ACEDERA V. INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

Topic: Rights of Legitimate Labor Organization

FACTS:

Jerry Acedera, et al. are employees of International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) and are members of Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union-International Container Terminal Services, Inc.(APCWU-ICTSI), a duly registered labor organization. ICTSI entered into a five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with APCWU which reduced the employees· work days from 304 to 250 days a year.

The Wage Board decreed wage increases in NCR which affected ICTSI. Upon the request of APCWU to compute the actual monthly increase in the employee’s salary by multiplying the mandated increase by 365days and dividing by12 months, ICTSI stopped using 304 days as divisor and started using 365 days to determine the daily wage.

Later on, ICTSI entered into a retrenchment program which prompted APCWU to file a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for ICTSI·s use of 365 days, instead of 250 days, as divisor in the computation of wages. Acedera et al. filed a Motion to Intervene which was denied by the LA. On appeal, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed LA·s decision. Acedera et al. filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA) which was dismissed.

LA: denied motion to intervene

NLRC: affirmed LA’s decision

CA: dismissed appeal

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not Acedera et al. have no legal right to intervene in the case as their intervention was a superfluity

RULING: YES, there is unfair labor practice.

1.  That APCWUacted in a representative capacity "for and in behalf of its Union members and other employees similarly situated, the title of the case filed by it at the Labor Arbiters Office so expressly states. While a party acting in a representative capacity, such as a union, may be permitted to intervene in a case, ordinarily, a person whose interests are already represented will not be permitted to do the same except when there is a suggestion of fraud or collusion or that there representative will not act in good faith for the protection of all interests represented by him.

2.  Acedera et al. cite the dismissal of the case filed by ICTSI, first by the Labor Arbiter, and later by the Court of Appeals. The dismissal of the case does not, however, by itself show the existence of fraud or collusion or a lack of good faith on the part of APCWU.

3. There must be clear and convincing evidence of fraud or collusion o lack of good faith independently of the dismissal. This, Acedera et al. failed to proffer. Acedera et al. likewise express their fear that APCWU would not prosecute the case diligently because of its “sweetheart relationship" with ICTSI. There is nothing on record, however, to support this alleged relationship which allegation surfaces a a mereafterthought because it was never raised early on. It was raised only in petitioners-appellants· reply to ICTSI’s comment in the petition at bar, the last pleading submitted to this Court, which was filed on June 20, 2001 or more than 42 months after petitioners-Appellants filed their Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to Intervene with the Labor Arbiter. 

To reiterate, for a member of a class to be permitted to intervene in a representative action, fraud or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of the representative must be proven. It must be based on facts borne on record.

Mere assertions, as what petitioners-appellants proffer, do not suffice.

DISPOSITIVE: petition dismissed. In favor of INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. (ICTSI).

DOCTRINE: Ordinarily, a person whose interests are already represented will not be permitted to do the same except when there is a suggestion of fraud or collusion or that the representative will not act in good faith.