UNITED POLYRESINS v. MARCELINO PINUELA [ GR No.

209555, Jul 31, 2017 ]

FACTS
Pinuela was the President of Polyresins Rank and File Association (PORFA). Petitioners gave 300k loan to the
union. The CBA contained a union security clause wherein employees who cease to be PORFA members shall
not be retained in the employ of UPI. Petitioners told respondent that until the P300k is returned, it will not
discuss a new CBA. Pinuela filed a complaint in (NCMB), claiming that petitioners refused to bargain. Union
members accused Pinuela of mismanagement. Special elections were held, and a new President Was elected.
The union expelled Pinuela. Petitioners issued a letter of termination to take effect immediately.

The officers held that these violations constituted an infringement of the union's Constitution which specifically
prohibit the misappropriation of union funds and property and give ground for the impeachment and recall of
union officers.

ISSUE
1. Was the basis/ ground to expel him from the union proper?
2. Did the grant of loan constitute ULP?

LAW
1. Article 250 (Employer’s ULP) - (d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or
administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers
or supporters;

CASE HISTORY
LA said that Pinuela was not illegally terminated. This was affirmed by NLRC. But the CA reversed the NLRC.

RULING
1. No. Pinuela's expulsion is grounded on the provisions of the union's Constitution.
2. Yes. Such a contribution by petitioners to PORFA constitutes ULP.

OPINION
Pinuela's expulsion is grounded on the provisions of the union's Constitution. But these provisions refer to
impeachment and recall of union officers, and not expulsion from union membership, hence not a just cause.

It was therefore error on the part of PORFA and petitioners to terminate respondent's employment. Such a
ground does not constitute just cause for termination.Thus, for what he is charged with, respondent may not be
penalized with expulsion from the union, since this is not authorized and provided for under PORFA's
Constitution. This could be an opportune time for the union to consider amending its Constitution in order to
provide for specific rules on the discipline of its members, not just its officers. After all, it is given the right under
the Labor Code, "to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership." But it
may not insist on expelling respondent from PORFA and assist in his dismissal from UPI without just cause,
since it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to "cause or attempt to cause an employer to
discriminate against an employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom
membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate an employee on any ground other than the
usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other
members."

The matter of Pinuela's alleged failure to return petitioners' P300K which was lent to PORFA is immaterial as
well. It may not be used as a ground to terminate his employment; such a contribution by petitioners to PORFA
constitutes ULP.
2. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT VS. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY
ASSOCIATION, [ G.R. No. 207971, January 23, 2017 ]

FACTS
Petitioner contends that the CA erred in declaring that even if respondent's members are all managerial
employees, this is not a ground for cancellation of its certificate of registration.

Respondent argues that petitioner's ground tor filing the petition for cancellation is not recognized under Article
247.

Petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration on the ground of
misrepresentation in registration given that respondent is composed of managerial employees who are
prohibited from organizing as a union. AIM insists that the members of its tenure-track faculty are managerial
and argues that the Board of Trustees does not manage the day-to-day affairs, nor the making and
implementing of policies of the Institute, as such functions are vested with the tenure-track faculty.

ISSUE
Is AIM correct in filing a petition for cancellation of certificate of registration on the ground that the members
are managerial employees?

LAW
Article 255 - managerial employees are ineligible to join any labor organization

CASE HISTORY
THe CA ruled that even if respondent's members are all managerial employees, this is not a ground for
cancellation of its certificate of registration.

RULING
Yes. It is, in a sense, an accusation that respondent is guilty of misrepresentation for registering under the
claim that its members are not managerial employees.

OPINION
In case of alleged inclusion of disqualified employees in a union, the proper procedure for an employer like
petitioner is to directly file a petition for cancellation of the union's certificate of registration due to
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Article 247.

Petitioner was correct in filing a petition for cancellation of certificate of registration on the ground that its
members are managerial employees which is, in a sense, an accusation that respondent is guilty of
misrepresentation for registering under the claim that its members are not managerial employees.

