Dissaffiliation

Tropical Hut Employees Union v. Tropical Hut

A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members
including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant.

Facts:

Petitioner (THEU), a LLO, sought for its affiliation with NATU (National Association of Trade Unions).
Following Petitioner's (THEU-NATU) affiliation was NATU's registration. Subsequently, THEU-NATU,
entered into a CBA with Respondent designating NATU as respondent's' SEBA. Included in the CBA was a
union-security clause. Thereafter, Petitioner disaffiliated with NATU. Petitioner then affialiated with the
Confederation of General Workers (GCW) now known as (THEU-GCW). As a result, NATU enforced the
union-security clause through Respondent by seeking the dismissal of the officers of THEU-GCW and some
of its members on the ground of THEU's disaffiliation with NATU in violation of the original CBA entered
into by THEU-NATU and Respondent.

Several cases where filed before the labor arbiter against respondent for ULP including illegal dismissal of
some of THEU-GCW officers and members on the basis THEU's disaffiliaction with NATU.

Issue:

WON the disaffiliation of THEU from NATU is invalid thus, warrants the dismissal of THEU-GCW's officers
and members.

Ruling:

No, THEU's disaffiliation with NATU is valid thus, the dismissal of the THEU-GCW officers and employees
is illegal.

The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is well-settled. A local union, being a
separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom
to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of
freedom of association (Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations)
xxx

The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local union THEU in the registration with the
Department of Labor is merely to stress that the THEU is NATU's affiliate at the time of the registration. It
does not mean that the said local union cannot stand on its own. Neither can it be interpreted to mean
that it cannot pursue its own interests independently of the federation. A local union owes its creation
and continued existence to the will of its members and not to the federation to which it belongs.

When the local union withdrew from the old federation to join a new federation, it was merely exercising
its primary right to labor organization for the effective enhancement and protection of common interests.
In the absence of enforceable provisions in the federation's constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local
union, a local may sever its relationship with its parent

There is nothing in the constitution of the NATU or in the constitution of the THEU-NATU that the THEU
was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation xxx. The alleged non-compliance of the local
union with the provision in the NATU Constitution requiring the service of three months notice of
intention to withdraw did not produce the effect of nullifying the disaffiliation for the following grounds:
firstly, NATU was not even a legitimate labor organization, it appearing that it was not registered at that
time with the Department of Labor, and therefore did not possess and acquire, in the first place, the legal
personality to enforce its constitution and laws, much less the right and privilege under the Labor Code to
organize and affiliate chapters or locals within its group, and secondly, the act of non-compliance with the
procedure on withdrawal is premised on purely technical grounds which cannot rise above the
fundamental right of self-organization.

Further, there is no merit in the contention of the respondents that the act of disaffiliation violated the
union security clause of the CBA and that their dismissal as a consequence thereof is valid. A perusal of
the collective bargaining agreements shows that the THEU-NATU, and not the NATU federation, was
recognized as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent for all its workers and employees in all
matters concerning wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment (pp. 667-706,
Rollo). Although NATU was designated as the sole bargaining agent in the check-off authorization form
attached to the CBA, this simply means it was acting only for and in behalf of its affiliate. The NATU
possessed the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic principal union which entered
into contract with the respondent company. When the THEU disaffiliated from its mother federation, the
former did not lose its legal personality as the bargaining union under the CBA. Moreover, the union
security clause embodied in the agreements cannot be used to justify the dismissals meted to petitioners
since it is not applicable to the circumstances obtaining in this case. The CBA imposes dismissal only in
case an employee is expelled from the union for joining another federation or for forming another union
or who fails or refuses to maintain membership therein. The case at bar does not involve the withdrawal
of merely some employees from the union but of the whole THEU itself from its federation. Clearly, since
there is no violation of the union security provision in the CBA, there was no sufficient ground to terminate
the employment of petitioners.
Nature of Relationship between mother union vis-a-vis local union

Elisco-Elirol Labor Union (NAFLU) v. Noriel

The (local) union consisting of the members-employees of respondent corporation is the principal party to
the collective bargaining agreement (rather than the respondent mother union which is merely its agent)
and is therefore entitled to be recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative entitled to
administer and enforce the collective bargaining agreement with the employer corporation.

Facts:

Petitioner Eliso-elirol (NAFLU) entered into a CBA with private respondent-employer. Since Petitioner
does not hold an independent registration, it opted to acquire one in ordere to preserve the the integrity
and inviolibility of the CBA. After acquiring its individual registration, petitioner decided to disaffiliate with
its mother union, NAFLU (National Federation Labour Union) because the latter can no longer safeguard
the rights of its members insofar as the working conditions and other terms of employment are
concerned. Respondent employer refused to recognize the independent local union as SEBA. NAFLU on
the other hand, seek to enforced the union security clause against petitioner thus resulted to the dismissal
of some of Petitioner's officers and member. A complaint for ULP was filed by Petitioner against private
respondents.

