1

[G.R. No. 113638 November 16, 1999] A. D. GOTHONG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU, vs. NLRC
FACTS: On May 12, 1993, petitioner A. D. Gothong Manufacturing Corporation Employees Union-ALU (Union) filed a petition for certification election in its bid to represent the unorganized regular rank-and-file employees of respondent A. D. Gothong Manufacturing Corporation (Company) excluding its office staff and personnel. Respondent Company opposed the petition as it excluded office personnel who are rank and file employees. In the inclusion-exclusion proceedings, the parties agreed to the inclusion of Romulo Plaza and Paul Michael Yap in the list of eligible voters on condition that their votes are considered challenged on the ground that they were supervisory employees. The certification election was conducted as scheduled and yielded the following results: YES 20 NO 19 Spoiled 0 Challenged 2 Total votes cast 41 Both Plaza and Yap argued that they are rank-and-file employees. Plaza claimed that he was a mere salesman based in Cebu, and Yap argued that he is a mere expediter whose job includes the facilitation of the processing of the bills of lading of all intended company shipments. Petitioner Union maintains that both Plaza and Yap are supervisors who are disqualified to join the proposed bargaining unit for rank-and-file employees. The Med-Arbiter declared that the challenged voters Yap and Plaza are rank-and-file employees. Petitioner Union appealed to the Secretary of Labor insisting that Yap and Plaza are supervisor and manager respectively of the corporation and are

prohibited from joining the proposed bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees. ISSUE: W/N Yap and Plaza are rank and file employees as such entitled to vote in certification election HELD: YES. In the case of Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines vs. Trajano 3, this Court stated: The test of supervisory or managerial status depends on whether a person possess authority to act in the interest of his employer in the matter specified in Article 212 (k) of the Labor Code and Section 1 (m) of its Implementing Rules and whether such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. Thus, where such recommendatory powers as in the case at bar, are subject to evaluation, review and final action by the department heads and other higher executives of the company, the same, although present, are not exercise of independent judgment as required by law. 4 It has also been established that in the determination of whether or not certain employees are managerial employees, this Court accords due respect and therefore sustains the findings of fact made by quasi-judicial agencies which are supported by substantial evidence considering their expertise in their respective fields. The petition has failed to show reversible error in the findings of the MedArbiter and the Secretary of the Department of Labor. In ruling against petitioner Union, the Med-Arbiter ruled that the petitioner Union failed to present concrete and substantial evidence to establish the fact that challenged voters are either managerial or supervising employees thus should be excluded from the certification election. The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the finding of the Med-Arbiter and the Secretary of Labor that the copies of the minutes presented in evidence do not prove that Yap and Plaza were managerial or supervisory employees. The issue raised herein is basically one of fact: whether in the light of the evidence submitted by both parties, Plaza and Yap are managerial

LABOR- 12-04-2013

2
employees or rank-and-file employees. The Court is not a trier of facts. As earlier stated, it is not the function of the Court to examine and evaluate the probative value of all evidence presented to the concerned tribunal which formed the basis of its impugned decision or resolution. Following established precedents, it is inappropriate to review that factual findings of the Med-Arbiter regarding the issue whether Romulo Plaza and Paul Michael Yap are or are not rank-and-file employees considering that these are matters within their technical expertise. positions it averred were reclassified as managerial employees in the light of the reorganization effected by it. Under the Revised Organizational Structure of the PICOP, section heads and supervisors werenow called section managers and unit managers, and head sections and independent units. PICOP advanced the view that considering the alleged present authority of these section managers and unit managers to hire and fire, they are classified as managerial employees, and hence, ineligible to form or join any labor organization. ISSUE: W/N the subject employees are managerial employees as such are prohibited to join unions

