LABOR RELATIONS DIGESTS (2nd Meeting) Topic: LLO VS UNION VS WORKERS ASSCOCIATION
La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory v. Dir. of BLR Facts: 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 National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). Sometime later, 31 local union members signed a joint letter withdrawing their membership in NATU. The local union and NATU filed a petition for certification election which alleged that 48 of the 60 sales personnel of the company were members of the local union. The petition is supported by no less than 75% of the sales force. Moreover, there is no existing recognized labor union in the company representing the said sales personnel. Likewise, there is no existing CBA and no certification election in the last 12 months preceding the filing of the petition. The company opposed on the ground that it was not supported by at least 30% (now 2 5 % ) o f t h e proposed bargaining unit because: (a) of the alleged 48 members of the local union, 31 had withdrawn prior to the filing of the petition, and (b)14 of the alleged members of the union were not employees of the company but were independent contractors. The BLR (Bureau of Labor Relations) director denied the company’s objection
Issue: WON the withdrawal of 31 union members from NATU affected the petition for certification election (insofar as the 30% requirement is concerned) Held: YES The SC reversed the decision of BLR, it appearing that the 31 union members has withdrawn their support to the petition BEFORE the filing of said petition. It would be otherwise if the withdrawal was made AFTER 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). In other words, distinction must be made whether the withdrawals were made before or after filing of the petition. Before= presumed to be voluntary. After=involuntary Reason 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 requirement has not been met. SC held that 14 members of the respondent local union are dealers and independent
1|Page
contractors, thus they are not employees of the Company.
from the receipt by the [Union] from the [Company] of the said profit-sharing bonus.’”
With the withdrawal by 31 members of their support to the petition before the filing thereof, making a total of 45, the remainder of 3 out of 48 alleged to have supported the petition. Such number can hardly be said to represent the union.
Defendant Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. delivered to the ALU for distribution to the laborers or employees working with the defendant corporation to the profit-sharing bonus corresponding to the first installment for the year 1965. Again in June 1965 the defendant corporation delivered to the Associated Labor Union the profit-sharing bonus corresponding to the second installment for 1965.
Mactan Workers Union v Aboitiz Facts: Defendant Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. in Lapu lapu City is employing laborers and employees belonging to two rival labor unions. Seventy-two of these employees or laborers are affiliated with the Mactan Workers Union while the rest are members of the intervenor Associated Labor Union. On November 28, 1964, the defendant Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. and the Associated Labor Union entered into a ‘Collective Bargaining Agreement’ … the pertinent part of which, Article XIII thereof, [reads thus]: ‘… 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 March and the second installment in June, each year out of the profits in agreement. Said profit-sharing bonus shall be paid by the [Company] to [Associated Labor Union] to be delivered by the latter to the employees and laborers concerned… If a laborer or employee of the [Company] does not want to accept the profit-sharing bonus which the said employee or laborer is entitled under this Agreement, it shall be the duty of the [Associated Labor Union] to return the money to the [Company] within a period of sixty (60) days
The members of the Mactan Workers Union failed to receive their shares in the second installment of bonus because they did not like to go to the office of the ALU to collect their shares. In accordance with the terms of the collective bargaining after 60 days, the uncollected shares of the plaintiff union members was returned by the ALU to the defendant corporation. Hence the collection suit before the RTC. Held: Nevertheless, it is not to be forgotten that what is entitled to constitutional protection is labor, or more specifically the working men and women, not labor organizations. The latter are merely the instrumentalities through which their welfare may be promoted and fostered. That is the raison d’etre of labor unions. The utmost care should be taken then, lest in displaying an unyielding, intransigent attitude on behalf of their members, injustice be committed against opposing labor organizations.
Associated Workers Union PTWGO v. NLRC Facts:
2|Page
AWU, the bargaining representative of dockworkers in South Harbor filed a Notice of Strike against Metro, the arrastre contractor in South Harbor, due to unfilled vacancies and union busting.
b)Even before the onset of the freedom period (and despite the closed-shop provision in the CBA between the mother union and management) but effected by majority of the members in the bargaining unit.
One of the AWU’s demands was that Metro must terminate the employment of the 11 individual respondents for having organized Associated Workers Union in Metroport (AWUM), a local chapter of AWU.
In this case, the respondents had not disaffiliated during the freedom period and respondents failed to meet the necessary majority of the members in the bargaining unit as only 11 (the individual respondents) out of 2000 AWU members voted for disaffiliation.
