G.R. No.
L-43495-99 January 20, 1990 forming another union or who fails or refuses to maintain
75) TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES' UNION-CGW v
TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET
Facts: The rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food
organized a local union called the Tropical Hut Employees
Union (THEU), elected their officers, adopted 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 DOLE in the name of the Tropical Hut Employees Union —
NATU. It appears, however, that NATU itself as a labor
federation, was not registered with the Department of Labor.
Company and THEU-NATU entered into a new CBA which
incorporated the previous 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 membership with THEU-NATU, they did not. The union
security clause set forth in the CBA was enforced which says
membership is a condition of continued employment. And they
were dismissed.
Issue: WON disaffiliation is a violation of union security clause
and be the basis of the dismissal of the employees.
Held: No. The union security clause embodied in the CBA
cannot be used to justify the dismissals meted to petitioners
since it is not applicable to the circumstances obtaining in this
case. The CBA imposes dismissal only in case an employee is
expelled from the union for joining another federation or for
membership therein. The case at bar does not involve the
withdrawal of merely some employees from 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 employment of said
employees. In view of the fact that the dispute revolved around
the mother federation and its local, with the company
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 their dismissals were effected without previous hearing
and at the instance of NATU, this federation should be held
liable to the petitioners for the payment of their backwages, as
what We have ruled in the Liberty Cotton Mills Case.
G.R. No. 127374. January 31, 2002
76) PHILIPPINE SKYLANDERS v NLRC
Facts: In November 1993 the Philippine Skylanders
Employees Association (PSEA-NWC), a local labor union
affiliated with the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions
(PAFLU), won in the certification election conducted among
the rank and file employees of Philippine Skylanders, Inc.
(PSI). Its rival union, Philippine Skylanders Employees
Association-WATU (PSEA-WATU) immediately protested the
result of the election before the Secretary of Labor. PSEA-
NWC sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation citing as reason
PAFLU's supposed deliberate and habitual dereliction of duty
toward its members. PSEA subsequently affiliated itself with
the National Congress of Workers (NCW), changed its name
to Philippine Skylanders Employees Association - National
Congress of Workers (PSEA-NCW), and to maintain continuity
within the organization, allowed the former officers of PSEA-
PAFLU to continue occupying their positions as elected
officers in the newly-forged PSEA-NCW. 17 March 1994
PSEA-NCW entered into a collective bargaining agreement
with PSI which was immediately registered with the
Department of Labor and Employment. PAFLU requested for
the accounting. PSI through its personnel manager Francisco
Dakila denied the request. PAFLU through Serafin Ayroso filed
a complaint for unfair labor practice against PSI, its president
Mariles Romulo and personnel manager Francisco Dakila.
PAFLU alleged that aside from PSI’s refusal to bargain
collectively with its workers, the company through its president
and personnel manager, was also liable for interfering with its
employees’ union activities Ayroso filed another complaint in
behalf of PAFLU for unfair labor practice against Francisco
Dakila. Through Ayroso PAFLU claimed that Dakila was
present in PSEA’s organizational meeting thereby confirming
his illicit participation in union activities. Ayroso added that the
members of the local union had unwittingly fallen into the
manipulative machinations of PSI and were lured into
endorsing a collective bargaining agreement which was
detrimental to their interests. PAFLU amended its complaint by
including the elected officers of PSEA-PAFLU as additional
party respondents. PAFLU averred that the local officers of
PSEAPAFLU, namely Macario Cabanias, Pepito Rodillas,
Sharon Castillo, Danilo Carbonel, Manuel Eda, Rolando Felix,
Jocelyn Fronda, Ricardo Lumba, Joseph Mirasol, Nerisa
Mortel, Teofilo Quirong, Leonardo Reyes, Manuel Cadiente,
and Herminia Riosa, were equally guilty of unfair labor practice
since they brazenly allowed themselves to be manipulated and
influenced by petitioner Francisco Dakila. Dakila moved for the
dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the issue of
disaffiliation was an inter-union conflict which lay beyond the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. PSEA was no longer affiliated
with PAFLU, Ayroso or PAFLU for that matter had no
personality to file the instant complaint. Labor Arbiter declared
PSEA’s disaffiliation from PAFLU invalid and held PSI, PSEA-
PAFLU and their respective officers guilty of unfair labor
practice.