[G.R. No. 101738 April 12, 2000] PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LAGUESMA
FACTS: Petitioner Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) is engaged in the manufacture of paper and timber products, with principal place of operations at Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur. It has over 9,000 employees, 944 of whom are supervisory and technical staff employees. More or less 487 of these supervisory and technical staff employees are signatory members of the private respondent PICOP-Bislig Supervisory and Technical Staff Employees Union (PBSTSEU). On August 9, 1989, PBSTSEU instituted a Petition for Certification Election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory and technical staff employees of PICOP for collective bargaining agreement (CBA) purposes. PICOP failed to file any comment or position paper. Meanwhile, private respondents Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and Associated Labor Union (ALU) filed their respective petitions for intervention. Med-Arbiter Arturo L. Gamolo issued an Order granting the petitions for interventions of the FFW and ALU and another ordering the holding of a certification election among PICOPs supervisory and technical staff employees. During the pre-election conference PICOP questioned and objected to the inclusion of some section heads and supervisors in the list of voters whose

HELD: In United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma, the Court elucidated on the term managerial employees. Managerial employees are ranked as Top Managers, Middle Managers and First Line Managers. Top and Middle Managers have the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies while the task of First-Line Managers is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rank-and- file employees of an organization. Under this distinction, managerial employees therefore fall in two (2) categories, namely, the managers per se composed of Top and Middle Managers, and the supervisors composed of First-Line Managers. Thus, the mere fact that an employee is designated manager does not ipso facto make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of the employee, for it is the job description that determines the nature of employment. A thorough dissection of the job description of the concerned supervisory employees and section heads indisputably show that they are not actually managerial but only supervisory employees since they do not lay down company policies. PICOPs contention that the subject section heads and unit managers exercise the authority to hire and fire is ambiguous and quite misleading for the reason that any authority they exercise is not supreme but merely advisory in character. Theirs is not a final determination of the company policies inasmuch as any action taken by them on matters

LABOR- 12-04-2013

3
relative to hiring, promotion, transfer, suspension and termination of employees is still subject to confirmation and approval by their respective superior. Thus, where such power, which is in effect recommendatory in character, is subject to evaluation, review and final action by the department heads and other higher executives of the company, the same, although present, is not effective and not an exercise of independent judgment as required by law. Furthermore, considering all the foregoing, the fact that PICOP voiced out its objection to the holding of certification election, despite numerous opportunities to ventilate the same, only after respondent Undersecretary of Labor affirmed the holding thereof, simply bolstered the public respondents conclusion that PICOP raised the issue merely to prevent and thwart the concerned section heads and supervisory employees from exercising a right granted them by law. Needless to stress, no obstacle must be placed to the holding of certification elections, for it is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented. ISSUE: Whether or not a supervisors union can affiliate with the same Federation of which two rank and file unions are likewise members, without violating Article 245 of the Labor Code (PD 442), as amended? W/N confidential employees may join rank and file employees union. HELD: In Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma, 205 SCRA 121 [1992], as members it was ratiocinated: xxx xxx xx The prohibition against a supervisors union joining a local union of rank and file is replete with jurisprudence. The Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors local union applying for membership in a national federation the members of which include local unions of rank and file employees. The intent of the law is clear especially where, as in this case at bar, the supervisors will be co-mingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit. As regards the issue of whether or not confidential employees can join the labor union of the rank and file, what was held in the case of National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) . . A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employers property. While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles out managerial employee as ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization, under the doctrine of necessary implication, confidential employees are similarly disqualified.

[G.R. No. 96663 August 10, 1999] PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR
FACTS: The Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization-UOEF (Union) filed a petition for certification election with the Med-Arbiter seeking to be the exclusive bargaining agent of supervisors of Pepsi-Cola Philippines, Inc. (PEPSI). The Med-Arbiter granted the Petition, with the explicit statement that it was an affiliate of Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (federation) together with two (2) rank and file unions. Pepsi-Cola Labor Unity (PCLU) and Pepsi-Cola Employees Union of the Philippines (PEUP). PEPSI filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition to Set Aside, Cancel and/or Revoke Charter Affiliation of the Union, entitled PCPPI v.PCEU-UOEF on the grounds that (a) the members of the Union were managers and (b) a supervisors union can not affiliate with a federation whose members include the rank and file union of the same company.

TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery

3

LABOR- 12-04-2013

G.R. No. 161933: STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (SCBEU-NUBE) vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK and ANNEMARIE DURBIN, in her capacity as Chief Executive Officer, Philippines
22 April 2008 l Labor Standards Confidential Employees Exclusion as Appropriate Bargaining Unit The 1998-2000 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Standard Chartered Bank employees Union and the Standard Chartered Bank expired so the parties tried to renew it but then a deadlock ensued. Under the old CBA, the following are excluded as appropriate bargaining unit:

LABOR- 12-04-2013

5
A. All covenanted and assistant officers (now called National Officers) B. One confidential secretary of each of the:1. Chief Executive, Philippine Branches 2. Deputy Chief Executive/Head, Corpo ate Banking Group 3. Head, Finance 4. Head, Human Resources 5. Manager, Cebu 6. Manager, Iloilo 7. Covenanted Officers provided said positions shall be filled by new recruits. C. The Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers in Manila, Cebu and Iloilo, and in any other branch that the BANK may establish in the country. D. Personnel of the Telex Department E. All Security Guards F. Probationary employees, without prejudice to Article 277 (c) of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715, casuals or emergency employees; and G. One (1) HR Staff But then in the renewal sought by SCBEU-NUBE, they only wanted the exclusion toapply only to the following employees from the appropriate bargaining unit all managers who are vested with the right to hire and fire employees, confidential employees, those with access to labor relations materials, Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and one Human Resources (HR) staff. SCBEU-NUBE also averred that employees assigned in an acting capacity for at least a week should be given salary raise. A notice of strike was given to the Department of Labor due to this deadlock. Then DOLE Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas issued an order dismissing the Unions plea. ISSUE: Whether or not the confidential employees sought to be removed from the exclusion as appropriate bargaining unit by SCBEU-NUBE holds ground. HELD: No. Whether or not the employees sought to be excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit are confidential employees is a question of fact, which is not a proper issue in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. SCBEU-NUBE insists that the foregoing employees are not confidential employees; however, it failed to buttress its claim. Aside from its generalized arguments, and despite the Secretary's finding that there was no evidence to support it, SCBEU-NUBE still failed to substantiate its claim. SCBEU-NUBE did not even bother to state the nature of the duties and functions of these employees, depriving the Court of any basis on which it may be concluded that they are indeed confidential employees.W ith regards to the salary increase of employees in acting capacities, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that a restrictive provision would curtail management's prerogative, and at the same time, recognized that employees should not be made to work in an acting capacity for long periods of time without adequate compensation. The usual rule that employees in acting capacities for at least a month should be given salary raise is upheld.

Central Negros Electric Cooperative vs DOLE

GR 94045 Facts: On August 15, 1987, CENECO entered into a collective bargaining agreement with CURE, a labor union representing its rank-and-file employees, providing for a term of three years retroactive to April 1, 1987 and extending up to March 31, 1990. On December 28, 1989, CURE wrote CENECO proposing that negotiations be conducted for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). On January 18, 1990, CENECO denied CUREs request on the ground that, under applicable decisions of the Supreme Court, employees who at the same time are members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join a union. Prior to the submission of the proposal for CBA renegotiation, CURE members, in a general assembly held on December 9, 1989, approved Resolution No. 35 whereby it was agreed that tall union members shall withdraw, retract, or recall the union members membership from Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. in order to avail (of) the full benefits under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by and between CENECO and CURE, and the supposed benefits that our union may avail of under the renewed CBA. However, the withdrawal from membership was denied by CENECO on February 27, 1990 under Resolution No. 90. Issue: WON the employees of CENECO who withdrew their membership from the cooperative are entitled to form or join CURE for purposes of the negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement proposed by the latter.