AWU had earlier expelled these 11 individual respondents from their membership to AWU for disloyalty and pursuant to closed-shop provision of the existing AWU-Metro CBA, sought termination of employment. Metro initially resisted. Eventually, Metro suspended the said 11 individual respondents as AWU staged a strike, which consequently urged the respondents to file a complaint against Metro. Metro in turn made AWU a third-party complaint against AWUM.NLRC ruled that the respondents have the right to organize themselves into a local chapter and it cannot be considered as disloyalty finding that AWU is a national union, hence, their dismissal is illegal. Issue: Whether or not AWUM may disaffiliate from AWU. Held: No. While it is true that AWUM is a local union and is free to serve the interest of all of its members and enjoys the freedom to disaffiliate, such disaffiliation may be exercised and is considered protected labor activity only when permitted by the following circumstances: a)Made during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of CBA.
Hence, the disaffiliation of AWUM from AWU is not considered a protected labor activity. However, it was held here that the respondents were illegally dismissed due to failure in affording them due process, thus, back wages were awarded to them
Volkschel Labor Union v. BLR Disaffiliation of Labor Union from a Federation Facts: Volkschel Labor Union was once affiliated with Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers (ALUMETAL). Both Volkschel and Alumetal entered into a CBA. They agreed that ALUMETAL will apply payroll deductions twice a month on the members of the UNION as membership dues and other fees/fines, as may be duly authorized by the UNION AND ITS MEMBERS. They called this check-off authorization. Subsequently, majority of Volkschel’s members decided to disaffiliate from ALUMETAL in order to operate on its own as an independent labor group, pursuant to Art. 241 of the Labor Code.* Moreover, the same want to revoke their checkoff authorization in favour of ALUMETAL
3|Page
On the other hand, ALUMETAL assailed that the disaffiliation is contrary to law and the members are still obliged to pay their dues. Issues: Can a local union like Volkschel disaffiliate from its mother union like ALUMETAL Should the local union still pay union membership dues even upon disaffiliation from its mother union? Held: YES. A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate. This right is consistent with constitutional guarantee of FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. (Art. IV, Sec. 7, Phil. Constitution) NO. The obligation of an employee to pay union dues is coterminous with his affiliation/membership. *ART. 241 of the Labor Code Incumbent affiliates of existing federations or national unions may disaffiliate only for the purpose of joining a federation or national union in the industry or region in which is properly belongs or for the purpose of operating as an independent labor group.
Malayang Samahan v. Ramos
MSMG held a general membership meeting. Many did not attend. As such they were fined with P50 by the union. MSMG wrote to respondent company saying that they deduct the P50 from the employees’ salaries. ULGWP opposed and wrote to respondent company. The company did not deduct. The imposition of P50 fine became the subject of bitter disagreement between the Federation and the local union resulting to the latter’s declaration of general autonomy The officials of ULGWP called a Special National Executive Board Meeting where a Resolution was passed placing the MSMG under trusteeship and appointing respondent Cesar Clarete as administrator. The said administrator wrote the respondent company informing the latter of a certain Alfredo Kalingking as local unin president and disauthorizing the incumbent union officers from representing the employees. This action by the national federation was protested by the petitioners. The petitioner union officers received identical letters from the administrator requiring them to explain within 72 hours why they should not be removed from their office and expelled from union membership.
Facts: Petitioner MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SAM. GREENFIELD (MSMG) had a union security clause provision on their CBA with respondent M. Greenfield Inc.
ULGWP advised respondent company of the expulsion of the 30 union officers and demanded their separation from employment pursuant to the Union Security Clause.
MSMG was an affiliate of respondent United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP).
T h e c o m p a n y a t f i r s t refused but later, when the ULGWP declared a strike against them, they subsequently agreed.
4|Page
Issue: WON MSMG’s disaffiliation was an act of disloyalty to ULGWP Held: NO. A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union or declare its autonomy. A local union, being a separate and voluntary 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. The 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. Yet the locals remain the basic units of association, free to serve their own and the common interest of all, subject to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws 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 existence. Thus, a local union which has affiliated itself with a federation is free to sever such affiliation anytime and such disaffiliation cannot be considered disloyalty. In the absence of specific provisions in the federation’s constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of autonomy of a local union, a local may dissociate with its parent union. The evidence on hand does not show that there is such a provision in ULGWP's constitution.