As PSEA-NCW’s personality was not accorded recognition, its
collective bargaining agreement with PSI was struck down for
being invalid. PSI, PSEA and their respective officers
appealed to the NLRC. But the NLRC upheld the Decision of
the Labor Arbiter.
Held: Right of local unions to separate from their mother
federation on the ground that as separate and voluntary
associations, local unions do not owe their creation and
existence to the national federation to which they are affiliated
but, instead, to the will of their members. The sole essence of
affiliation is to increase, by collective action, the common
bargaining power of local unions for the effective enhancement
and protection of their interests. Admittedly, there aretimes
when without succor and support local unions may find it hard,
unaided by other support groups, to secure justice for
themselves. Yet the local unions remain the basic units of
association, free to serve their own interests subject to the
restraints imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the
national federation, and free also to renounce the affiliation
upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought
such affiliation into existence. Nothing shown in the records
nor is it claimed by PAFLU that the local union was expressly
forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation nor were there any
conditions imposed for a valid breakaway. As such, the
pendency of an election protest involving both the mother
federation and the local union did not constitute a bar to a valid
disaffiliation. Neither was it disputed by PAFLU that 111
signatories out of the 120 members of the local union, or an
equivalent of 92.5% of the total union membership supported
the claim of disaffiliation and had in fact disauthorized PAFLU
from instituting any complaint in their behalf. It was entirely
reasonable then for PSI to enter into a collective bargaining
agreement with PSEA-NCW. As PSEA had validly severed
itself from PAFLU, there would be no restrictions which could
validly hinder it from subsequently affiliating with NCW and
entering into a collective bargaining agreement in behalf of its
members. The mere act of disaffiliation did not divest PSEA of
its own personality; neither did it give PAFLU the license to act
independently of the local union.
G.R. No. L-50992 June 19, 1985
77) NATIVIDAD SAMPANG vs HONORABLE AMADO G.
INCIONG
Facts: Sampang seeks the reversal of an order of the then
Deputy Minister of Labor Inciong, who sustained the RD in his
decision to grant clearance for her dismissal, presumably for
initiating "a concerted action among the rank and file workers
not to perform overtime work amounting to gross
insubordination" That charge she denied, her version being
that she made "several representations with management,
upon request of the members of the union, to cut-off overtime
work, as this would mean more days of work and additional
living allowance for the workers, but to no avail, that the
overtime work was a device of management to avoid
compliance with P.D. 112; that there is no exigency for the
rendering of overtime work, hence, the concerted refusal to
work overtime cannot be recalled a strike."
Issue: WON Sampang’s dismissal violated the security of
tenure. Held: Yes. There is here a case, therefore, of an
employee, with more than thirty years service, having been
dismissed for instigating a strike that lasted for two days and
caused the loss in the amount of P2,716.00. It is quite obvious
then that the constitutional mandate on security of tenure was
violated. For even if her denial that she did not instigate such
two-day strike be disregarded, still the penalty imposed was
grossly disproportionate to the offense imputed to her. It would
imply at the very least that where a penalty less punitive would
suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought
not to be visited with a consequence so severe. It is not only
because of the law's concern for the workingman. There is, in
addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold
hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-
earner. The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs then
could be avoided if there be acceptance of the view that under
all the circumstances of this case, petitioners should not be
deprived of their means of livelihood. Nor is this to condone
what had been done by them. For all this while, since private
respondent considered them separated from the service, they
had not been paid. From the strictly juridical standpoint, it
cannot be too strongly stressed, to follow Davis in his masterly
work, Discretionary Justice, that where a decision may be
made to rest on informed judgment rather than rigid rules, all
the equities of the case must be accorded their due weight.
Finally, labor law determinations, to quote from Bultmann,
should be not only secundum rationem but also secundum
caritatem.