Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO COLLEGE, INC., petitioner, vs . HON.

JEROME JOAQUIN, in his capacity asVoluntary Arbitrator, and HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO COLLEGE UNION

KALIPUNAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (KAMAPI), respondents. Facts: KAMAPI is the affiliate labor organization of the all employees of Holy Cross Davao College, Inc,. OnApril 12, 1989, KAMAPI President Jose Lagahit wrote Holy Cross seeking the extension for two (2) months or untilJuly 31, 1989, its collective bargaining for the period June 1, 1986 to May 31, 1989, on the ground that the teachersare still on summer vacation and union activities necessary or incident to the negotiation of new agreement could notyet be conducted. Holy Cross President Emilio P. Palma-Gil on his reply interposes no objection to it.Rodolfo Gallera was elected as President of KAMAPI in the meeting held on July 24, 1989. To the surprise of many, Gallera initiated discussions for the unions disaffiliation from the KAMAPI Federation. Gallera group subsequently formed a separate organization known as the Holy Cross of Davao CollegeTeachers Union, andelected its own officers. Holy Cross thereafter stopped deducting from the salaries and wages of its teachers andemployees the corresponding union dues and special assessment (payable by union members), and agency fees(payable by non-members), in accordance with the check-off clause of the CBA, prompting KAMAPI, onSeptember 1, 1989, to demand an explanation.In the meantime, there ensued between the two unions a full-blown action on the basic issue of representation, which last for two years. Members of KAMAPI through Gallera filed a petition for certificationelection in the Office of the Med-Arbiter KAMAPI responded by filing a motion asking the Med-Arbiter to dismissthe petition. On August 31, 1989, KAMAPI also advised Holy Cross of the election of a new set of officers whowould also comprise its negotiating panel. The MedArbiter denied KAMAPIs motion to dismiss, and ordered the holding of a certification election. On appeal, however, the Secretary of Labor reversed the MedArbiters ruling and ordered the dismissal of the petition for certification election, which action was eventually sustained by thisCourt in appropriate proceedings.On April 11, 1991, KAMAPI presented its revised bargaining proposal to Holy Cross followed by a letterdated July 11, 1991 asking the school for counterproposal. Through the counsel of KAMAPIs they furnished acopy of the Courts resolution to that effect and on September 7, 1991, K AMAPI again wrote to Holy Cross askingfor its counter-proposals as regards the terms of a new CBA.

In response, Holy Cross declared that it would take no action towards a new CBA without a definitiveruling on the proper interpretation of Article I of the old CBA. Said Article provides inter alia for the automaticextension of the CBA for another period of three (3) years counted from its expiration, if the parties fail to agree ona renewal, modification or amendment thereof. KAMAPI then sent another letter to Holy Cross, this time accusing itof unfair labor practice for refusing to bargain despite the formers repeated demands, and on the following day, itfiled a notice of strike with National Mediation and Conciliation Board. Both parties failed to bring about anyamicable settlement, hence, the parties agreed to submit the case to voluntary arbitration. Voluntary ArbitratorJerome C. Joaquin found in favour of KAMAPI. It ruled that KAMAPI is the collective bargaining agent of thepermanent and regular teachers of the educational institution. It also ordered that Holy Cross to pay KAMAPI for the uncollected union dues of all it members because it violated its CBAs check off provisions. ISSUE:

Will the employer be liable to the union if it failed to deduct union dues or agency fees from unionmembers? RULING: No, employer is not liable to the union if it failed to deduct union dues or agency fee from union members.Check-off is a process or device whereby the employer, on agreement between the union and the employer withprior authorization from its employees to deducts union dues or agency fees from the latter's wages and remits themdirectly to the union. The labor Code and its Implementing Rules recognize as the duty of the employer to deductand remit the same to the union in order to facilitate the collection of funds vital to the role of the union asrepresentative of employees. The legal basis of check-off is thus found in statute or in contract. Statutory limitationson check-offs generally require written authorization from each employee to deduct wages. No provision of lawmakes the employer directly liable for the payment to the labor organization of union dues and assessments that the former fails to deduct from its employees salaries an d wages pursuant to a checkoff stipulation. The employers failure to make the requisite deductions may constitute a violation of a contractual commitment for which it mayincur liability for unfair labor practice. But it does not by omission, incur liability to the union for the aggregate of dues or assessments uncollected from the union members, or agency fees for non-union employees. The onlyobligation of the employer under a check-off is to effect the deductions and remit the collections to theunion. KAMAPI also failed to submit to the college comptroller every 8th day of the month, a list of employees fromwhose pay union dues and the corresponding agency fees were to be deducted