LABOR- 12-04-2013

6
Held: The right of the employees to self-organization is a compelling reason why their withdrawal from the cooperative must be allowed. As pointed out by CURE, the resignation of the member- employees is an expression of their preference for union membership over that of membership in the cooperative. The avowed policy of the State to afford fall protection to labor and to promote the primacy of free collective bargaining mandates that the employees right to form and join unions for purposes of collective bargaining be accorded the highest consideration. Thus, member employees of a cooperative may withdraw as members of the cooperative in order to join labor union. Membership in a cooperative is voluntary; inherent in it is the right not to join. NOTES: (San Jose Electric Service Cooperative vs. Ministry of Labor) 1. A cooperative, therefore, is by its nature different from an ordinary business concern being run either, by persons, partnerships or corporations. Its owners and/or members are the ones who run and operate the business while the others are its employees. 2. An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member and coowner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. Employees of cooperatives who are themselves members of the cooperative have no right to form or join labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining for being themselves co-owners of the cooperative. 3. However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees who are not members or co-owners thereof, certainly such employees are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and others as are enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country. G.R. No. 85750 the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) Case. FACTS: ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate a refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. It was incorporated in New York, USA, at the request of the Holy See, as a nonprofit agency involved in international humanitarian and voluntary work. Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organization registered with the United Nations and, hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity. Subsequently, the Philippine Government, through the DEFORAF, granted ICMC the status of a specialized agency with corresponding diplomatic privileges and immunities. ICMC then sought the immediate dismissal of the TUPAS Petition for Certification Election invoking the immunity expressly granted but the same was denied by respondent BLR Director who, again, ordered the immediate conduct of a pre-election conference. B. G.R. No. 89331 (The International Rice Research Institute [IRRI] Case). FACTS: IRRI was initially organized and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a private corporation subject to all laws and regulations. However, by virtue of Pres. Decree No. 1620, promulgated on 19 April 1979, IRRI was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of an international organization. The Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (OLALIA), is a legitimate labor organization with an existing local union, the Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI (Kapisanan, for short) in respondent IRRI. On 20 April 1987, the Kapisanan filed a Petition for Direct Certification Election the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). IRRI opposed the petition invoking Pres. Decree No. 1620 conferring upon it the status of an international organization and granting it immunity from

[G.R. No. 85750 Sep 28, 1990] INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC IMMIGRATION COMMISSION vs HON. PURA CALLEJA
LABOR- 12-04-2013

7
all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings under Philippine laws. 1. GR # 85750- the Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) case. ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine government to operate the refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. That comes from an argument between the Philippine government and the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees for eventual resettlement to other countries was to be established in Bataan. ICMC was duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Council and enjoys consultative status. As an international organization rendering voluntary and humanitarian services in the Philippines, its activities are parallel to those of the international committee for migration and the international of the red cross. On July 14,1986, Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied for certification with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a petition for certification election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC. The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organization registered with the United Nations and hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity. The Med-Arbiter sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition for each of jurisdiction. On appeal by TUPAS, Director Calleja, reversed the Medarbiters decision and ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election. ICMC then sought the immediate dismissal of the TUPAS petition for certification election involving the immunity expressly granted but the same was denied. With intervention of department of foreign affairs who was legal interest in the outcome of this case, the second division gave due to the ICMC petition and required the submittal of memoranda by the parties. 1. GR # 89331- the IRRI case The International Rice Research Institute was a fruit of memorandum of understanding between the Philippine government and the Ford and Rochefeller Foundations. It was intended to be an autonomous, philanthropic tax-free, non-profit, non stock organization designed to carry out the principal objective of conducting basic research on the rice plant. It was organized and registered with the SEC as a private corporation subject to all laws and regulations. However, by virtue of P.D no. 1620, IRRI was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of an international organization. The Kapisanan filed a petition for direct certification election with regional office of the Department of Labor and Employment. IRRI opposed the petition invoking Pres. Decree no.1620 conferring upon it the status of an international organization and granting it immunity from all civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings under Philippine laws. The Med-Arbiter upheld the opposition on the basis of PD 1620 and dismissed the petition for direct certification. On appeal by BLR Director, set aside the med-arbiters decision and contends that immunities and privileges granted to IRRI do not include exemption from coverage of our labor laws. ISSUES: GR # 85750- the ICMC case: Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws. GR no. 89331- the IRRI case: Whether or not the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certification election filed by Kapisanan. RULING: The grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws, because it is clearly necessitated by their international character and respective purposes which is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal workings. Employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled because each specialized agency shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of disputes out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is a party. Moreover, pursuant to article IV of memorandum of abuse of privilege by

