Labor Law 2
A2010 - 71 -
- Med-Arbiter George Eduvalla rendered a Resolution which found thedisaffiliation legal but at the same time gave the opinion that membersshould continue paying their dues to ALUMETAL. Director FranciscoEstrella reversed the Med-Arbiter’s decision and declared that the Bureaurecognized the continued affiliation of Volkschel with ALUMETAL.
1.WON Volkschel Labor Union’s disaffiliation from ALUMETAL is valid.2.WON respondent companies have the right to effect union duescollections despite revocation by the employees.
A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free toserve the interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliatewhen circumstances warrant.
This right is consistent with the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of association (Art. III, Sec. 8, 1987 Constitution).- The disaffiliation was prompted by the federation’s deliberate andhabitual dereliction of duties as mother federation towards petitioner union.- It would go against the spirit of the labor law to restrict petitioner’s rightto self-organization due to the existence of the CBA. A disaffiliation doesnot disturb the enforceability and administration of a collective agreement;it does not occasion a change of administrators of the contract nor evenan amendment of the provisions thereof.
The obligation of respondent companies is conditioned on theindividual check-off authorization of petitioner’s members. The employees’check-off authorization, even if declared irrevocable, is good only as longas they remain members of the union concerned.
ALUMETAL is entitled to receive the dues from respondentcompanies as long as petitioner union is affiliated with it and respondentcompanies are authorized by their employees (members of petitioner union) to deduct union dues.- Without said affiliation, the employer has no link to the mother union.
Resolutions of Bureau of Labor Relations are reversed and set aside.ALUMETAL is ordered to return to petitioner all the union dues.
PHIL. LABOR ALLIANCE COUNCIL v BLR75 SCRA 162FERNANDO,
.; January 31, 1977
certiorari and prohibition proceeding to indict an order for a certificationelection by respondent Bureau of Labor Relations as tainted by a jurisdictional infirmity in view of what is contended to be an existing dulycertified collective bargaining contract
- there was a renewal of the collective bargaining agreement with a unionshop clause on March 9,1974 between petitioner union and respondentcompany to last for another period of 3 years. The claim was that at thattime it was the only bargaining agent of the respondent companyunchallenged by any labor organization. Then came the assertion that onMay 27, 1974, with due notice to all the members of the petitioner union,and with more than 1,500 of them present, such collective bargainingagreement was ratified by a unanimous vote. It was then so certified bythe former NLRC on June 4, 1974. It was further alleged that at the timeof such certification, there was no pending request for union recognitionby any other labor organization with management.- on June 20, 1974, respondent Federation of Free Workers, setting forththat its members represent more than 60% out of 1,500, more or less,rank-and-file employees of respondent company, sought a certificationelection. Petitioner union opposed such a move on the grounds that thecollective bargaining agreement entered into with the respondentcompany had been certified. The NLRC affirmed the dismissal of thepetition for certification, and the Secretary of Labor affirmed.- respondent Federation filed a complaint with the respondent Bureau of Labor Relations, the present Labor Code having become effective,alleging that some 848 employees, in a resolution attached to thecomplaint disaffiliated from petitioner union and affiliated with it,characterizing the certified agreement as having been entered intoallegedly to thwart such disaffiliation and seeking a declaration of thenullity thereof. Respondent Bureau issued an order setting aside thecertification of the collective bargaining agreement and ordering acertification election.
WON the existing CBA is a bar to a certification election
Once the fact of disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt,as in this case, a certification election is the most expeditious way of determining which labor organization is to be the exclusivebargaining representative.
The collective bargaining agreement entered into by petitioner withmanagement was decertified in the challenged order, in which it wasspecifically pointed out; "it is not disputed that the CBA certified bythe NLRC was not ratified by the majority of the employees within thebargaining unit. This is blatant non-observance of the basicrequirement necessary to certification. With respect to the complaintof the confirmation of disaffiliation of the members of PLAC the sameshould be resolved in the most expedient and simple method of determining the exclusive bargaining representative through theholding of a certification election."
On the Nature of the Right of Disaffiliation:
Mass disaffiliation is nothing new in the Philippine labor movement.Nor is it open to any legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of association explicitly ordained by the Constitution. There is then theincontrovertible right of any individual to join an organization of hischoice. That option belongs to him. A workingman is not to be deniedthat liberty. He may be, as a matter of fact, more in need of it if theinstitution of collective bargaining as an aspect of industrialdemocracy is to succeed.
Petition is DISMISSED
MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWASA M. GREENFIELD V RAMOS326 SCRA 428PURISIMA; February 28, 2000
Petition for certiorari
-Petitioner MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SAM. GREENFIELD (MSMG) had a union security clause provision ontheir CBA with respondent M. Greenfield Inc.-MSMG was an affiliate of respondent United Lumber and GeneralWorkers of the Philippines (ULGWP).-MSMG held a general membership meeting. Many did not attend.As such they were fined with P50 by the union. MSMG wrote torespondent company saying that they deduct the P50 from theemployees’ salaries. ULGWP opposed and wrote to respondentcompany. The company did not deduct.-The imposition of P50.00 fine became the subject of bitter disagreement between the Federation and the local unionculminating in the latter's declaration of general autonomy-The officials of ULGWP called a Special National Executive BoardMeeting where a Resolution was passed placing the MSMG under trusteeship and appointing respondent Cesar Clarete asadministrator.-The said administrator wrote the respondent companyinforming the latter of its designation of a certain AlfredoKalingking as local union president and "disauthorizing" the