89.

PICEWO-FFW vs PICC
GR NO. L-41283 JAN 31, 1977

ISSUE:
Can a change of union name be construed as disloyalty which merits the dismissal
of the union members from work?

RULING:

No. While the Court was not convinced with the argument that the act was only a
change of name and affiliated it with the FFW, it ruled that such act would not
warrant the dismissal of the employees. The Court said that the validity of
dismissals pursuant to the security clause of a CBA hinges on the validity of the
disaffiliation of the local union from the federation. The federation had the status
of an agent, acting for and in behalf of its affiliate, while the local union remained
the basic unit of the association free to serve the common interest of all its
members including the freedom to disaffiliate when the circumstances warrant.
The right of the local members to withdraw from the federation and to form a
new local depends upon the provisions of the union’s CBL and charter. In the
absence of enforceable provisions in the federation’s constitution preventing
disaffiliation of a local union, a local may severe its relationship with its parent. In
this case, there was nothing shown in the records nor was it claimed by the
federation that the local union was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate. Except for
the union security clause, the federation claims no other ground in expelling
those who signed the certification. There is no merit to the contention of the
federation that the act of disaffiliation is disloyalty to the union. The federation
and the union are two different entities and it was the federation which actively
initiated the dismissal of the petitioners. A local union does not owe its existence
to the federation to which it affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary
association owing its creation and existence to the will of its members.

1
90. TROPICAL HUT FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION vs TROPICAL HUT
GR NO. 43495-99 JAN 20, 1990

ISSUE:
Was the disaffiliation of the local union from the national federation valid?

RULING:

YES. 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 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.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 CBAs 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. 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.

2
90. B. VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION vs BLR
GR NO. L-45824 JUNE 19, 1985

ISSUE:

Is the federation still entitled to union dues payments from the union's members
notwithstanding their disaffiliation from said federation?

RULING:

Yes. A local union which has validly withdrawn from its affiliation with the parent
association and which continues to represent the employees of an employer is
entitled to the check-off dues under a collective bargaining contract. ALUMETAL is
entitled to receive the dues from respondent companies as long as petitioner
union is affiliated with it and respondent companies are authorized by their
employees (members of petitioner union) to deduct union dues. Without said
affiliation, the employer has no link to the mother union. The obligation of an
employee to pay union dues is coterminous with his affiliation or membership.
The employees' check-off authorization, even if declared irrevocable, is good only
as long as they remain members of the union concerned." A contract between an
employer and the parent organization as bargaining agent for the employees is
terminated by the disaffiliation of the local of which the employees are members.
Respondent companies therefore were wrong in continuing the check-off in favor
of respondent federation since they were duly notified of the disaffiliation and of
petitioner's members having already rescinded their check-off authorization.

3
92. EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER, PHILS. Vs BAYER PHILS., INC.,
GR NO. 162943 DEC 6, 2010

ISSUE:

A) Does the Labor Arbiter lack jurisdiction over the propriety of the
disaffiliation and the legality of a splinter union necessarily incorporated in
a complaint for ULP?

B) Can the act of the management in dealing and negotiating with a splinter
union despite its validly existing CBA with the then existing exclusive
bargaining representative be considered unfair labor practice?

RULING:

A) YES. The issue of EUBP against Remigio and Villareal essentially involves an
intraunion dispute. To rule on the the validity or illegality of their acts, the Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC will necessarily touch on the issues respecting the propriety
of their disaffiliation and the legality of the establishment of REUBP – issues that
are outside the scope of their jurisdiction. Accordingly, the dismissal of the
complaint was validly made, but only with respect to these two respondents.

B) YES. When an employer proceeds to negotiate with a splinter union despite the
existence of its valid CBA with the duly certified and exclusive bargaining agent,
the former indubitably abandons its recognition of the latter and terminates the
entire CBA.

4
92. B. TABLANTE-TUNGOL ENTERPRISES vs TUNGOL
GR NO. L-47848 AUG 23, 1978

ISSUE:

Can the engagement of a labor union in an illegal strike be a valid ground for the
cancellation of its union registration?

RULING:

No. The phrase “engaging in any activity prohibited by law” should not be
interpreted or construed to include an illegal strike engaged into by any union.
This is so because the phrase 'or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by
law' should be construed to mean such activity engaged into by a union that
partakes of the nature of a labor contractor or 'cabo' system. The law does not
intend to include in the said phrase illegally declared strike simply because strike
per se is legal. Also, if the law intends to include illegally declared strike, the same
could have been expressly placed therein as had been previously done in
Presidential Decree No. 823." Clearly, an awareness of the relevance of the
maxims noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis ought to have cautioned counsel for
petitioner to shy away from this approach.

5
92. C. VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION vs BLR
GR NO. L-45824 JUNE 19, 1985

ISSUE:

Is the federation still entitled to union dues payments from the union's members
notwithstanding their disaffiliation from said federation?

RULING:

Yes. A local union which has validly withdrawn from its affiliation with the parent
association and which continues to represent the employees of an employer is
entitled to the check-off dues under a collective bargaining contract. ALUMETAL is
entitled to receive the dues from respondent companies as long as petitioner
union is affiliated with it and respondent companies are authorized by their
employees (members of petitioner union) to deduct union dues. Without said
affiliation, the employer has no link to the mother union. The obligation of an
employee to pay union dues is coterminous with his affiliation or membership.
The employees' check-off authorization, even if declared irrevocable, is good only
as long as they remain members of the union concerned." A contract between an
employer and the parent organization as bargaining agent for the employees is
terminated by the disaffiliation of the local of which the employees are members.
Respondent companies therefore were wrong in continuing the check-off in favor
of respondent federation since they were duly notified of the disaffiliation and of
petitioner's members having already rescinded their check-off authorization.

6
92. D. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY vs DLSU EMPLOYEES UNION
GR NO. 169254 AUG 23, 2012

ISSUE:

Is the employer’s refusal to bargain collectively justified by a void leadership in

the union?

RULING:

No. The Court quoted the findings of the Secretary of Labor, saying that the issue
of union leadership is distinct and separate from the duty to bargain. It is then
guilty of unfair labor practice. The official determination of the BLR Director,
saying that there was actually no void leadership, removed whatever cloud of
doubt on the authority of the incumbent to negotiate for and in behalf of the
union as the bargaining agent of the covered employees. Furthermore, this issue
of void leadership has already been long extinguished upon the conduct of the
election of the union officers.