LABOR- 12-04-2013

8
ICMC, the government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded. No grave abuse of discretion may be imputed to respondent secretary of labor in his assumption of appelate jurisdiction, contrary to Kapisanans allegation, hence, any party to an election may appeal the order or results of the elections as determined by the med-arbiter directly to the secretary of labor and employment on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the secretary of labor and employment for the conduct of the election have been violated. Wherefore, petition granted in ICMC case and in IRRI case, the petition was dismissed. ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunites to ICMC/IRRI extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws. HELD (BOTH CASES): There can be no question that diplomatic immunity has, in fact, been granted ICMC and IRRI. The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is clearly necessitated by their international character and respective purposes. The objective is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal workings. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these instances would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions. ICMCs and IRRIs immunity from local jurisdiction by no means deprives labor of its basic rights. For, ICMC employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled. Section 31 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations 17 provides that each specialized agency shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is a party. Moreover, pursuant to Article IV of the Memorandum of Agreement between ICMC the the Philippine Government, whenever there is any abuse of privilege by ICMC, the Government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded. Neither are the employees of IRRI without remedy in case of dispute with management as, in fact, there had been organized a forum for better management-employee relationship as evidenced by the formation of the Council of IRRI Employees and Management (CIEM) wherein both management and employees were and still are represented for purposes of maintaining mutual and beneficial cooperation between IRRI and its employees. The existence of this Union factually and tellingly belies the argument that Pres. Decree No. 1620, which grants to IRRI the status, privileges and immunities of an international organization, deprives its employees of the right to self-organization.

[G.R. No. 91307 January 24, 1991] SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY vs. DRILON
FACTS: On February 15, 1989, the respondent union filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all collectors of the Singer Sewing Machine Company. The Company opposed the petition mainly on the ground that the union members are actually not employees but are independent contractors as evidenced by the collection agency agreement which they signed. ISSUE: W/N petitioners are entitled to right of self-organization HELD: The Court finds that since private respondents are not employees of the Company, they are not entitled to the constitutional right to join or form a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly, there is no constitutional and legal basis for their union to be granted their petition for direct certification. This Court made this pronouncement in La

LABOR- 12-04-2013

9
Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory v. Director of Bureau of Labor Relations, supra: . . . The question of whether employer-employee relationship exists is a primordial consideration before extending labor benefits under the workmens compensation, social security, medicare, termination pay and labor relations law. It is important in the determination of who shall be included in a proposed bargaining unit because, it is the sine qua non, the fundamental and essential condition that a bargaining unit be composed of employees. Failure to establish this juridical relationship between the union members and the employer affects the legality of the union itself. It means the ineligibility of the union members to present a petition for certification election as well as to vote therein . . . . (At p. 689) the date of receipt by [it] from the [Company] of the profit-sharing bonus. If a laborer or employee of the [Company] does not want to accept the profitsharing bonus which the said employee or laborer is entitled under this Agreement, it shall be the duty of the [Associated Labor Union] to return the money received by [it] as profit-sharing bonus to the [Company] within a period of sixty (60) days from the receipt by the [Union] from the [Company] of the said profit-sharing bonus. Defendant Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. delivered to the ALU for distribution to the laborers or employees working with the defendant corporation to the profit-sharing bonus corresponding to the first installment for the year 1965. Again in June 1965 the defendant corporation delivered to the Associated Labor Union the profit-sharing bonus corresponding to the second installment for 1965. The members of the Mactan Workers Union failed to receive their shares in the second installment of bonus because they did not like to go to the office of the ALU to collect their shares. In accordance with the terms of the collective bargaining after 60 days, the uncollected shares of the plaintiff union members was returned by the ALU to the defendant corporation. Hence the collection suit before the RTC. HELD: Nevertheless, it is not to be forgotten that what is entitled to constitutional protection is labor, or more specifically the working men and women, not labor organizations. The latter are merely the instrumentalities through which their welfare may be promoted and fostered. That is the raison detre of labor unions. The utmost care should be taken then, lest in displaying an unyielding, intransigent attitude on behalf of their members, injustice be committed against opposing labor organizations. In the final analysis, they alone are not the sole victims, but the labor movement itself, which may well be the recipient of a crippling blow. Moreover, while it is equally understandable that their counsel would take advantage of every legal doctrine deemed applicable or conjure up any defense that could serve their cause, still, as officers of the court, there should be an awareness that resort to such a technique does result in clogged dockets, without the least justification especially so if there be insistence on flimsy and insubstantial contentions just to give some semblance of plausibility to