Respondents' reliance upon Article V, Section 6, of the federation's constitution is not right because said section, in fact, bolsters the petitioner union's claim of its right to declare autonomy: Sec. 6. The autonomy of a local union affiliated with ULGWP shall be respected insofar as it pertains to its internal affairs, except as provided elsewhere in this Constitution. There is no disloyalty to speak of, neither is there any violation of the federation's constitution because there is nothing in the said constitution which specifically prohibits disaffiliation or declaration of autonomy. Hence, there cannot be any valid dismissal because Article II, Section 4 of the union security clause in the CBA limits the dismissal to only three (3) grounds, to wit: failure to maintain membership in the union (1) for non-payment of union dues, (2) for resignation; and (3) for violation of the union's Constitution and By-Laws.
Topic: REQUIREMENTS OF REGISTRATION
Topic: RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP
Verceles v BLR Facts: Private respondents Rodel Dalupan, et al., are members of the University of the East Employees’ Association (UEEA). Each received a Memorandum from the UEEA 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 UEEA’s Disciplinary Committee, informing them that the memo was vague and without legal basis, therefore, no
5|Page
intelligent answer may be made by them. They likewise stated that any sanction that will be imposed by the committee would be violative of their right to due process. The Disciplinary Committee issued another Memo explaining 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. Respondents issued a denial for the second time. Ernesto Verceles, in his capacity as president of the association, through a Memorandum, informed Rodel Dalupan, et al., that their membership in the association has been suspended and shall take effect immediately upon receipt thereof. Verceles said he was acting upon the disciplinary committee’s finding of a prima facie case against them. A result of which, a complaint for illegal suspension was filed by the private respondents before the Department of Labor and Employment, National Capital Region(DOLENCR). The Regional Director of the latter rendered a decision adverse to the petitioners. The petitioners appealed to the BLR-DOLE, but the same and the motion for reconsideration were denied. When appealed before the Court of Appeals, said petition was still denied due course for lack of merit. Hence, the petition is now elevated to the Supreme Court by way of petition for review on certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not the assent of 30% of the members of the union is required to confer jurisdiction upon the BLR or LRD in intra-union conflicts. HELD: The Court ruled in the negative. The 30% support requirement needed to report violations of rights and conditions of union membership, as found in the last paragraph of Article 241 of the Labor Code, is not mandatory. The court
reiterated its pronouncements made in the case of Rodriguez vs Dir., BLR, as follows: The assent of 30% of the union members is not a factor in the acquisition of jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor Relations is furnished by Article 226 of the same Labor Code, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction to the Bureau, and the Labor Relations Division in the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor, over "all interunion and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor management relations," making no reference whatsoever to any such30%-support requirement. Indeed, the officials mentioned are given the power to act "on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts (1) "upon request of either or both parties" as well as (2) "at their own initiative. When the violation directly affects only one or two members, then only one or two members would be enough to report such violation.
AMALGAMATED LABORERS' ASSOCIATION v CIR Amalgamated Laborers' Association lodged a complaint in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), for unfair labor practices of the Industrial Peace Act, against former employer and respodents, Binalbagan Sugar Central Company, Inc. (Biscom), BIscom answered in counterclaim. At the hearings, only 10 (2regular & 8 seasonal workers) of the 48 complainant laborers appeared and testified. CIR rendered judgment, that the 10 employees be reinstated.
6|Page
Upon the 10 complainants' motion to determine the actual money due them, Chief examiner of CIR reported the amount of P79,755.22. In the interim, Atty. Leonardo C. Fernandez (a respondent herein) filed in the same case — CIR — a "Notice of Attorney's Lien." He alleged therein that he had been the attorney of record for the laborers and that the laborers have voluntarily agreed to give his attorney's fees on a contingent basis quivalent to 25% . Atty. Fernandez alleged that the original agreement was 30%, but upon pleadings of Arsenio Reyes, Union President, he finally agreed that his attorney's fees be reduced to only Twenty-Five Per Cent (25%) Atty. Jose Ur. Carbonell (a petitioner herein) filed in court a "Discharge" informing CIR of the discharge, release and dismissal — of Atty. Leonardo C. Fernandez as one of the lawyers of the complainants. Atty. Fernandez replied. He averred that the grounds for his discharge were "malicious and motivated by greed and ungratefulness" and that the unjustifiable discharge did not affect the already stipulated contract for attorneys' fees. CIR resolved Biscom's and complainants' motions for reconsideration objecting to the Chief Examiner's Report, and also respondent Fernandez' Amended Notice of Attorney's Lien. Biscom complied with the order of deposit. Atty. Carbonell filed MR on grounds that CIR has no jurisdiction and 25% award as attorneys' fees of Atty. Fernandez is excessive, unfair and illegal. MR was denied and cashier of the court was ordered to disburse to Fernandez the amount of P19,938.81 representing attorneys' fees and deducting therefrom all legal fees incident to such deposit. Petitioners herein, Atty. Carbonell, Amalgamated Laborers' Association, and the ten employees, appealed from the resolution of CIR, direct to this Court.
