ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP.G.R. No. 106518, March 11, 1999

Facts:

The ABS-CBN Supervisor’s Union, represented by the Union Officers and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation signed and concluded a collective bargaining agreement with a check-off of 10% of the sum total of all the salary increases and signing bonuses granted to the Supervisors. However, the Union members filed a complaint with the Bureau of Labor Relations against its Union Officers and ABS-CBN Broadcasting alleging that the check off provision is illegal because it was never submitted for consideration and approval to “all the members at a general membership meeting called for the purpose”, and prayed for its suspension. The Union Officers and ABS-CBN prayed for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit, arguing that the check-off provision is in accordance with the law as majority of the Union members individually executed a written authorization giving the Union officers and ABS-CBN a blanket authority to deduct subject amount. The Med-Arbiter issued an order declaring the check-off provision illegal and ordered for the refund of an amount advance by ABS-CBN as part of the 10% sum total of CBA benefits and to stop from further making advances and deductions from the union members’ salaries. On appeal, DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma affirmed in toto the Order of the Med-Arbiter. However, after filing of a Motion for Reconsideration, Undersecretary Laguesma reversed itself and ordered that its first decision be set aside and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

Issue:

Is the special assessment of 10% of the sum total of CBA benefits illegal?

Law Applicable:

Art. 241 (g), (n) and (o), and Art. 222 (b) of the Labor Code

Art. 241. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization

–

The following are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization: xxx xxx xxx (g) No officer, agent, or member of a labor organization shall collect any fees, dues or other contributions in its behalf to make any disbursement of its money

or funds unless he is duly authorized pursuant to its constitution and by-laws. xxx xxx xxx (n) No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon members of a labor organization unless authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all the members of a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. The secretary of the organization shall record the minutes of the meeting including the list of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessment or fees. The record shall be attested to by the president.(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessments, attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deductions. Art. 222. Appearances and Fees

–

xxx xxx xxx (b) No attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from collective bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting union: Provided, however, that attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void.

Ruling:

The 10% special assessment authorized in the Collective Bargaining Agreement is valid.

For an order imposing a special assessment for Union’s incidental expenses, attorney’s fees and representation expenses to be valid, 3 requisites must be complied with namely: (1) authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at the general membership meeting duly called for the purpose; (2) secretary’s record of the minutes of the meeting; and (3) individual written authorization for check-off duly signed by the employee concerned. Based on the records of the case, these requisites have been complied with by the Union. A general

meeting was held wherein the members agreed that a 10% special assessment from the total economic package due to every member would be checked-off for negotiation, other miscellaneous expenses and attorney’s fees. The minutes of the said meeting were recorded by the Union’s Secretary, Ma. Carminda Muñoz and noted by its President, Herbert Rivera and that 85 of its members executed individual authorizations for check-off. Since all of the requisites are present, the validity of the 10% special assessment should be upheld.

Opinion:

A check-off is a process of deducting a percentage from a Union member’s wages for the payment of union dues and fees to be considered as funds of the Union. This policy is to ensure that the Union has ample amount of funds to continue its operation and to provide better services to its members. However, the law provides for its limitations and certain requisites must be complied with for the valid imposition of check offs. These requisites are:1. Authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose;2. Secretary’s record of the minutes of the meeting; and

3. Individual written authorization for check-off duly signed by the employee concerned. Failure on the part of the Union to meet these requirements would render such imposition illegal which would be tantamount to a deprivation to an employee of his basic living wage. Any deductions already made must be reimbursed back to its members

STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORPORATIONvs. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR ANDEMPLOYMENT and STA. LUCIA EASTCOMMERCIAL CORPORATION WORKERSASSOCIATION (CLUP LOCAL CHAPTER),G.R. No. 162355 August 14, 2009CARPIO, J.:

On 2001, Confederated Labor Union of thePhilippines (CLUP) instituted a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of Sta. Lucia EastCommercial Corporation (THE CORPORATION)and its Affiliates. The affiliate companies included in the petition were SLE Commercial, SLE Department Store, SLE Cinema, Robsan EastTrading, Bowling Center, Planet Toys, Home Gallery and Essentials. On August 2001, Med-Arbiter Bactin ordered the dismissal of the petition due to inappropriateness of the bargaining unit. Later CLUP in its local chapter under THECORPORATION reorganized itself and re-registered as CLUP-Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation Workers Association (herein THEUNION), limiting its membership to the rank-and-file employees of Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation. On the same date, THE UNION or THE UNION filed the instant petition for certification election. It claimed that no certification election has been held among them within the last 12months prior to the filing of the petition, and while there is another union registered covering the same employees, namely Samahang Manggawa sa SLEC [SMSLEC], it has not been recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent of [THE CORPORATION’s] employees. On November 2001, THE CORPORATION or THECORPORATION filed a motion to dismiss the petition. It averred that it has voluntarily recognized SMSLEC as the exclusive bargaining agent of its regular rank-and-file employees, and that collective bargaining negotiations already commenced between them. THECORPORATION argued that the petition should be dismissed for violating the one year and negotiation bar rules under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The CBA between SMSLEC and the corporation was ratified by its rank-and-file employees and registered with DOLE. In the meantime, on December 2001, the union filed its Opposition to THE CORPORATION’S Motion to Dismiss questioning the validity of the voluntary recognition of [SMSLEC] by [THECORPORATION] and their consequent negotiations and execution of a CBA. According to [THE UNION], the voluntary recognition of [SMSLEC] by [THE CORPORATION] violated the requirements for voluntary recognition, i.e., non-existence of another labor organization in the same bargaining unit. It pointed out that the time of the voluntary recognition on 20 July2001, appellant’s registration which covers the same group of employees covered by Samahang Manggagawa sa Sta. Lucia East Commercial, was existing and has neither been cancelled or abandoned.