[G.R. No. L-30241 June 30, 1972] MACTAN WORKERS UNION and TOMAS FERRER vs.DON RAMON ABOITIZ
FACTS: Defendant Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. in Lapulapu City is employing laborers and employees belonging to two rival labor unions. Seventy-two of these employees or laborers whose names appear in the complaint are affiliated with the Mactan Workers Union while the rest are members of the intervenor Associated Labor Union. On November 28, 1964, the defendant Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. and the Associated Labor Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement the pertinent part of which, Article XIII thereof, [reads thus]: The [Company] agrees to give a profit-sharing bonus to its employees and laborers, to be payable in two (2) installments, the first installment being payable in March and the second installment in June, each year out of the profits in agreement. Said profit-sharing bonus shall be paid by the [Company] to [Associated Labor Union] to be delivered by the latter to the employees and laborers concerned and it shall be the duty of the Associated Labor Union to furnish and deliver to the [Company] the corresponding receipts duly signed by the laborers and employees entitled to receive the profit-sharing bonus within a period of sixty (60) days from

LABOR- 12-04-2013

10
their pleadings. Certainly, technical virtuosity, or what passes for it, is no substitute for an earnest and sincere desire to assure that there be justice according to law. That is a creed to which all members of the legal profession, labor lawyers not excluded, should do their best to live by. Held: NO. (as held in the leading case of Confederated Sons of Labor v . Anakan Lumber Co . decided in April of 1960)However, " The closed - shop agreement authorized under sec. 4, subsec. a(4) of the Industrial Peace Act apply to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet members of any labor organization. It is inapplicable to those already in the service who are members of another union. To hold otherwise, i.e., that the employees in a company who are members of a minority union may be compelled to disaffiliate from their union and join the majority or contracting union, would render nugatory the right of all employees to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing, aright guaranteed by the Industrial Peace Act (sec. 3, Rep. Act No. 875) as well as by the Constitution (Art. III, sec. 1[6])." ( Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co. , Inc v. Court of Industrial Relations , January 28, 1961) The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work." Where does that leave a labor union? Correctly understood, it is nothing but the means of assuring that such fundamental objectives would be achieved. It is the instrumentality through which an individual laborer who is helpless as against a powerful employer may, through concerted effort and activity, achieve the goal of economic well-being . That is the philosophy underlying the Industrial Peace Act . 33 For, rightly has it been said that workers unorganized are weak; workers organized are strong . Necessarily then, they join labor unions . T o further increase the effectiveness of such organizations, a closed shop has been allowed. It could happen, though, that such a stipulation which assures further weight to a labor union at the bargaining table could be utilized against minority groups or individual members thereof. There are indications that such a deplorable situation did so manifest itself here Facts: Nineteen employees were dismissed by Central Santos Lopez Co., Inc upon their expulsion from United Sugar Workers Union-ILO. The sugar company assumed that it had to dismiss the workers by virtue of the closed-shop provision in the then existing collective bargaining agreement which states that laborers who are no longer

GUIJARNO vs. CIR [GR Nos. L-28791-93 (August 27, 1973)]