However, the issue of whether they are managerial employees is still pending resolution in in G.R. No. 197089.
Hence, the petition for cancellation may not yet be resolved.
3. PENINSULA EMPLOYEES UNION v. MICHAEL B. ESQUIVEL, [ GR NO. 218454, Dec 01, 2016 ]

FACTS
PEU authorized the affiliation of PEU with NUWHRAIN, and the direct membership of its individual members
thereto. PEU-NUWHRAIN sought to increase the union dues/agency fees from one percent (1%) to two
percent (2%) of the rank and file employees' monthly salaries, brought about by PEU's affiliation with
NUWHRAIN, which supposedly requires its affiliates to remit to it two percent (2%) of their monthly salaries.

The non-PEU members objected to the assessment of increased agency fees arguing that: (a) the new CBA is
unenforceable since no written CBA has been formally signed and executed by PEU-NUWHRAIN and the
Hotel; (b) the 2% agency fee is exorbitant and unreasonable; and (c) PEU-NUWHRAIN failed to comply with
the mandatory requirements for such increase.

ISSUE
Does PEU-NUWHRAIN have a right to collect the increased agency fees?

LAW
Article 250 (n) and (o)

CASE HISTORY
The OSEC denied its bid to increase the agency fees to two percent (2%) for failure to show that its general
membership approval. This was affirmed by the CA.

RULING
No. It failed to comply with Article 250 (n) and (o)

OPINION
The rate of agency fees that PEU-NUWHRAIN seeks to collect from the non-PEU members is contested,
considering its failure to comply with the requirements for a valid increase of union dues.

Case law interpreting Article 250 (n) and (o) mandates the submission of (3) documentary requisites in order to
justify a valid levy of increased union dues. These are: (a) an authorization by a written resolution of the
majority of all the members at the general membership meeting duly called for the purpose; (b) the secretary's
record of the minutes of the meeting, which shall include 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; and (c) individual
written authorizations for check-off duly signed by the employees concerned.

PEU-NUWHRAIN failed to show compliance with the foregoing requirements. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that
there is no legal basis to impose union dues and agency fees more than that allowed in the expired CBA, i.e.,
at one percent (1%) of the employee's monthly basic salary.
4. ERSON ANG LEE v. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPER LAMINATION [ G.R. No. 193816, 2016 ]

FACTS
Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Super Lamination Services (Union A) filed a Petition for Certification
Election to represent all the rank-and-file employees of Super Lamination. On the same date Express
Lamination Workers' Union (Union B) also filed a Petition for Certification Election to represent all the rank-
and-file employees of Express Lamination. Also on the same date, the Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng
Express Coat Enterprises, Inc. (Union C) filed a Petition for Certification Election to represent the rank-and-file
employees of Express Coat. The Med-Arbiter denied the three petitions on the ground that there was no
existing employer-employee relationship between the members of the unions and the companies.

ISSUE
Do the rank-and-file employees of Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat constitute an
appropriate bargaining unit?

LAW
University of the Phils. v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 96189, 14 July 1992

CASE HISTORY
DOLE found that the companies were engaged in a work-pooling scheme, in light of which they might be
considered as one and the same entity for the purpose of determining the appropriate bargaining unit in a
certification election. The CA affirmed DOLE.

RULING
Yes. The bargaining unit of the rank-and- file employees of the three companies is appropriate.

OPINION
Petitioner argues that there is no showing that the rank-and-file employees of the three companies would
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit on account of the latter's different geographical locations. This
contention lacks merit. The basic test for determining the appropriate bargaining unit is the application of a
standard whereby a unit is deemed appropriate if it affects a grouping of employees who have substantial,
mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions, and other subjects of collective bargaining. Geographical
location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not
sacrificed.

In the present case, there was communal interest among the rank-and-file employees of the three companies
based on the finding that they were constantly rotated to all three companies, and that they performed the
same or similar duties whenever rotated. Therefore, aside from geographical location, their employment status
and working conditions were so substantially similar as to justify a conclusion that they shared a community of
interest. This finding is consistent with the policy in favor of a single-employer unit, unless the circumstances
require otherwise. The more solid the employees are, the stronger is their bargaining capacity.

While there is no prohibition on the mere act of engaging in a work-pooling scheme as sister companies, that
act will not be tolerated, and the sister companies' separate juridical personalities will be disregarded, if they
use that scheme to defeat the workers' right to collective bargaining.