ISSUE: 1. WON CIR is bereft of authority to adjudicate contractual disputes over attorneys' fees as it is not a labor dispute. 2. WON the verbal agreement relating to payment of attorney’s fee is valid? HELD: 1.
The case is within CIR's jurisdiction. It has been held that "once the Court of Industrial Relations has acquired jurisdiction over a case under the law of its creation, it retains that jurisdiction until the case is completely decided, including all the incidents related thereto."
To direct that the present dispute be lodged in another court as petitioners advocate would only result in multiplicity of suits. The application to fix the attorneys' fees is made before the court which renders the judgment. 2. The parties herein join hands in one point - the ten (10) successful complainants in C.I.R Case should pay as attorneys' fees 30% of the amount adjudicated by the court in the latter's favor (P79,755.22). Atty. Fernandez exhibited a contract before the 48 employees have even filed their complaint in CIR. The stipulated fee is 30% of whatever amount the 10 might recover shall be divided equally ("share and share alike") amongst Atty. Carbonell, Atty. Fernandez and the union president. It was signed only by 8 of the 10 winning claimants. What happened to the others? Why did not the union intervene in the signing of this contract? Petitioners dispute said contract. They say that Atty. Fernandez required the10 to sign the contract only after the receipt of the decision. The court strikes down the alleged oral agreement that the union president should share
7|Page
in the attorneys' fees. The union president is not the attorney for the laborers. He may seek compensation only as such president. An agreement whereby a union president is allowed to share in attorneys' fees is immoral. Such a contract we emphatically reject. It cannot be justified.
1. Respondent Court was vested with the requisite 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.
A contingent fee must be reasonable, but the stipulated 30% attorneys' fee is excessive and unconscionable. The 10 complainants are mere laborers& may have not reached an educational attainment comparable to that of petitioner Carbonell or respondent Fernandez who, on the other hand, are lawyers. Because of the inequality of the situation between laborers and lawyers, courts should go slow in awarding huge sums by way of attorneys' fees based solely on contracts. For, as in the present case, the real objective of the CIR judgment is to benefit the complaint laborers who were unjustifiedly dismissed from the service.
this Court, affirmed the underlying principle to be “that where the employer employee relationship is still existing or is sought to be reestablished because of its wrongful severance (as where the employees seeks reinstatement), the CIR has jurisdiction over all claims arising out of, or in connection with employment, such as those related to the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight-Hour Labor Law. After the termination of the relationship and no reinstatement is sought, such claims become mere money claims, and come within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.”
Topic: RIGHTS OF LLO
La Carlota Sugar Central v CIR The main thrust in this Appeal by Certiorari against the then existing CIR is its alleged lack of jurisdiction 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: 1. WON ordinary judicial tribunals or respondent Court has competence to pass upon the matter? 2. WON there was lack of procedural process? 3. WON injured parties of the union must file charges as individuals? HELD:
2. The court disagreed. In the main resolution challenged, respondent Court after stating that a previous order was already final and executory ruled that the employees named in the Examiner’s Report were entitled to the additional compensation. Further: “The 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 one’s overtime pay is null and void as the same is contrary to law.” It was therein likewise stated: “Concerning the last issue, the Court believes that the workers are entitled to the amount paid to them during the entire period stated in the report. Concerning the period prior to 1956 it appears that there are no records existing in the company for such periods. It, therefore, behooves on the petitioning Union 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
8|Page
determine and compute the additional compensation in favor of the petitioners.” 3. Petitioner firm alleged that only respondent National Sugar Workers Union and respondent Jose Villanueva were named as parties. It 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. This is not correct. In Liberty Manufacturing Workers Union vs. CFI, this Court reiterated the view that a labor union has the requisite personality to sue on behalf of its members for their individual money claims. It would be an unwarranted impairment of the right to self-organization through formation of labor associations if thereafter such collective entities would be barred from instituting action in their representative capacity. Right to self organization is respected under the Constitution and may enter into CBAs. Once such a collective contract is entered into, its benefits extend to all the laborers and employees in the collective bargaining unit. That would include those who do not belong to the labor organization that was chosen to represent the employees.
GOLDEN DONUTS INC. v NLRC FACTS: Private respondents were the complainants in three consolidated cases submitted with the Labor Arbiter. Complainants were members of the Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Dunkin Donut (KMDDCFW) whose CBA with the corporation expired. the management representative, and the President of the Union, 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. During the negotiations, the management panel arrived late causing the union panel to walk out. The management addressed a letter of apology
to the union and requested for negotiations to resume. The union panel did not show up despite letters from management advising the former of the CBA meetings. The union struck. A compliant was filed by Golden Donuts to declare the strike illegal. Counsel for the union and strikers pleaded for a compromise whereupon both parties would desist from continuing their cases against each other. The 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 NLRC, 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: Whether or not a union may compromise or waive the right to security of tenure and money claims of its minority members, without the latter’s consent. HELD: No. Absent a showing of the union’s special authority to compromise the individual claims of private respondents for reinstatement and backwages, there is no valid waiver of the aforesaid rights. The judgment of the Labor Arbiter based on the compromise agreement does not have the effect of res judicata upon private respondents who did not agree thereto since the requirement of identity of parties is not satisfied. A judgment upon a compromise agreement has all the force and effect of any other judgment 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. They 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, petitioner’s failure to reinstate them after the settlement of the strike amounts to illegal dismissal.
9|Page
ME-SHURN CORPORATION AND SAMMY CHOU, vs. ME-SHURN WORKERS UNION Facts: On June 7, 1998, the regular rank and file employees of Me-Shurn Corporation organized Me-Shurn Workers Union-FSM, an affiliate of the February Six Movement (FSM). Respondent union had a pending application for registration with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) through a letter dated June 11, 1998. Ten days later, or on June 17, 1998, petitioner corporation started placing on forced leave all the rank and file employees who were members of the union’s bargaining unit On June 23, 1998, respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election with the MedArbitration Unit of the DOLE, Regional Office No. 3. Instead of filing an answer to the Petition, the corporation filed on July 27, 1998, a comment stating that it would temporarily lay off employees and cease operations, on account of its alleged inability to meet the export quota required by the Board of Investment. DOLE Undersecretary granted the union’s appeal and ordered the holding of a certification election among the rank and file employees of the corporation. Chou Fang Kuen alias Sammy Chou allegedly required the remaining union officers to sign an Agreement containing a guarantee that upon their return to work, no union or labor organization would be organized. Instead, 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 1998.
Respondents charged petitioner corporation with unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and deficiency in separation pay, for which they prayed for damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioner corporation questioned the legality of the representation of respondent union. Allegedly, it was not the latter, but the Me-Shurn Independent Employees’ Union -- with Christopher Malit as president -- that was recognized as the existing exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees and as the one that had concluded a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the corporation on May 19, 1999. Issue: Whether respondents can maintain a suit against petitioners Held: Neither are we prepared to believe petitioners’ argument that respondent union was not legitimate. It should be pointed out that on June 29, 1998, it filed a Petition for Certification Election. While this Petition was initially dismissed by the med-arbiter on the basis of a supposed retraction, note that the appeal was granted and that Undersecretary DimapilisBaldoz ordered the holding of a certification election. The DOLE would not have entertained the Petition if the union were not a legitimate labor organization within the meaning of the Labor Code. Under this Code, in an unorganized establishment, only a legitimate union may file a petition for certification election. Verily, the union has the requisite personality to sue in its own name in order to challenge the unfair labor practice committed by petitioners against it and its members. "It would be an unwarranted impairment of the right to selforganization through formation of labor associations if thereafter such collective entities
10 | P a g e
would be barred from instituting action in their representative capacity." In view of the discriminatory acts committed by petitioners of granting their immediate of exclusive recognition to another union as a bargaining agent despite the pending Petition for certification election --the results of that election cannot be said to constitute a repudiation by the affected employees of the union’s right to represent them in the present case.