Southern Philippines VS CALLEJA

FACTS: Petitioner SPF filed with the DOLE a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employeesof private respondent Apex Minong Co. The MedArbitergranted the petition and directed the holding of thecertification election. During the preelection conference,petitioner union objected to the inclusion in the list of workers prepared by Apex the following: (1) employeesoccupying the positions of Supervisor I, II and III; (2)employees under confidential/special payrolls; and (3)employees who were not paying dues. According topetitioner, the mentioned employees were disqualifiedfrom participating in the certification election since theSupervisors were managerial employees while the lasttwo were disqualified by virtue of their non-membershipin the Union and their exclusion from the benefits of thecollective bargaining agreement. After the certification of election was conducted, respondent Union filed an urgent motion to open the challenged ballots. The Med-Arbiter granted the motion and directed the challengedballots be opened and inventoried. Petitioner appealed tothe BLR wherein respondent Director FerrerCallejadismissed said appeal and affirmed the decision of theMed-Arbiter and ordered that the 197 ballots should beopened and canvassed. As a consequence of the openingand canvass of the challenged ballots, the Med-Arbiter Issue: Whether respondent Director committed graveabuse of discretion in not excluding the 197 employeesfrom voting in the certification election Held:NO The functions of the questioned positions are notmanagerial in nature because they only executeapproved and established policies leaving little or nodiscretion at all whether to implement the said policies ornot. The respondent Director, therefore, did not commitgrave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioner'sappeal from the Med-Arbiter's Order to open and countthe challenged ballots in denying the petitioner's motionfor reconsideration and in certifying the respondentUnion as the sole and exclusive bargai ningrepresentative of the rank-and-file employees of respondent Apex .As regards the employees in the confidential payroll, thepetitioner has not shown that the nature of their jobs isclassified as managerial except for its allegation thatthey are considered by management as occupyingmanagerial positions and highly confidential. Neither canpayment or non-payment of union dues be thedetermining factor of whether the challenged employeesshould be excluded from the bargaining unit since theunion shop provision in the CBA applies only to newlyhired employees but not to members of the bargainingunit who were not members of the union at the time of the signing of the CBA. It is, therefore, not impossiblefor employees to be members of the bargaining uniteven though they are non-union members or not payingunion due

CARLOS P. GALVADORES , ET AL., petitioners, vs. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO , Director of BLR, MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON SAPILIPINAS (FIWU), PLDT, and JOSE C. ESPINAS, respondents.G.R. No. 70067; September 15, 1986; MELENCIOHERRERA, J. Facts: Atty. Jose C. Espinas has been the legal counsel of Free Telephone Workers Union nowManggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (Union for brevity), since 1964. For his services, he washired on a case to case contingent fee basis . He was again hired by the union in the labor dispute at PLDTregarding the PLDTs last offer to the deadlock in CBA negotiations which is expected by the union toresult in compulsory arbitration.In the compulsory arbitration, the Minister of Labor awarded across-the-board wage increasesand other fringe benefits. As will be noted, there were improvements obtained from PLDT's "last offer."Thereafter, the Executive Board of the Union passed a resolution requesting PLDT to deduct P115.00 per employee for the legal services extended to the Union by Atty. Espinas however the petitioners initiallynumbering 600 and finally 5,258, filed a letter-complaint before the MOLE through their authorizedrepresentative, petitioner Galvadores assailing the imposition of P130.00 (later corrected to P155.00) per employee as attorney's fees of respondents counsel. Petitioners took the position that the attorney's fees of respondent counsel were not only unreasonable but also in violation of Article 241(o) of the Labor Codeand that the deductions cannot be given legal effect by a mere Board resolution but needs the ratification by the general membership of the Union. Later, the Minister of Labor referred the dispute to the BLR.Meanwhile a Manifestation was submitted attesting that plebiscite was conducted for the ratification of the aforementioned resolution. This was questioned by the petitioners alleging that the question no. 2 inthe plebiscite was misleading and deceptive as it assumed that there was no dispute regarding t hededuction of attorney's fees from the monetary benefits awarded to PLDT employees. Director, Trajanodismissed petitioners' complaint reasoning that the outcome of the plebiscite negates any further questionon the right of the union counsel to collect the amount of P115 from each of the employees involved. Issues: Whether or not the check-off for attorneys fees from the benefits awarded to PLDTs employeesamounting to P1M, more or less is legal and in affirmative answer, the same should be taken from Unionfunds. Held:

The provisions of Article 222(b), Article 241 (o) of the Labor Code and Omnibus RulesImplementing the Labor Code are clear. No check-offs from any amounts due employees may be effectedwithout individual written authorizations duly signed by the employee specifically stating the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. The required individual authorizations in this case are wanting.In fact, petitioner employees are vigorously objecting. The question asked in the plebiscite, besides not being explicit, assumed that there was no dispute relative to attorney's fees.Contrary to respondent Union's and Counsel's stand, the benefits awarded to PLDT employees still formed part of the collective bargaining negotiations although placed already under compulsoryarbitration. This is not the "mandatory activity" under the Code which dispenses with individual writtenauthorizations for check-offs, notwithstanding its "compulsory" nature. It is a judicial process of settlingdisputes laid down by law. Besides, Article 222(b) does not except a CBA , later placed under compulsoryarbitration, from the ambit of its prohibition. The attorney's fees herein involved may be charged againstUnion funds pursuant to Article 222(b) of the Labor Code, as may be agreed upon between them.