VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION v.

BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION FOR METAL

WORKERS, DMG, INC., PEOPLE’S CAR, INC., KARBAYAN, INC., and RTC
TRADING, INC.

FACTS:
Petitioner Volkschel Labor Union was once affiliated with the Associated Labor Union
for Metal Workers (ALUMETAL). Both unions jointly entered into a CBA. 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 Eduvallafound 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 BLR, 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).
ADAMSON v. CIR, GR No. L-35120, 1984-01-31
Facts:
Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) holding that the Adamson and Adamson Inc. Supervisory
Union (FFW) can legally represent supervisors of the petitioner corporation... notwithstanding
the affiliation of the rank and file union of the same company with the same labor federation,
the Federation of Free Workers.
Issues:
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE RESPONDENT
UNION TO REPRESENT THE PETITIONER'S SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES NOTWITHATANDING THE
AFFILIATION OF THE SAID UNION WITH THE SAME NATIONAL FEDERATION... 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:
The supervisory employees of an employer cannot... join any labor organization of employees
under their supervision but may validly form a separate organization of their own
The Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson, Inc., Salesmen
Association (FFW), have their own respective constitutions and by-laws
There could be no employer influence on rank-and-file organizational activities nor there could
be any rank and file influence on the supervisory functions of the supervisors because of the
representation sought to be proscribed.
TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION-CGW vs. TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC. G.R. No. L-
43495-99, 20 January 1990
 
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, ad
opted their constitution and by-laws and immediately sought affiliation with the National Associ
ation 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 la
bor federation, was not registered with the Department of Labor.
Company and THEU-NATU entered into a new Collective Bargaining which incorporated the prev
ious 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 THEU 
was disaffiliating from the NATU federation. On despite being given the chance to affirm their m
embership with THEU-NATU, they did not.  The union security clause set forth in the CBA was en
forced which says membership is a condition of continued employment. And they were dismisse
d.
 
 
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 obtai
ning 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 
membership therein. The case at bar does not involve the withdrawal of merely some employee
s from the union but of the whole THEU itself from its federation. Clearly, since there is no viola
tion of the union security provision in the CBA, there was no sufficient ground to terminate the 
employment of said employees.
In view of the fact that the dispute revolved around the mother federation and its local, with th
e company suspending and dismissing the workers at the instance of the mother federation the
n, the company’s liability should be limited to the immediate reinstatement of the workers. And 
since their dismissals were effected without previous hearing and at the instance of NATU, this f
ederation should be held liable to the petitioners for the payment of their backwages, as what 
We have ruled in the Liberty Cotton Mills Case.