Topic: Enforcement and Remedies –
Intra-union Disputes; Jurisdiction; Procedure and Sanctions
FACTS:
1. The
consolidated cases involve disputes among employees of the Philippines Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLDT), who are members of the
same union, the Free Telephone Workers Union (FTWU).
2. The disputes concern the validity of the general elections
for union officers in 1986, and the increase of union dues adopted and put into
effect by the incumbent officers subsequent to said elections.
3. Assailed
by the petitioners in this case are (1) the decision of the Director of Labor
Relations (BLR) annulling the elections of officers of the labor union, the Free Telephone Workers Union (FTWU), and
(2) the resolution denying their motion for reconsideration of the decision.
4. The
union's by-laws provide for the election of officers every three (3) years,
in the month of July.
5. Pursuant
thereto, the union's Legislative Council
set the provincial elections for its
officers on July 14 to 18, 1986, and those
for Metro Manila on July 25, 1986.
6. The
same Council also quite drastically raised
the fees for the filing of certificates of candidates which had therefore
ranged from P75.00 to P100.00.
7. The
filing fee for each candidate for president of the labor organization was
increased to P3,000; that for each candidate for vice-president, secretary
general, treasurer and auditor, to P2,000.00; and that for assistant secretary,
assistant treasurer and assistant auditor, to P1,000.00 each.
ISSUES
1. Whether
or not there is any grave abuse of discretion
tainting the adjudgment of respondent Director of Labor Relations that the
general elections for union officers held in 1986 were attended by grave
irregularities, rendering the elections invalid
2. Whether or not the Matter of
30%-Support for Complaints for Violations of Union Membership Rights was
mandatory
3. Whether or not the resolution
increasing the union dues must therefore be struck down, as illegal and void
RULING:
1. No,
there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Director of
Labor Relations.
No,
because a review of the record fails to disclose
any grave abuse of discretion tainting the adjudgment of respondent Director of
Labor Relations that the general elections for union officers held in 1986 were
attended by grave irregularities, rendering the elections invalid. That finding
must thus be sustained.
2.No, pursuant to
Article 242 of the Labor Code.
No,
because the respondent Director's ruling,
however, that the assent of 30% of the union membership, mentioned in Article
242 of the Labor Code, was mandatory and essential to the filing of a complaint
for any violation of rights and conditions of membership in a labor
organization (such as the arbitrary and oppressive increase of union dues here
complained of), cannot be affirmed and will be reversed.
The very article relied upon militates against the
proposition. It states that a report of a violation of rights and conditions of
membership in a labor organization maybe
made by "(a)t least thirty percent (30%) of all the members of a union or any member or members specially
concerned."
The use of
the permissive "may" in the provision at once negates the notion that
the assent of 30% of all the members is mandatory. More decisive is the fact
that the provision expressly declares that the report may be made,
alternatively by "any
member or members specially
concerned."
And further confirmation that the assent of 30% of the union members is not a factor in the
acquisition of jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor Relations is furnished by
Article 226 of the same Labor Code, which grants original and exclusive
jurisdiction to the Bureau, and the Labor Relations Division in the Regional
Offices of the Department of Labor, over "all
inter-union and intra-union
conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting
labor management relations," making no reference whatsoever to any such
30 % support requirement.
Indeed, the officials are given the power to act "on all
inter-union and intra-union conflicts (1) "upon request of either or
both parties" as well as (2) "at their own initiative."
3. Yes, the resolution
increasing the union dues must therefore be struck down, as illegal and void,
arbitrary and oppressive.
Yes, because the respondent Director found that the resolution of the union's
Legislative Council to this effect does
not bear the signature of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the
Council, contrary to the requirement of the union constitution and by-laws;
and that proof is wanting of proper ratification of the resolution by a
majority of the general union membership at a plebiscite called and conducted
for that purpose, again in violation of the constitution and by-laws. The
resolution increasing the union dues must therefore be struck down, as illegal
and void, arbitrary and oppressive. The collection of union dues at the
increased rates must be discontinued; and the dues thus far improperly collected
must be refunded to the union members or held in trust for disposition by them
in accordance with their charter and rules, in line with this Court's ruling in
a parallel situation, viz:
...
All amounts already collected must be credited accordingly in favor of the
respective members either for their future legal dues or other assessments or
even delinquencies, if any. And if this arrangement regarding the actual refund
of what might be excessive dues is not acceptable to the majority of the
members, the matter may be decided in a general meeting called for the purpose.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE,
in G.R. Nos. 76579-82, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED, no grave abuse of
discretion or other serious error having been shown in the decision of the
respondent Director of Labor Relations, said decision — ordering the holding of
new elections for officers of the Free Telephone Worker Union — being on the
contrary in accord with the facts and the law.
DOCTRINE: It
goes without saying that free and honest elections are indispensable to the
enjoyment by employees and workers of their constitutionally protected right to
self-organization. That right "would be diluted if in the choice of the
officials to govern ... (union) affairs, the election is not fairly and
honestly conducted," and the labor officers concerned and the courts have
the duty "to see to it that no abuse is committed by any official of a
labor organization in the conduct of its affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment