ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP.G.R. No.

106518, March 11, 1999

Facts: The ABS-CBN Supervisors Union, represented by the Union Officers and ABS -CBNBroadcasting 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 UnionOfficers 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 asmajority 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 therefund of an amount advance by ABS-CBN as part of the 10% sum total of CBA benefits and to stop fromfurther 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 Motionfor Reconsideration, Undersecretary Laguesma reversed itself and ordered that its first decision be setaside 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 uponmembers of a labor organization unless authorized by a written resolution of amajority of all the members of a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. The secretary of the organization shall record the minutes of themeeting 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,attorneys fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without anindividual written authorizationduly 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 attorneys fees, negotiationfees 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 attorneys fees may becharged against union fundsin 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 Unions incidental expenses, attorneys 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) secretarys 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 attorneys fees. The minutes of the said meeting were recorded by the Unions Secretary, Ma. Carminda Muoz 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 members 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. Secretarys 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 illegalwhich would be tantamount to a deprivation to an employee of his basic living wage. Any deductionsalready 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 forcertification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of Sta. Lucia EastCommercial Corporation (THE CORPORATION)and its Affiliates. The affiliate companiesincluded in the petition were SLE Commercial,SLE Department Store, SLE Cinema, Robsan EastTrading, Bowling Center, Planet Toys, HomeGallery and Essentials.On August 2001, Med-Arbiter Bactin orderedthe dismissal of the petition due toinappropriateness of the bargaining unit.Later CLUP in its local chapter under THECORPORATION reorganized itself and re-registered as CLUP-Sta. Lucia East CommercialCorporation Workers Association (herein THEUNION), limiting its membership to the rank-and-file employees of Sta. Lucia EastCommercial Corporation.On the same date, THE UNION or THE UNIONfiled the instant petition for certificationelection. It claimed that no certification electionhas been held among them within the last 12months prior to the filing of the petition, andwhile there is another union registered coveringthe same employees, namely SamahangManggawa sa SLEC [SMSLEC], it has not beenrecognized as the exclusive bargaining agent of *THE CORPORATIONs+ employees.On November 2001, THE CORPORATION or THECORPORATION filed a motion to dismiss thepetition. It averred that it has voluntarilyrecognized SMSLEC as the exclusive bargainingagent of its regular rank-and-file employees,and that collective bargaining negotiationsalready commenced between them. THECORPORATION argued that the petition shouldbe dismissed for violating the one year andnegotiation bar rules under the Omnibus RulesImplementing the Labor Code.The CBA between SMSLEC and the corporationwas ratified by its rank-and-file employees andregistered with DOLE.In the meantime, on December 2001, the unionfiled its Opposition to THE CORPORATIONSMotion to Dism iss questioning the validity of the voluntary recognition of [SMSLEC] by [THECORPORATION] and their consequentnegotiations and execution of a CBA. Accordingto [THE UNION], the voluntary recognition of [SMSLEC] by [THE CORPORATION] violated therequirements for voluntary recognition, i.e.,non-existence of another labor organization inthe same bargaining unit. It pointed out thatthe time of the voluntary recognition on 20 July2001, appellants registration which covers thesame group of employees covered by SamahangManggagawa sa Sta. Lucia East Commercial,was existing and has neither been cancelled orabandoned. The Med-Arbiters Ruling Med-Arbiter Bactin dismissed THE UNIONspetition for direct certification on the ground of contract bar rule. The prior voluntaryrecognition of SMSLEC and the CBA betweenTHE CORPORATION and SMSLEC bars the filingof THE UNIONs petition for direct certification

THE UNION raised the matter to the Secretary. The Ruling of the Secretary of Labor andEmployment The Secretary held that the subsequentnegotiations and registration of a CBA executedby THE CORPORATION with SMSLEC could notbar THE UNIONs petition. THE UNIONconstituted a registered labor organization atthe time of THE CORPORATIONs voluntaryrecognition 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 theSecretary Issue: Whether THE CORPORATIONs voluntaryrecognition of SMSLEC was done while alegitimate labor organization was in existence inthe bargaining unit. Held: The petition has no merit.Legitimate Labor OrganizationArticle 212(g) of the Labor Code defines a labororganization as "any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part forthe purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms andconditions of employment." Upon compliancewith all the documentary requirements, theRegional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the applicant labor organization a certificateindicating that it is included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations.6 Any applicantlabor organization shall acquire legalpersonality and shall be entitled to the rightsand privileges granted by law to legitimatelabor organizations upon issuance of thecertificate of registration.7Bargaining UnitThe concepts of a union and of a legitimatelabor organization are different from, butrelated to, the concept of a bargaining unit.A bargaining unit is a "group of employees of agiven employer, comprised of all or less than allof the entire body of employees, consistentwith equity to the employer, indicated to be thebest suited to serve the reciprocal rights andduties of the parties under the collectivebargaining provisions of the law."The fundamental factors in determining theappropriate 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 andduties, or similarity of compensation andworking conditions (Substantial MutualInterests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaininghistory; and (4) similarity of employment status.

(eto yung important) The UNIONS initialproblem was that they constituted a legitimatelabor organization representing a non-appropriate bargaining unit. However, Theunion subsequently re-registered as THEUNION, limiting its members to the rank-and-file of THE CORPORATION. THE CORPORATIONcannot ignore the union was a legitimate labororganization at the time of THE CORPORATIONsvoluntary recognition of SMSLEC. THECORPORATION and SMSLEC cannot, bythemselves, decide whether CLUP-THECORPORATION and its Affiliates Workers Unionrepresented an appropriate bargaining unit.The inclusion in the union of disqualifiedemployees is not among the grounds for