1

1. VOLKSCHEL VS. BLR L-45824 June 19 1985

FACTS:

Petitioner Volkschel Labor Union was once affiliated with the Associated Labor Union
for Metal Workers (ALUMETAL). Both unions jointly entered into a Collective Bargaining
Agreement. They have agreed that the company would make payroll deductions twice a month
as union membership dues, provided that the same is covered by the individual check-off
authorization of the union members.
A majority of petitioner’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, which
reads: “Incumbent affiliates of existing federations or national unions may disaffiliate only for
the purpose of joining a federation or national union or region in which it properly belongs or
for the purpose of operating as an independent labor group.”
Petitioner’s members revoked their check-off authorization in favor of ALUMETAL.
However, ALUMETAL advised respondent companies to continue deducting from employees’
wages and remitting union dues to the former. Thus, the respondent companies sought the legal
opinion of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
Med-Arbiter Eduvalla found the disaffiliation legal but opined that petitioner’s members
should continue paying their dues to ALUMETAL as to agency fees.

Upon appeal to the director of Bureau of Labor Relations, petitioner contended that Med-
Arbiter’s opinion that petitioner’s members remained obligated to pay dues was inconsistent with
the finding that petitioner’s disaffiliation was valid. ALUMETAL, on the other hand, contended
that the disaffiliation should have been declared contrary to law. BLR reversed the Med-
Arbiter’s Resolution and held that it recognized the continued affiliation of petitioner with
ALUMETAL.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner union’s disaffiliation from ALUMETAL is valid

HELD:
Yes. The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother union is well-settled. In
previous cases, it has been repeatedly held that a local union, being a separate and voluntary
association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate
when circumstances warrant. The right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom
of association (Art. IV, Sec. 7).
 2

2. ADAMSON VS. CIR AND ADAMSON L-35120 January 31, 1984

FACTS:

The Adamson and Adamson, Inc. supervisory Union (FFW) sought to represent supervisors of
Adamson & Adamson Inc under the Federation of Free Workers.

The petitioner company filed a petition to set aside orders of the respondent Court of Industrial
Relations (CIR) holding that the Adamson and Adamson, Inc. supervisory Union (FFW) can
legally represent supervisors of the petitioner corporation.

Meanwhile, during the pendency of the petition, the rank and file employees formed their own
union naming it Adamson and Adamson Independent Workers (FFW).

The CIR dismissed the petition, thus prompting the filing of this petition for review on certiorari.
Contention of Petitioner’s Company: If affilation will be allowed, only one union will in fact
represent both supervisors and rank-and-file employees of the petitioner; that there would be an
indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization; that
there would be emerging of two bargaining units ; and that the respondent union will loose its
independence because it becomes an alter ego of the federation.
Contention of Respondent Union: They contend that their respective labor organizations, not the
FFW, will represent their members in the negotiations as well as in the signing of their respective
contracts. The Federation of Free Workers has, as its affiliates, supervisory as well as rank-and-
file employees, and should both the supervisory and the rank-and-file employees of a certain
employer who have separate certificates of registration affiliate with the same federation, the
prohibition does not apply as the federation is not the organization of the supervisory employees
contemplated in the law.

ISSUE: Whether or not a supervisor's union may affiliate with a federation with which unions of
rank and-file employees of the same employer are also affiliated

RULING: NO. The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s decision.

 3

The confusion seems to have stemmed from the prefix of FFW after the name of the local unions
in the registration of both. Nonetheless, the inclusion of FWW in the registration is merely to
stress that they are its affiliates at the time of registrations. It does not mean that said local unions
cannot stand on their own Neither can it be construed that their personalities are so merged with
the mother federation that for one difference or another they cannot pursue their own ways,
independently of the federation. This is borne by the fact that FFW, like other federation is a
legitimate labor organization separate and distinct from its locals and affiliates and to
construe the registration certificates of the aforecited unions, along the line of the
Company's argument. would tie up any affiliates to the shoe string of the federation. ...
The Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson, Inc.,
Salesmen Association (FFW), have their own respective constitutions and by-laws. They
are separately and independently registered of each other. Both sent their separate
proposals for collective bar agreements with their employer. There could be no employer
influence on rank-and-file organizational activities nor their could be any rank and file
influence on the supervisory function of the supervisors because of the representation
sought to be proscribed.
 4

3. TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES UNION VS. TROPICAL HUT

L-43496-99
 
FACTS:
The rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market Incorporated organized a local union 
called the Tropical Hut Employees Union, known for short as the THEU, elected their officers, a
dopted their constitution and by
laws and immediately sought affiliation with the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). 
The NATU accepted the THEU application for affiliation. Following such affiliation with NATU
, Registration Certificate was issued by the Department of Labor in the name of the Tropical Hut 
Employees Union — NATU. It appears, however, that NATU itself as a labor federation, was no
t registered with the Department of Labor.
Company and THEU-NATU entered into a new Collective Bargaining which incorporated the pr
evious union-shop security clause and the attached check-off authorization form. NATU received 
a letter jointly signed by the incumbent officers of the local union informing the NATU that THE
U was disaffiliating from the NATU federation. On despite being given the chance to affirm their 
membership with THEU-NATU, they did not.  The union security clause set forth in the CBA w
as enforced which says membership is a condition of continued employment. And they were dis
missed.
 
 
ISSUE:
Whether or not disaffiliation is a violation of union security clause and be the basis of the dismis
sal of the employees.

HELD:
No. The union security clause embodied in the Collective Bargaining Agreement cannot be used 
to justify the dismissals meted to petitioners since it is not applicable to the circumstances obtaini
 5

ng in this case. The CBA imposes dismissal only in case an employee is expelled from the union 
for joining another federation or for forming another union or who fails or refuses to maintain me
mbership therein. The case at bar does not involve the withdrawal of merely some employees fro
m the union but of the whole THEU itself from its federation. Clearly, since there is no violation 
of the union security provision in the CBA, there was no sufficient ground to terminate the empl
oyment of said employees.
In view of the fact that the dispute revolved around the mother federation and its local, with the c
ompany suspending and dismissing the workers at the instance of the mother federation then, the 
company’s liability should be limited to the immediate reinstatement of the workers. And since t
heir dismissals were effected without previous hearing and at the instance of NATU, this federati
on should be held liable to the petitioners for the payment of their backwages, as what We have r
uled in the Liberty Cotton Mills Case.

4. VILLAR VS. HON. INCIONG L-50238 April 20, 1983

FACTS:

The petitioners, who are the disaffiliating union members insist that their disaffiliation from PAF
LU and filing a petition for certification election are not acts of disloyalty but an exercise of their 
right to self-organization. The contention was that these acts were done within the 60-day freedo
m period when questions of representation may freely be raised.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the disaffiliation from its mother union is justified considering it was done during 
the freedom period.

RULING:
No, it must be supported by the majority of the union members. In the first place, had petitioners 
merely disaffiliated from the. Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, there could be no legal objectio
ns thereto for it was their right to do so. But what petitioners did by the very clear terms of their “
Sama-Samang Kapasiyahan” was to disaffiliate the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU from PAF
LU, an act which they could not have done with any effective consequence because they constitu
ted the minority in the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU.
Extant from the records is the fact that petitioners numbering ten (10), were among the ninety-six 
(96) who signed the “Sama-Samang Kapasiyahan” whereas there are two hundred thirty-four (23
4) union members in the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU. Hence, petitioners constituted a smal
l minority for which reason they could not have successfully disaffiliated the local union from P
AFLU. Since only 96 wanted disaffiliation, it can be inferred that the majority wanted the union t
o remain an affiliate of PAFLU and this is not denied or disputed by petitioners. The action of th
e majority must, therefore, prevail over that of the minority members.
 
 6

5. SAJELCO VS. MOLE AND MAGKAISAADLO 77231 May 31, 1989

Facts:

SAJELCO opposed the petition of MAGKAISA-ADLO for direct certification election

contending that the employees are members-consumers of the Cooperative itself and at the same
time composed the General Assembly which is also the final arbiter of any dispute arising in the
Cooperative and that in their capacity as member-consumers, enjoy two personalities and
therefore cannot fairly and prudently represent such opposing personalities that merge into one
juridical or natural person.

