investigating Committee and approved by TDLU's Board of Directors, ex pelled the private respondents from TDLU for disloyalty to the Union. By letter, TDLU notified TDI that private respondents had been expelled from TDLU and demanded that TDI terminate the employment of private, respondents because they had lost their membership with TDLU. The private respondents were later on terminated. In their petition, private respondents contend that their act of organizing a local chapter of KAMPIL and eventual filing of a petition for certification election was pursuant to their constitutional right to se lf-organization. ISSUES: a) whether or not TDI was justified in terminating private respondents' employment in the company on the basis of TDLU's demand for the e nforcement of the Union Security Clause of t he CBA between TDI and TDLU; and b) whether or not TDI is guilty of unfair labor practice in complying with TDLU's demand for the dismissal of private respondents. HELD: The dismissal of an employee pursuant to a demand of the majority union in accordance with a union security agreement following the loss of seniority rights is valid and privileged and does not constitute an unfair labor practice. Article 249 (e) of t he Labor Code as amended specifically recognizes the closed shop arrangement as a form of union security. The closed shop, the union shop, the maintenance of membership shop, the preferential shop, the maintenance of treasury shop, and check-off provisions are valid forms of union security and strength. They do not constitute unfair labor prac tice nor are they violations of the free dom of association clause of the Constitution. There is no showing in these petitions of any arbitrariness or a
violation of the safeguards enunciated in the decisions of this Court interpreting union security arrangements brought to us for rev iew. Liberty Flour Mills Employees vs Liberty Flour G.RN - 58768 December 29, 1989
Cruz, J: Facts: On February 6, 1974, respondent Philippine Labor Alliance Council (PLAC) and Liberty Flour entered into a 3-year CBA effective January 1, 1974 providing for a daily wage increase of PhP2.00 for 1974, PhP1.00 for 1975 and PhP1.00 for 1976. The parties also agreed to establish a union shop by imposing “membership in good standing for the duration of CBA” as a condition for continued employment of workers. PLAC complained against the company for non-payment of E-C OLA under P.D. 525. A similar complaint was filed on March 4, 1975, this time by petitioners who apparently were vee ring away from PLAC. Evaristo and Biascan, after organizing a union, filed for a certification election among rank-and-file employees. PLAC then expelled the two for disloyalty and demanded their dismissal by the respondent company, who complied on May 20, 1975. The claims for E-COLA was dismissed as it was already absorbed by the wage increase. The termination case in relation to back wages was also dismissed. Issue: Whether or not E_COLA was also absorbed in the wage increases and won dismissal of Evaristo and Biascan was illegal. Ruling: The company agreed to grant the emergency allowance even before t he obligation was imposed by government (P.D. 525). What the petitioners claim they ar e being made to waive is the additional allowance but the truth is they are not entitled to because they are already enjoying the stipulated increases. As with the case of illegal dismissal, the CBA concluded in 1974 was certifiable and in fact certified in April 11, 1975 while the two were dismissed on may 20, 1975. Evidence show that after the cancellation of the registration certificate of the Federation of Democratic Labor U nions, no other union contested the exclusive representation of the PLAC, consequently there was no more legal impediment that stood on the way of its validity and enforceability of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between respondent corporation and respondent union. Once it was duly entered into and signed by the parties, a collective bargaining agreement becomes effective as between the parties regardless of won the same has been certified by the BLR. Labor Employee Representation and Participation
REYES VS TRAJANO 209 SCRA 484 [June 2, 1992] FACTS -The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the “Iglesia ni Kristo” (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. -The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations amo ng the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing unions were the TriUnion Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, conducted under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240 employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK. The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for votes to be cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and, conformably with established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third choice: “NO UNION.” The final tally of the votes showed the following results: TUPAS 1 TUEU-OLALIA 95 NO UNION 1 SPOILED 1 CHALLENGED 141 ISSUE/S 1.WON the members of the INC should not be allowed to vote “because they refused t o participate in the previous certification elections.”
2.WON the NLRC was correct in saying that “if the workers who are members of the Iglesia ni Kristo in the exercise of their religious belief opted not to join any labor o rganization as a consequence of which they themselves can not have a bargainingART. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. -A legitimate labor organization shall have the right:
(a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining; (b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining;
(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its annual audited financial statements, including the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request, after the union has been duly recognized by the employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining negotiation;
(d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of the labor organization and its members;
(e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and
(f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the organization and its members, including cooperative, housing, welfare and other projects not contrary to law. Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the contrary, the income and the properties of legitimate labor organizations, including grants, endowments, gifts, donations and contributions they may receive from fraternal and similar organizations, local or foreign, which are actually, directly and exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be free from taxes, duties and other assessments. The exemptions provided herein may be withdrawn only by a special law expre ssly repealing this provision. (As amended by Section 17, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