The Med-Arbiter’s Ruling

Med-Arbiter Bactin dismissed THE UNION’s petition for direct certification on the ground of contract bar rule. The prior voluntary recognition of SMSLEC and the CBA between THE CORPORATION and SMSLEC bars the filing of THE UNION’s petition for direct certification

THE UNION raised the matter to the Secretary.

The Ruling of the Secretary of Labor and Employment The Secretary held that the subsequent negotiations and registration of a CBA executed by THE CORPORATION with SMSLEC could not bar THE UNION’s petition. THE UNION constituted a registered labor organization at the time of THE CORPORATION’s voluntary recognition of SMSLEC.

THE CORPORATION then filed a petition for certiorari before the appellate court.

The Ruling of the Appellate Court

The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the Secretary

Issue:

Whether THE CORPORATION’s voluntary recognition of SMSLEC was done while a legitimate labor organization was in existence in the bargaining unit.

Held:

The petition has no merit. Legitimate Labor Organization Article 212(g) of the Labor Code defines a labor organization as "any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment." Upon compliance with all the documentary requirements, the Regional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the applicant labor organization a certificate indicating that it is included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. Any applicant labor organization shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration.7Bargaining Unit The concepts of a union and of a legitimate labor organization are different from, but related to, the concept of a bargaining unit. A bargaining unit is a "group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicated to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law. "The fundamental factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are: (1)the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2)affinity and unity of the employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of employment status.

The UNION’S initial problem was that they constituted a legitimate labor organization representing a non-appropriate bargaining unit. However, The union subsequently re-registered as THEUNION, limiting its members to the rank-and-file of THE CORPORATION. THE CORPORATION cannot ignore the union was a legitimate labor organization at the time of THE CORPORATION’s voluntary recognition of SMSLEC. THECORPORATION and SMSLEC

cannot, by themselves, decide whether CLUP-THECORPORATION and its Affiliates Workers Union represented an appropriate bargaining unit. The inclusion in the union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation of registration, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances The union having been validly issued a certificate of registration, should be considered as having acquired juridical personality which may not be attacked collaterally. The proper procedure for THE CORPORATION is to file a petition for cancellation of certificate of registration of CLUP-THE CORPORATION and its Affiliates Workers Union and not to immediately commence voluntary recognition proceedings with SMSLEC

S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. S.S. VENTURES LABOR UNION (SSVLU) AND DIR. HANS LEO CACDAC, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS (BLR), RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 161690, July 23, 2008

FACTS:

Petitioner S.S. Ventures International, Inc. (Ventures), a PEZA- registered export firm with principal place of business at Phase I-PEZA- Bataan Export Zone, Mariveles, Bataan, is in the business of manufacturing sports shoes. Respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union (Union) is a labor organization registered with the DOLE.

March 21, 2000, the Union filed with DOLE-Region III a petition for certification election in behalf of the rank-and-file employees

August 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the Union’s certificate of registration alleging that 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 who attended the organizational meeting and in the adoption/ratification of its constitution and by-laws; that No organizational meeting and ratification actually took place; and the Union’s application for registration was not supported by at least 20% of the rank-and-file employees of Ventures.

Regional Director of DOLE- Region III favored Ventures and resolved to Cancel the Certificate of the union. On appeal, the BLR Director granted the Union’s appeal and reversing the decision of RD. Ventures went to the CA. The CA dismissed Ventures’ petition as well as the MR. Hence, this petition for review

ISSUE:

Whether the registration of the Union must be cancelled.

RULING:

NO. The right to form, join, or assist a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution and such right, according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be abridged. Once registered with the DOLE, a union is considered a legitimate labor organization endowed with the right and privileges granted by law to such organization. While a certificate of registration confers a union with legitimacy with the concomitant right to participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining unit, the registration may be canceled or the union may be decertified as the bargaining unit, in which case the union is divested of the status of a legitimate labor organization. Among the grounds for cancellation is the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Art. 239(a) of the Labor Code, such as fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the adoption or ratification of the union’s constitution and like documents. 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, such as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or by-laws, among other documents.

The evidence presented by Ventures consist mostly of separate hand-written statements of 82 employees who alleged that they were unwilling or harassed signatories to the attendance sheet of the organizational meeting. However these evidence was presented seven months after the union filed its petition for cancellation of registration. Hence these statements partake of the nature of withdrawal of union membership executed after the Union’s filing of a petition for certification election on March 21, 2000. We have said that the employees’ withdrawal from a labor union made before the filing of the petition for certification election is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of such petition is considered to be involuntary and does not affect the same. Now then, if a withdrawal from union membership done after a petition for certification election has been filed does not vitiate such petition, it is but logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot work to nullify the registration of the union. The Court is inclined to agree with the CA that the BLR did not abuse its discretion nor gravely err when it concluded that the affidavits of retraction of the 82 members had no evidentiary weight.

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. 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, especially 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, in the case at bar, necessarily implies that its application for registration and the supporting documents thereof are prima facie free from any vitiating irregularities.

The relevance of the 82 individuals’ active participation in the Union’s organizational meeting and the signing ceremonies thereafter comes in only for purposes of determining whether or not the Union, even without the 82, would still meet what Art. 234(c) of the Labor Code requires to be submitted, requiring that the union applicant must file 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.

In its union records on file with this Bureau, respondent union submitted the names of 542 members. This number easily complied with the 20% requirement, be it 1,928 or 2,202 employees in the establishment. 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 of the employer Venture.

Whatever misgivings the petitioner may have with regard to the 82 dismissed employees is better addressed in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings during a pre-election conference. The issue surrounding the involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of membership or voter eligibility. It is not a ground to cancel union registration.

For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration under Article 239, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.