Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > February 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17422 February 28, 1962 - INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS ORG., ET AL. v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17422. February 28, 1962.]

INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS ORGANIZATIONS (ICAWO) and/or FEDERICO G. LOZADA, DELIMON DIESTRO, SALVADOR AZORES, TOMAS BESO, ANTERO BESO, DAMIANO DICHOSA, SEBASTIAN SALEM TELESFORO BUCAYAN, and RICARDO DICHOSA, Petitioners, v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR and/or ANTONIO BELZARENA, CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION (CAPAWA) and/or EMILIO RASCO, and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

Hector Velez, for Petitioners.

Tirol & Tirol and Roberto A. Bereber for Respondents.

Mariano B. Tuason for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.


SYLLABUS


1. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; LABOR UNION; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT; "UNION-SHOP" CLAUSE INTERPRETED. — The agreement in the case at bar does not establish a true or complete "close shop", in the sense that it authorizes the dismissal of numbers of the union who, after the execution of the collective bargaining contract, ceased to be members of such union. In order to effect such result, if intended, there should be a clear and unequivocal statement, that the loss of the status of a member of good standing in the union shall be a cause for dismissal. In other words, in order that an employer may be deemed bound 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."


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


The sole controversy involved in this petition to review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations dated December 29, 1959 as well as its resolution en banc dated February 24, 1960 (in CIR Case No. 74-ULP), concerns the interpretation of a so- called union shop clause in the questioned collective bargaining agreement which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The EMPLOYER agrees that in hiring unskilled employees and laborers, the members of the WORKERS ASSOCIATION should be given preference and the Management should notify accordingly to the WORKERS ASSOCIATION of any vacancy existing in all Departments. New employees and laborers hired who are not members of the WORKERS ASSOCIATION will be on TEMPORARY STATUS and the EMPLOYER agrees that before they will be considered regular employees laborers they have to become members of the CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR ALLIED WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION within thirty (30) days from the date of employment and if they refuse to affiliate with the said labor organization within this time they will be immediately dismissed by the EMPLOYERS."cralaw virtua1aw library

The facts pertinent to the issue presented herein, briefly stated, are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioners Federico G. Lozada, Delimon Diestro, Salvador Azores, Tomas Beso, Antero Beso, Damiano Dichosa, Sebastian Salem, Telesforo Bucayan and Ricaredo Dichosa, before their dismissal on March 7, 1956, were employed in the Central Azucarera de Pilar located in the municipality of President Roxas, Capiz, even prior to the resumption of its operations in 1947. At that time, petitioners were members of the local chapter of the Allied Workers Association (AWA), a duly registered labor organization with main office in Bacolod, Negros Occidental, and with which the Central had a collective bargaining agreement. Subsequently, or on June 10, 1954, the Central’s workers dissolved the AWA chapter in Capiz, and instead organized the branch into an independent unit known as the Central Azucarera de Pilar Allied Workers Association (CAPAWA). This dissolution of the AWA chapter and the organization of the CAPAWA were approved by a resolution adopted in a meeting of the AWA members by a vote of the majority, by virtue of which the AWA members automatically became members of the CAPAWA.

In October, 1955, the CAPAWA, as the sole collective bargaining agent, and the Central entered into a 2-year collective bargaining agreement containing the union-shop clause hereinabove quoted.

One month thereafter or in November, 1955, some members of the CAPAWA among whom were the herein petitioning workers, organized the petitioner-union Industrial, Commercial, and Agricultural Workers Organization (ICAWO). This new organization then demanded that it be recognized by the Central as the sole collective bargaining agency, and that a collective bargaining agreement be entered into with it. The Central called attention to the existing agreement it had with the CAPAWA and refused the demand of the ICAWO. The members of the latter union thereupon went on strike, but the same was settled and the strikers were allowed to return to work upon agreement that a certification election be requested from the Department of Labor. On the other hand, the CAPAWA, not being agreeable to this settlement, demanded of the Central the enforcement of the "union-shop clause" contained in its collective bargaining agreement and insisted that the petitioners be dismissed unless they reaffiliate with it and disassociate themselves from the ICAWO. As the petitioners refused to do so, the Central was constrained to dismiss them. Hence, the filing of the complaint for unfair labor practice in the Court of Industrial Relations against the Central and the CAPAWA, charging them of causing petitioners ICAWO members’ discharge due to union activities.

The Court of Industrial Relations, in its decision and resolution appealed from, found that the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement with the CAPAWA empowered said union to demand, and authorized the Central to order, the dismissal of the petitioners-ICAWO members for having proven disloyal to the CAPAWA, and for losing their status as members of good standing in the latter union.

The issue herein presented is not new. The same has been resolved in the case of Confederated Sons of Labor v. Anakan Lumber Company, Et. Al. 107 Phil., 915, promulgated on April 29, 1960. In said case, the so-called union or close shop agreement is of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the UNION shall have the exclusive right, and privilege to supply the COMPANY with such laborers, employees and workers as are necessary in the logging, mechanical, sawmill, office, logponds, motor pools, security guards and all departments in its many phases of operations, excepting such positions which are highly technical and confidential in character and/or such positions which carry the exercise of authority in the interest of the COMPANY which exercise is not merely clerical or routinary within the contemplation of the law, and that the COMPANY agrees to employ of hire in any of its departments only such person or persons who are members of the UNION."cralaw virtua1aw library

Construing the import and extent of said clause, this Court ruled that it did not establish a true or complete "close shop", in the sense that it authorized the dismissal of members of the union who, after the execution of the collective bargaining contract, ceased to be members of such union. It was also held that in order to effect such a result, if intended, there should be a clear and unequivocal statement that the loss of the status of a member of good standing in the union shall be a cause for dismissal.

"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’. Referring particularly to the above-quoted Article II, we note that the same establishes the exclusive right of respondent union to ‘supply’ laborers etc., and limits the authority of the company to ‘employ or hire’ them. In other words, it requires that the laborers, employees and workers hired or employed by the company be members of respondent union at the time of the commencement of the employer-employee relation. Membership in respondent union is not a condition for the continuation of said relation or for the retention of a laborer or employee engaged either before said agreement or while he was a member of said union."cralaw virtua1aw library

It should be noted that in the alleged union-shop clause relied upon by the lower court and quoted at the beginning of this opinion, there is absolutely nothing to show that such was the intention of the parties. It merely provides that in the hiring of unskilled employees and laborers, the members of the CAPAWA, should be given preference; and that new employees or laborers who are not members of the CAPAWA would have temporary status; that before they could be considered regular employees, they have to become members of the CAPAWA within 30 days from the date of their employment; and if they refuse to be affiliated with the union, they would be immediately dismissed.

This clause, as may be seen, refers to future or new employees or laborers. Nothing, however, is provided with respect to old employees or laborers already in the employ of the Central, whether members of the CAPAWA or not. There is, likewise, no requirement whatsoever on union members to remain as such under pain of being dismissed.

We find, therefore, the ruling in the Confederated Sons of Labor case, supra, controlling in the present controversy.

In the view that we have taken of this case, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the other points raised by the petitioners herein.

We take note of the fact that the dismissal of herein petitioners was upon demand of the CAPAWA and before the promulgation of the decision in the case of Confederated Sons of Labor v. Anakan Lumber Company, supra, and, therefore, was done by the Company in good faith.

WHEREFORE, the decision and resolution appealed from the hereby reversed, and judgment is entered herein ordering the reinstatement of petitioners-members of the ICAWO to their former positions in the Central. Without costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 248 February 26, 1962 - MEDELINA L. VIOJAN v. RESTITUTO M. DURAN

  • G.R. No. L-13656 February 26, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALBERTO D. BENIPAYO

  • G.R. No. L-14241 February 26, 1962 - INOCENCIO MIJARES, ET AL. v. JULIAN ADIGUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12138 February 27, 1962 - OVERSEAS FACTORS, INC., ET AL. v. SOUTH SEA SHIPPING CO., LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12803 February 27, 1962 - PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. GREGORIO S. NARVASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16223-25 February 27, 1962 - FERMIN REOTAN v. NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-16962 February 27, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-17490 February 27, 1962 - LAZARO MOSSO v. UY KEE BENG

  • G.R. No. L-18376 February 27, 1962 - SY IT v. ARSENIO TIANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-9700 February 28, 1962 - ONG SEE HANG, ETC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10228 February 28, 1962 - CORNELIO ALZONA, ET AL. v. GREGORIA CAPUNITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12607 February 28, 1962 - MAJESTIC AND REPUBLIC THEATERS EMPLOYEES’ ASSO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12709 February 28, 1962 - AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE v. PATERNO R. CANLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13159 February 28, 1962 - REMEDIOS QUIOQUE, ET AL. v. JACINTO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13530 February 28, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. JULIO VILLAMOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13093 February 28, 1962 - PAULINO BUGAY v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-13876 February 28, 1962 - CONSOLACION FLORENTINO DE CRISOLOGO, ET AL. v. MANUEL SINGSON

  • G.R. No. L-14206 February 28, 1962 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC., ET AL. v. MARIANO MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-14234 February 28, 1962 - FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK v. SILVIO CHENG TAN

  • G.R. No. L-14326 February 28, 1962 - BASILISA TAN DELGADO v. ESTEBAN GAMBOA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14534 February 28, 1962 - MERARDO L. ZAPANTA v. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15163 February 28, 1962 - ELIZALDE ROPE FACTORY, INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-15247 February 28, 1962 - DE LEON BROKERAGE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15499 February 28, 1962 - ANGELA M. BUTTE v. MANUEL UY & SONS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15512 February 28, 1962 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO T. KOH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15669 February 28, 1962 - SEVERINO ARAMBULO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15737 February 28, 1962 - LEONOR VILLAFLOR VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. DELFIN N. JUICO

  • G.R. No. L-15814 February 28, 1962 - IN RE: SUSANA ABAY DE ARROYO v. FRANCISCO ABAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16175 February 28, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO ARCONADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16302 February 28, 1962 - IN RE: SANTIAGO NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16434 February 28, 1962 - CONSORCIA ALANO, ET AL. v. CARMEN IGNACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16595 February 28, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO PINCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16951 February 28, 1962 - ROBERTO LAPERAL, JR., ET AL. v. RAMON L. KATIGBAK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16965 February 28, 1962 - ELIGIO T. LEYVA, ET AL. v. MANUELA JANDOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17334 February 28, 1962 - MERCEDES T. CASILAN v. J. C, V. CHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17422 February 28, 1962 - INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS ORG., ET AL. v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17478 February 28, 1962 - WENCESLAO URMANETA v. MARTIN MANZANO ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17703 February 28, 1962 - JUAN BEATRIZ, ET AL. v. MARTIN CEDERIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17725 February 28, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.