Nature: petition for review by certitiorari Ponente: FERNANDO, J.: Facts: -Three unfair labor practice cases for unlawful dismissal allegedly based on legitimate union activity were filed against respondent Central Santos Lopez Co., Inc. and respondent United Sugar Workers Union - ILO, with eight of the present petitioners as complainants in the first, six of them in the second, and five, in the third. These three are consolidated. -Petitioners insist their right to reinstatement as the closed-shop provision (in the CBA) was incorrectly applied to them since they were in employment long before the CBA took effect. -The company said that the only reason for the dismissal of the petitioners is because their dismissal was asked by the union where the company has a valid and existing CB contract with a closed-shop provision to the effect that those laborers who are no longer members of good standing in the union may be dismissed by the respondent company if their dismissal is sought by the union; It has never committed acts of unfair labor practice but that it has the obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract; and that a closed - shop agreement is expressly allowed under the provisions of RA 875 known as the Industrial Peace Act and the dismissal of complainants is merely an exercise of a right allowed by said law. -TC (November 2, 1967) and CIR (January 22, 1968)held the dismissal was justifiable under the closed - shop provision of the collective bargaining agreement. Issue: WON the closed - shop provision could be applied retroactively.

LABOR- 12-04-2013

10

11
members of good standing in the union may be dismissed by the respondent company if their dismissal is sought by the union. It argued that it has never committed any acts of unfair labor practice since the union sought the dismissal of the said workers; that it has a solemn obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract; and that a closedshop agreement is sanctioned under this jurisdiction for such kind of agreement is expressly allowed under the provisions of Republic Act 875 known as the Industrial Peace Act and the dismissal of complainants is merely an exercise of a right allowed by said law. It was established that the terminated workers were employed long before the collective bargaining contract has been entered into. The lower courts held that the dismissal was justifiable under the closed-shop provision of the collective bargaining agreement. Hence, this petition for review. Issue: Whether or nor a closed-shop bargaining contract is retroactive provision in a collective Peace Act as well as by the Constitution." According to the Court, the creation of labor unions is a means of assuring that fundamental constitutional objectives such as the protection of labor (full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers) and the promotion of social justice (dignity, welfare, and security of all the people) would be achieved. It is the instrumentality through which an individual laborer who is helpless as against a powerful employermay, through concerted effort and activity, achieve the goal of economic well-being. That is the philosophy underlying the Industrial Peace Act. For, rightly has it been said that workers unorganized are weak; workers organized are strong. Necessarily then, they join labor unions. To further increase the effectiveness of such organizations, a closed-shop has been allowed. It could happen, though, that such a stipulation which assures further weight to a labor union at the bargaining table could be utilized against minority groups or individual members thereof. There are indications that such a deplorable situation did so manifest itself here. The lower courts were not sufficiently alert to such a danger. What is worse, it paid no heed to the controlling doctrine which is merely a recognition of a basic fact in life, namely, that power in a collectivity could be the means of crushing opposition and stifling the voices of those who are in dissent. The right to join others of like persuasion is indeed valuable. An individual by himself may feel inadequate to meet the exigencies of life or even to express his personality without the right to association being vitalized. It could happen though that whatever group may be in control of the organization may simply ignore his most-cherished desires and treat him as if he counts for naught. The antagonism between him and the group becomes marked. Dissatisfaction if given expression may be labeled disloyalty. In the labor field, the union under such circumstances may no longer be a haven of refuge, but indeed as much of a potential foe as management itself.

Held: NO. In Confederated Sons of Labor v. Anakan Lumber Co., it was said that "In order that an employer may be deemed bound, under a collective bargaining agreement, to dismiss employees for non-union membership, the stipulation to this effect must be so clear and unequivocal as to leave no room for doubt thereon. An undertaking of this nature is so harsh that it must be strictly construed, and doubts must be resolved against the existence of "closed shop"." Furthermore, it was stated in Freeman Shirt Manufacturing v. Court of Industrial Relations that "The closed-shop agreement authorized under sec. 4, subsec. a(4) of the Industrial Peace Act applies to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet members of any labor organization. It is inapplicable to those already in the se rvice who are members of another union. To hold otherwise, i. e., that the employees in a company who are members of a minority union may be compelled to disaffiliate from their union and join the majority or contracting union, would render nugatory the right of all employees to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing, a right guaranteed by the Industrial

LABOR- 12-04-2013

11