PALACOL v CALLEJA (Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations), Manila CCBPI Union, and CCBPI Can a special assessment be validl deducted b a labor union from the lump!sum pa of its members, "ranted under a CB#, not$ithstandin" a subse%uent disauthori&ation disauthori&ation of the same b a ma'orit of the union members his is the main issue for resolution in the instant petition for certiorari* •
•
•
•
•
Manila CCBPI +ales orce Union (or Union), as the CB a"ent of all re"ular salesmen, et al* of Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc (or CCBPI), concluded a ne$ CB# $ith the latter* #mon" the compensation bene-ts "ranted to the emploees $as a "eneral salar increase increase to be "iven in lump!sum includin" recomputation recomputation of actual commissions earned based on ne$ . rates /n the same da, the president of the Union submitted to the Compan the rati-cation b the union members of the ne$ CB#, and authori&ation for the Compan to deduct union dues e%uivalent to P01 ever pada or P21 ever month* #dditionall, 10% by way of special assessment, from the CBA lmp!sm pay "rante# to the nion members * he last one is the sub'ect of the instant petition* +ubse%uentl +ubse%uentl ho$ever, ma'orit of the members voiced out3 statin" that althou"h the have rati-ed the ne$ CB#, the are $ithdra$in" or disauthori&in" the deduction of an amount from their CB# lump!sum* (041 5 067), added to the ori"inal oppositors oppositors of 048 9 in favor of disauthori&ation disauthori&ation for the special assessment* (726 ob'ectors and a remainder of 242 supporters)* Petitioners assailed the 01. special assessment as violative of #rt 2:0(o) vis a vis #rticle 222(b) #rticle 222(b) provides as follo$s; <#R* 222*
#ppearances and ees* =
>>>
>>>
>>>
(b) ?o att att@s @s fees, fees, ne"oti ne"otiati ation on fees fees or or simil similar ar cha char" r"es es of of an an Aind Aind aris arisin" in" from from an an collective bar"ainin" bar"ainin" ne"otiations or conclusion of the collective a"reement a"reement shall be imposed on an individual member of the contractin" union3 Provided, ho$ever, that att@s fees ma be char"ed a"ainst union funds in an amount to be a"reed upon b the parties* #n contract, a"reement or arran"ement arran"ement to the contrar shall be null and void*< • • •
•
#s authorit for their contention, petitioners cited alvadores v* ra'ano Med!#rbiter Cru& ruled in favor of petitioners /n appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations, ho$ever, the order of the Med!#rbiter $as reversed ence, the instant petition*
$&E' #D#LEF of the Bureau of Labor Relations in not favorin" petitioner (EL)' GE+* he deduction of the 01. special assessment b the Union $as not made in accordance $ith the re%uirements provided b la$*
Petitioners are correct in citin" the rulin" of Galvadores $hich is applicable to this case* he principle
practices that diminish their compensation $ithout their Ano$led"e and consent< is pursuant to the constitutional protection to labor* he applicable provisions are clear* he Union itself admits that both para"raphs (n) and (o) of #rticle 2:0 appl* Para"raph (n) refers to
