GUIJARNO VS CIR
FACTS: The complainants were former employees of the Central Santos Lopez Co,
Inc. and former union members of USWU-ILO. They alleged that they were
unlawfully terminated from work.
Central Santos Lopez Co. contended that In view of a closed-shop provision in the
then existing collective bargaining contract, assumed it had to dismiss them; that
their dismissal was asked by the USWU-ILO of which the company had a valid and
existing collective bargaining contract with a closed-shop provision to the effect that
those laborers who are no longer members of good standing in the union may be
dismissed by the company if their dismissal is sought by the union; that respondent
company has never committed acts of unfair labor practice against the complainants
herein but that it has a solemn obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of
the contract; and that a closed-shop agreement is sanctioned under this jurisdiction
for such kind of agreement is expressly allowed under the provisions of RA875
(Industrial Peace Act) and the dismissal of complainants is merely an exercise of a
right allowed by said law.
There was no question, however, as to petitioners having been employed by such
respondent Company long before the collective bargaining contract. Nonetheless,
the lower court ruled that the dismissals were justifiable based on the CBA.
ISSUE: W/N the closed-shop provision is retroactive.
HELD: No, it is not to be given a retroactive effect so as to preclude its being applied
to employees already in the service. As held in Confederated Sons of Labor v.
Anakan Lumber Co.: "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"."
Furthermore, it was stated in Freeman Shirt Manufacturing v. Court of Industrial
Relations that "The closed-shop agreement authorized under Sec. 4, a(4) of the
Industrial Peace Act applies to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet
members of any labor organization. It is inapplicable to those already in the service
who are members of another union. To hold otherwise, i. e., that the employees in a
company who are members of a minority union may be compelled to disaffiliate from
their union and join the majority or contracting union, would render nugatory the right
of all employees to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of
their own choosing, a right guaranteed by the Industrial Peace Act as well as by the
Constitution."
ELECTROMAT MANUFACTURING AND RECORDING CORPORATION VS
LAGUNZAD
FACTS: Nagkakaisang Samahan ng Manggagawa ng Electromat-Wasto (union), a
charter affiliate of the Workers Advocates for Struggle, Transformation and
Organization (WASTO), applied for registration with the BLR. Thereafter, BLR issued
the union a Certification of Creation of Local Chapter, in accordance with D.O. 40-03.
Electromat Manufacturing and Recording Corporation (company) filed for
cancellation of the unions registration certificate, for the unions failure to comply with
Art. 234 of LCP, and that D.O. 40-03 is unconstitutional.
DOLE director dismissed the petition; BLR director and CA affirmed.
Company points out that D.O. 40-03 delisted some of the requirements under Article
234 of the Labor Code for the registration of a local chapter.
ISSUE: W/N DO 40-03 is a valid exercise of the rule making power of DOLE.
HELD: Yes. D.O. 4003 represents an expression of the government's implementing
policy on trade unionism. It builds upon the old rules by further simplifying the
requirements for the establishment of locals or chapters. As in D.O. 9, we see
nothing contrary to the law or the Constitution in the adoption by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment of D.O. 4003 as this department order is consistent with the
intent of the government to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation
or national union to enhance the local's bargaining power. If changes were made at
all, these were those made to recognize the distinctions made in the law itself
between federations and their local chapters, and independent unions; local chapters
seemingly have lesser requirements because they and their members are deemed to
be direct members of the federation to which they are affiliated, which federations
are the ones subject to the strict registration requirements of the law.
Union has more than satisfied the requirements the petitioner complains about;
specifically, the union has submitted: (1) copies of the ratified CBL; (2) the minutes of
the CBLs adoption and ratification; (3) the minutes of the organizational meetings; (4)
the names and addresses of the union officers; (5) the list of union members; (6) the
list of rank-and-file employees in the company; (7) a certification of non-existence of
a CBA in the company; (8) the resolution of affiliation with WASTO and the latters
acceptance; and (9) their Charter Certificate. These submissions were properly
verified as required by the rules. In sum, the petitioner has no factual basis for
questioning the unions registration, as even the requirements for registration as an
independent local have been substantially complied with.