The BLR ruled that it is absurb to grant the mother union, NAFLU, the authority to administer and enfroce
their CBA without presumably having any members in the bargaining unit but to transfer the authority to
the newly formed union, although the members of the same where the same then in the local chapter of
the mother union is in violation of the CBA's union security clause. Theoretically therefore, when the
employees disaffiliated from the mother union and formed themselves into a new union, their status as
employees was also terminated. As such they could not therefore absolutely and legally claim that they
still comprise the majority of the bargaining unit.

Issue:

WON the disaffiliation of Petitioner Elisco-elirol (NAFLU) from its mother corporation warrants dismissal
of the Petitioner's officers and members for violation the union security clause in the original CBA.

Held:
No. xxThe employees and members of the local union did not form a new union but merely registered the
local union as was their right.

Petitioner Elisco-Elirol Labor Union-NAFLU, consisting of employees and members of the local union was
the principal party to the agreement. NAFLU as the "mother union" in participating in the execution of
the bargaining agreement with respondent company acted merely as agent of the local union, which
remained the basic unit of the association existing principally and freely to serve the common interest
of all its members, including the freedom to disaffiliate when the circumstances so warranted as in the
present case.xxx

The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of
bargaining power between the employer and their employee-members in the economic struggle for the
fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and capital; and the association of the locals into the national
union. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations with their
members. The essential purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise to in-
crease by collective action the common bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor.
Yet the locals remained the basic units of association, free to serve their own and the common interest of
all, subject to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association, and free also to
renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it
into existence.

Under the "substitutionary" doctrineduring the effectivity of a collective bargaining agreement executed
between employer and employees thru their agent , the employees can change said agent but the
contract continues to bind them up to its expiration date. They may bargain however for the shortening
of said expiration date. xx In formulating the 'substitutionary' doctrine, the only consideration involved
was the employees' interest in the existing bargaining agreement. The agent's interest never entered the
picture. the majority of the employees, as an entity under the statute, is the true party in interest to the
contract, holding rights through the agency of the union representative. Thus, any exclusive interest
claimed by the agent is defeasible at the will of the principal.

Petitioner local union did not committ an "act of disloyalty" in disaffiliating from the mother union when
practically all its members had so voted to disaffiliate and the mother union [as mere agent] no longer
had any local union or members to represent.

Cancellation of Union Registration

3.a. Fraud and misrepresentation

Facts:
S.S. Ventures International, Inc. v S.S. Ventures Labor Union a petition for certification election in behalf
of the rank-and-file employees of Ventures. Five hundred forty two (542) signatures, 82 of which belong
to terminated Ventures employees, appeared on the basic documents supporting the petition. Ventures
filed a Petition to cancel the Union's certificate of registration invoking the grounds set forth in Article
239(a) which are, as among others,

 The Union deliberately and maliciously included the names of more or less 82 former employees
no longer connected with Ventures in its list of members. xxx

 There were double signatures xxx

 The Union's application for registration was not supported by at least 20% of the rank-and-file
employees of Ventures.`

Respondent union contends that the 82 employees adverted to in Ventures' petition were qualified Union
members for, although they have been ordered dismissed, the one-year prescriptive period to question
their dismissal had not yet lapsed; it had complied with the 20%-member registration requirement since
it had 542 members; and the "double" signatures were inadvertent human error.

Issue:

WON Respondent's certification for registration should be cancelled based on the ground provided for
under Art. 234 of the LC.

Ruling:

No. Respondent's certification of registration shall remain valid.

The Court, has in previous cases, said that to decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union
includes ineligible employees in its membership. It must also be shown that there was misrepresentation,
false statement, or fraud in connection with the application for registration and the supporting
documents.

It cannot be over-emphasized that the registration or the recognition of a labor union after it has
submitted the corresponding papers is not ministerial on the part of the BLR. After a labor organization
has filed the necessary registration documents, it becomes mandatory for the BLR to check if the
requirements under Art. 234 of the Labor Code have been sedulously complied with. If the union's
application is infected by falsification and like serious irregularities, especial those appearing on the face
of the application and its attachments, a union should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor
organization. The issuance to the Union of Certificate of Registration No. RO300-00-02-UR-0003
necessarily implies that its application for registration and the supporting documents thereof are prima
facie free from any vitiating irregularities.
As to the effect of the 82 sigantures,

The issue surrounding the involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of membership or voter eligibility
is not a ground to cancel union registration.

One of the requirements of union registration under Art. 234 of the LC:

xxx

(c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate.

Even subtracting the 82 employees from 542 leaves 460 union members, still within 440 or 20% of the
maximum total of 2,202 rank-and-file employees.

The bare fact that three signatures twice appeared on the list of those who participated in the
organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel Certificate of Registration.
As the Union tenably explained without rebuttal from Ventures, the double entries are no more than
"normal human error," effected without malice. Even the labor arbiter who found for Ventures sided with
the Union in its explanation on the absence of malice.