Topic: GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF UNION REGISTRATION
ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZATION VS LAGUESMA On 02 March 1988, the Alliance of Democratic Free Labor Organization (ADFLO) filed an application for registration as a national federation alleging, among others that it has twelve (12) affiliates, namely: On 15 February 1989, the Confederation of Labor and Allied Social Services (CLASS) filed a petition for the cancellation of the Registration Certificate issued to ADFLO. Petitioner CLASS-TUCP, in its Memorandum dated 26 July 1989, alleged that the documents submitted by ADFLO were simulated. Petitioner CLASS-TUCP, further averred that the nine (9) resolutions of affiliation all dated 6 December 1987 do not bear the signatures of the members of the Board of Directors and have not been ratified by the general membership of each of the nine (9) unions as required by Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution and By-laws of ADFLO. ADFLO filed a Motion to Inhibit the Bureau Director from hearing and deciding the case on the ground that the Director prejudged the instant petition when she verbally declared that the federation obtained its certificate of registration through "fraud and
misrepresentation; that the recommendation to hold in abeyance the election at Allen Arthur, Inc., was based only on her unilateral finding of a prima facie 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, ADFLO". On November 16, 1990, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), through Director Pura FerrerCalleja, rendered a Decision cancelling the registration of ADFLO. Issue: Was the decision cancelling the registration of petitioner rendered in violation of the due process clause? Held: After petitioner submitted its objections to the admission of the documentary evidence of CLASS, the BLR director should have first ruled on their admissibility. However, without ruling on said offer and without setting the case for reception of petitioner's evidence, the said official proceeded to render judgment affirming its earlier (but already ruled as improper) decision to cancel the registration of ADFLO. This is a gross violation of petitioner's right to due process. The cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses — as a rule — its rights under the Labor Code. Under the circumstances, petitioner was indisputably entitled to be heard before a judgment could be rendered cancelling its certificate of registration.
PROGRESIVE DEVELOPMENT VS. SEC OF LABOR FACTS: Respondent Pambansang Paggawa (KILUSAN)TUCP filed with the DOLE a petition for
11 | P a g e
certification election among the rank-and- file employees of the petitioner alleging that it is a legitimate labor federation and its local chapter, Progressive Development Employees Union, was issued charter certificate No. 90-6-1-153. Kilusan claimed that there was no existing collective bargaining agreement and that no other legitimate labor organization existed in the bargaining unit. Petitioner PDC filed its motion to dismiss dated July 11, 1990 contending that the local union failed to comply with the rules as provided for under the Labor code. Respondent Kilusan submitted a rejoinder to PDC’s motion to dismiss claiming that it had submitted the necessary documentary requirements for registration. Kilusan further averred that no books of accounts could be submitted as the local union was recently organized. On its supplemental Position Paper PDC insisted that upon verification with the BLR, it found that the alleged minutes of the organizational meeting was unauthenticated, the list of members as well as the constitution and by-laws did not bear the signatures of the purported members and the same was not duly subscribed as required. Additionally, it prayed that Med-Arbiter Edgardo dela Cruz inhibit himself from handling the case for the reason that he allegedly had prejudged the same. Med-Arbiter dela Cruz held that there was substantial compliance with the requirements for the formation of the chapter. He further stated that mere issuance of the charter certificate by the federation was sufficient compliance with the rules. Considering that the establishment was unorganized, he maintained that a certification election should be
conducted to resolve the question of representation. PDC filed a motion for reconsideration, but the motion was treated as an appeal before the secretary of the DOLE, who eventually denied the same. PDC filed a petition seeking for TRO which was granted by the court which enjoined public respondents from carrying out the assailed resolutions and orders of from proceeding with the certification election. ISSUE: WON private respondents failed to substantially comply with the registration requirements provided by the rules in the labor code. HELD: YES. The provisions governing union affiliation are found in Rule II, Section 3, Book V of the Implementing Rules, the relevant portions of which are cited below: Sec. 3. Union affiliation; direct membership with national union. — An affiliate of a labor federation or national union may be a local or chapter thereof or an independently registered union. a) The 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 Bureau of Labor Relations within thirty (30) 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 Bureau of the contract or agreement of affiliation within thirty (30) days after its execution.
12 | P a g e
e) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a constitution and by laws, set of officers and books and accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations or national unions shall be observed. In the case at bar, the constitution and by-laws and list of officers submitted in the BLR, while attested to by the chapter's president, were not certified under oath by the secretary. The certification and attestation requirements are preventive measures against the commission of fraud. A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon submission of the following to the BLR: 1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor federation or national union, and 2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the books 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 requirements, the local or chapter does not become a legitimate labor organization. Petition granted, the assailed resolution and orders of respondent Med-arbiter and Sec. of DOLE, respectively, are hereby set aside. In the case at bar, the failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to certify the required documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a legitimate status.
13 | P a g e
