Topic:
Legitimate workers association
FACTS:
1.
On October 23, 1950, a group of deck officers and marine engineers
on board vessels plying Cebu and other ports of the Philippines organized
themselves into an association and registered it as a non-stock corporation
known as Cebu Seamen’s Association, Inc (CSAI) with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). Later, the same group registered its association with the
Bureau of Labor Relations as a labor union known as the Seamen’s
Association of the Philippines, Incorporated (SAPI).
2.
SAPI had an existing collective bargaining agreement with Aboitiz
Shipping Corporation and had been remitting checked-off union dues to said
union until a group of union members headed by Manuel Gabayoyo, introducing
themselves as the new set of officers elected under the supervision of the SEC,
claimed that they are entitled to the remittance and custody of such union
dues.
3.
Subsequently, another group headed by Dominica Nacua,
claiming as the duly elected set of officers of the union, filed a complaint,
for and in behalf of the union, against CSAI to restrain them from acting on
behalf of the union and directing Aboitiz to remit the checked-off union dues.
4.
CSAI filed its answer alleging that the union and the former are
one and the same and that Nacuahas already been expelled as member/officer of
the union through two resolutions its Board of Directors.
5.
The Med-Arbiter issued an order holding that the set of officers
of SAPI headed by Nacua, was the lawful set of officers entitled to the release
and custody of the union dues as well as agency fees of the said
association.
6.
On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relations affirmed the decision of
the Med-Arbiter and after the Secretary of Labor denied CSAI’s
appeal/motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, filed a petition with the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Who is
entitled to the collection and custody of the union dues?
RULING: SAPI.
It is the set of officers headed
by Dominica Nacua that is the lawful set of officers of SAPI and is, therefore,
entitled to the release and custody of the union dues as well as the as the
agency fees. As stated in the findings of fact,
CSAI, a non-stock corporation was registered with the SEC.
The same group was registered with the BLR as SAPI. It is the registration of
the organization with the BLR and not with the SEC which made it a legitimate
labor organization with rights and privileges granted under the Labor Code.
The Supreme Court also stated
that BLR correctly ruled on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties
that SAPI, the legitimate labor union, registered with its office, is not the
same association as CSAI, the corporation, insofar as their rights under the
Labor Code are concerned.
A record check with the BLR shows
that SAPI has submitted to it for files the list of this new set
of officers, in compliance with second paragraph of Art 242 (c) of the
Labor Code [now Art. 242-A (b)]. This list sufficiently sustains the view that
said officers were lawfully elected, in the absence of clear and convincing
proof to the contrary.
DISPOSITIVE: SAPI
won. Petition denied
DOCTRINE:
Art. 242-A (b) of the Labor Code
Art.242-A. Reportorial Requirement –
the following are documents to besubmitted to the Bureau by the legitimate
labor organization concerned:
xxx xxx
xxx
(b) Its list of officers, minutes of the election of
officers and list of voters within 30 days from election.
xxx xxx
xxx
Failure to comply with the above requirements shall not be a
ground for cancellation of union registration but shall subject the erring
officers or membersto suspension, expulsion from membership, or any appropriate
penalty.
No comments:
Post a Comment