Issue:

Whether or not the employees-members can organize themselves for purposes of collective
bargaining.

Held:

No. The rule is settled that they are not qualified to form, join or assist labor organizations for
purposes of collective bargaining. An owner cannot bargain with himself.
 7

6. ICMIC VS. HON. CALLEJA 85750 September 28, 1990

Facts:

ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee
processing center in Morong, Bataan. It was incorporated as a non-profit agency involved in
international humanitarian and voluntary work. IRRI on the other hand was intended to be an
autonomous, philanthropic, tax-free, non-profit, non-stock organization. The labor organizations
in each of the agencies filed a petition for certification election, which was opposed by both,
invoking diplomatic immunity.

Issue:

Whether or not the claim of immunity by the ICMC and the IRRI from the application of
Philippine labor laws is valid.

Held:

Yes. The raison d’etre for these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their
functions by the agencies concerned. Employees are not without recourse whenever there are
disputes to be settled because each specialized agency shall make provision for appropriate
modes of settlement of disputes out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which
the specialized agency is a party.
 8

7. ARIZALA VS. CA 43633-34 September 14, 1990

Facts:

GSIS and the GSIS Employee Association executed a CBA during the regime of the Industrial
Peace Act. Arizala and the other petitioners were convicted for violation of the Industrial Peace
Act by refusing to resign from their labor organization in view of their supervisory positions.
Petitioners argue that they no longer fall within the coverage of the Industrial Peace Act and are
no longer subject of collective bargaining when the 1973 Constitution took effect while their
cases were still pending decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioners’ criminal liability for a violation of the Industrial Peace Act may
be deemed to have been obliterated in virtue of subsequent legislation and the provisions of the
1973 and 1987 Constitutions.

Held:

Yes. The legislative intent as shown by the action of the municipal council is that such conduct,
formerly denounced, is no longer deemed criminal, and it would be illogical for this court to
attempt to sentence appellant for the offense that no longer exists.
 9

8. UP VS. HON. FERRER-CALLEJA 96189 July 14, 1992

Facts:

UP seeks the nullification of the Order of Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja holding that professors,
associate professors and assistant professors of UP are rank-and-file employees and that they
should, together with the so-called non-academic, non-teaching, and all other employees of the
University, be represented by only one labor organization.

Issue:

Whether or not employees performing academic functions should comprise a collective

bargaining unit distinct and different from that of the non-academic employees of UP.

Held:

Yes. The dichotomy of interests, the dissimilarity in the nature of the work and duties as well as
in the compensation and working conditions of the academic and non-academic personnel dictate
the separation of these two categories of employees for purposes of collective bargaining.

9. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY VS. HON. TRAJANO 75039

January 28, 1988
Facts:

Franklin Baker Brotherhood Association-ATU filed a petition for certification election among
office and technical employees of petitioner company. Petitioner company manifested that out of
the 90 employees sought to be represented, 74 are managerial employees while 2 others are
confidential employees and must be excluded from the certification election and from the
bargaining unit that may result from such election. Public respondent ruled that the 76 employees
are not managerial employees.

Issue:

Whether or not subject employees are managerial employees under the purview of the Labor
Code and its Implementing Rules
 10

Held:

No. They do not participate in policy making but are given ready policies to execute and
standard practices to observe, thus having little freedom of action.

10. METROLAB INDUSTRIES VS. HON. CONFESSOR, 10855 February 28, 1996

Facts:

During a deadlock between petitioner and private respondent, the petitioner laid off 94 of its rank
and file employees and assailed that the move was temporary and exercise of its management
prerogative. Public respondent declared that the petitioner’s act was illegal and exacerbated and
caused conflict to the case at bar. He also ruled that executive secretaries are excluded from the
closed-shop provision of the CBA, not from the bargaining unit.

Issue:
 11

Whether or not executive secretaries must be included as part of the bargaining unit of rank and
file employees.

Held:

No. Confidential employees cannot be classified as rank and file. The nature of employment of
confidential employees is quite distinct from the rank and file, thus, warranting a separate
category.