Topic: Labor Organization; Union – Member
Relations; Admission and Discipline of Members
FACTS:
1)
San
Miguel Brewery, Inc (Company) entered with the Union, of which respondent John
de Castillo is the president, into a CBA.
Section 3 of the CBA reads: The company agrees to
require as a condition of employment of those workers covered by this agreement
who either are members of the UNION on the date of the signing of this
agreement, or may join the UNION during the effectivity of this agreement, that
they shall not voluntarily resign from the UNION earlier than thirty (30) days
before the expiry date of this agreement as provided in Article XIII hereof,
provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require
the company to enforce any sanction whatsoever against any employee or worker
who fails to retain his membership in the UNION as hereinbefore stated, for any
cause other than voluntary resignation or non-payment of regular union dues on
the part of said employee or worker.
.
2)
Petitioner
Francisco Salunga was a member of the National Brewery and Allied Industries
Labor Union of the Philippines (PAFLU) since 1953. On August 18, 1961, he
tendered his resignation from the Union. The Union accepted the resignation,
and transmitted it to the Company, with a request for the immediate
implementation of said Section 3.
3)
The
Company informed petitioner that his resignation would result in the
termination of his employment, in view of Section 3
4)
Petitioner
wrote to the Union a letter withdrawing or revoking his resignation and
advising the Union to continue deducting his monthly union dues.
5)
The
Union told the Company that petitioner's membership could not be reinstated and
insisted on his separation from the service, conformably with the stipulation
above-quoted. The Company replied: Mr. Salunga told us that he did not realize
that he would be losing his job if he were to resign from the Union. We did not
at any time ask or urge him to withdraw his resignation; neither are we now
asking or insisting that you readmit him into your membership. We thought that
informing him of the consequences of his resignation from the Union, was the
only humane thing to do under the circumstances. Nevertheless, if
notwithstanding our foregoing clarification you still consider him as having
actually resigned from your organization, and you insist that we dismiss him
from the service in accordance with Sec. 3, Article II of our agreement, we
will have no alternative but to do so. The Company notified petitioner that, in
view of said letter and the aforementioned section, "we regret we have to
terminate your employment for cause.” Petitioner was discharged from the
employment of the Company.
6)
A
prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations commenced the present
proceedings for unfair labor practice against the Union, its president,
respondent John de Castillo, respondent Cipriano Cid, as PAFLU president, the
Company, and its aforementioned Vice-President Miguel Noel.
7)
The
trial Judge rendered a decision directing them to readmit and to continue the
membership of Salunga in the membership rolls of the union after paying all
union dues
8)
This
decision was reversed by the CIR — sitting en
banc. Hence, this appeal by the petitioner.
ISSUE: WON petitioner should be readmitted.
RULING: YES. Having been denied readmission into the
Union and having been dismissed from the service owing to an unfair labor
practice on the part of the Union, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement as
member of the Union.
The appeal is well
taken, for, although petitioner had resigned from the Union and the latter had
accepted the resignation, the former had, soon later — upon learning that his
withdrawal from the Union would result in his separation from the Company,
owing to the closed-shop provision above referred to — revoked or withdrawn
said resignation, and the Union refused to consent thereto without any just
cause therefor.
The Union had not
only acted arbitrarily in not allowing petitioner to continue his membership.
The trial Judge found said refusal of the Union officers to be due to his
critical attitude towards certain measures taken or sanctioned by them. As set
forth in the decision of the trial Judge:
. . . Prior to
August, 1961, he had been criticizing and objecting to what he believed were
illegal or irregular disbursements of union funds. Salunga was later removed by
the union from his position as steward without his knowledge, and that the
union did not honor the of attorney executed in his favor by Alejandro Miranda,
a co-worker, for the collection of Miranda's indebtedness of P60.00 to
him.
The officers of the
Union tried to justify themselves by characterizing said criticisms as acts of
disloyalty to the Union, which, of course, is not true, not only because the
criticism assailed, not the Union, but certain acts of its officers, and,
indirectly, the officers themselves, but also because the Constitution and
By-laws of the Union explicitly recognize the right of its members to give
their views on "all transactions made by the Union."
Although, generally,
a state may not compel ordinary voluntary associations to admit thereto any
given individual, because membership therein may be accorded or withheld as a
matter of privilege, the rule is qualified in respect of labor unions holding a
monopoly in the supply of labor, either in a given locality, or as regards a
particular employer with which it has a closed-shop agreement. The reason is
that
. . . The closed shop
and the union shop cause the admission requirements of trade union to become affected
with the public interest. Likewise, a closed shop, a union shop, or
maintenance of membership clauses cause
the administration of discipline by unions to be affected with the public
interest.
Consequently, it is
well settled that such unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude
qualified applicants for membership, and a closed-shop provision would not
justify the employer in discharging, or a union in insisting upon the discharge
of, an employee whom the union thus refuses to admit to membership, without any
reasonable ground therefor. Needless to say, if said unions may be compelled to
admit new members, who have the requisite
qualifications, with more reason may the law and the courts exercise the
coercive power when the employee involved is a long standing union member,
who, owing to provocations of union officers, was impelled to tender his
resignation, which he forthwith withdrew or revoked. Surely, he may, at least,
invoke the rights of those who seek admission for the first time, and can not arbitrarily he
denied readmission.
We cannot agree,
however, with the finding of the trial Judge to the effect that the Company was
guilty of unfair labor practice. The Company was reluctant — if not unwilling —
to discharge the petitioner. When the Union first informed the Company of
petitioner's resignation and urged implementation of Section 3 of the
bargaining contract, the Company advised petitioner of the provision thereof,
thereby intimating that he had to withdraw his resignation in order to keep his
employment. Besides, the Company notified the Union that it (the Company) would
not take any action on the case and would consider the petitioner, "still
a member" of the Union. When the latter, thereafter, insisted on
petitioner's discharge, the Company still demurred and explained it was not
taking sides and that its stand was prompted merely by "humane"
considerations, springing from the belief that petitioner had resigned from the
Union without realizing its effect upon his employment. And, as the Union
reiterated its demand, the Company notified petitioner that it had no other
alternative but to terminate his employment, and dismissed him from the service,
although with "regret".
Under these
circumstances, the Company was not "unfair" to the petitioner. At the
same time, the Company could not safely inquire into the motives of the Union
officers, in refusing to allow the petitioner to withdraw his resignation. The
arbitrary nature of the decision of said officers was not such as to be
apparent and to justify the company in regarding said decision unreasonable.
Moreso, the petitioner had appealed to the National Officers of the PAFLU and
the latter had sustained the Union. The Company was justified in presuming that
the PAFLU had inquired into all relevant circumstances, including the motives
of the Union Officers.
Having been denied
readmission into the Union and having been dismissed from the service owing to
an unfair labor practice on the part of the Union, petitioner is entitled to
reinstatement as member of the Union and to his former or substantially
equivalent position in the Company, without prejudice to his seniority and/or
rights and privileges, and with back pay, which back pay shall be borne
exclusively by the Union.
DISPOSITVE:
Petitioner
won.
DOCTRINE: Although, generally, a state may not compel
ordinary voluntary associations to admit thereto any given individual, because
membership therein may be accorded or withheld as a matter of privilege, the
rule is qualified in respect of labor unions holding a monopoly in the supply
of labor, either in a given locality, or as regards a particular employer with
which it has a closed-shop agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment