89. PEOPLE’S INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS’ ORGANIZATION (FFW)-PICEWO vs PICC GR No.

L-
27687, March 15, 1982

Facts: The Federation of Tenants and Laborers Organization (FTLO) Rizal Chapter entered into a CBA with People’s Industrial and Commercial
Corporation (PICC), including provisions on “No Strike, No Lockout” and a “Union Security Maintenance Shop”. Subsequently, with the knowledge
of PICC, an election of officers of FTLO Rizal Chapter was conducted. Afterwards, 51 out of 60 employees executed a certification stating that they
are members of FTLO but they have changed their name to PICEWO and affiliated with the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). Said certification
did not include any reason for the change of name. The employees were then charged with disloyalty, paving its way to their termination from work.
The employee contend that no disloyalty is involved, since what they did was merely to change the name FTLO to PICEWO.

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.

90. TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION-CGW et al vs.TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC., et al
G.R. No. L-43495-99

January 20, 1990

FACTS: The rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market Incorporated (respondent company) organized a local
union called the Tropical Hut Employees Union (THEU) and immediately sought affiliation with the National Association of
Trade Unions (NATU). The NATU accepted the THEU application for affiliation.
The CBA between respondent company and THEU-NATU contains a union security clause:
xx
Union Membership and Union Check-off
Sec. 1 —. . . Employees who are already members of the UNION at the time of the signing of this Agreement or who become so
thereafter shall be required to maintain their membership therein as a condition of continued employment.
Xx
Attached to the Agreement is a check-off Authorization Form, the terms of which are as follows:
We, the undersigned, hereby designate the NATU, of which the THEU is an affiliate as sole collective bargaining agent in all
matters relating to salary rates, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in the Tropical Hut Food Market,
Inc…xx
Later on, NATU received a letter jointly signed by the incumbent officers of the local union informing the NATU that THEU was
disaffiliating from the NATU federation. The employees were dismissed because, as respondent company contended, they
violated the union security clause.
ISSUE: Was the disaffiliation of the local union from the national federation valid?
HELD: 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.

1
90. B. VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION vs BLR G.R. No. L-45824, June 19, 1985

Facts: Volkschel Labor Union (VLU) was once affiliated with the Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers (ALUMETAL).
Both unions, using the name Volkschel Labor Union Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers, jointly entered into a
collective bargaining agreement with respondent companies. A majority of VLU's members decided to disaffiliate from
respondent federation in order to operate on its own as an independent labor group pursuant to Article 241. A
resolution was adopted and signed by petitioner's members revoking their check-off authorization in favor of ALUMETAL
and notices thereof were served on ALUMETAL and respondent companies. ALUMETAL wrote respondent companies
advising them to continue deducting union dues and remitting them to said federation. With this, the respondent
companies sought the legal opinion of the respondent Bureau as regards the controversy between the two unions. The
BLR held that the disaffiliation was legal, but the members should continue paying their dues to ALUMETAL in the
concept of agency fees.

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.

92. EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILIPPINES vs BAYER PHILIPPINES, INC. G.R. No. 162943, December 6, 2010

Facts: Two factions within the Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (the EBR) were asserting their rights to bargain with employer
Bayer Philippines, Inc.: the Facundo faction and the splinter union, Remigio faction. Barely six months after the new CBA was signed
by the employer and the EBR, the Remigio faction solicited signatures from the union members to support the resolution of
disaffiliating with the Union and forming the REUBP. Both of the factions sought recognition from Bayer and demanding remittance
of the union dues collected. The employer responded by refusing to deal with either of the two groups and by placing the union
dues collected in a trust account. EUBP then filed a complaint for ULP against Bayer for refusing to remit the union dues. During the
pendency of this case, Bayer then turned over the said dues to EUBP. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. Another complaint for ULP was filed by EUBP against Bayer, Remigio and Villareal, the grounds of which are the
allegations of organizing a company union, gross violation of the CBA, and violation of the duty to bargain. Subsequently, Bayer and
REUBP executed a CBA. The second ULP complaint was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue: 1) 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? 2) 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: 1) 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. 2) 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.

2
92. B. TABLANTE-TUNGOL ENTERPRISES vs NORIEL G.R. No. L-47848, August 23, 1978
Facts: Because the labor union had engaged in an illegal strike, the petitioner company in this
case seeks for the cancellation of its registration, on the basis of the provision of the law which
states that “acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise
engaging in any activity prohibited by law” is a ground for the cancellation of union
registration.
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.

92. D. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY vs DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

(DLSUEA-NAFTEU) G.R. No. 169254, August 23, 2012
Facts: De La Salle University was being accused of unfair labor practice due to its refusal to
bargain collectively with the De La Salle University Employees Association (DLSUEANAFTEU).
Petitioner institution contends that its refusal to bargain collectively is justified by the finding
of the Labor Arbiter that there is an absolute void in the leadership of the union. Also, DLSU
opened a savings account for the union where all the collected union dues and agency fees will
be deposited and held in trust for the union. Subsequently, an election of union officers was
held pursuant to an order by the Regional Director.
Issues: 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.