Legality of Mass Disaffiliation

Mass disaffiliation is a phenomenon which is not new in the labor movement. Nor
it is open to any legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of association explicitly
ordained by the constitution. There is then inconvertible right of any individual to join an
organization of his choice. That option belongs to him. A working man is not to be
denied that liberty. He may be, as matter of fact, more in need of it if the institution of
collective bargaining as an aspect of industrial democracy is to succeed. No obstacle
that may possibly thwart the desirable objective of military in labors struggle for better
terms and conditions is then to be placed on his way. Once the face of disaffiliation has
been demonstrated beyond doubt, a certification election is the most expeditious way of
determining which labor organization is to be exclusive bargaining representative. 1

Right of Local Union to Disaffiliate; Effect of Disaffiliation on Right on Union Dues

The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother union is well settled. It has
been repeatedly held that a local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is
free to serve the interest of all its members including freedom to disaffiliate when
circumstances warrant; this is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
association. Once the local union disaffiliates from the parent organization, the right of
the latter to union dues ceases. And even the contract between the 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. 2
When the local union withdrew from the old federation to join a new federation, it
was merely exercising its primary right to labor organization for the effective
enhancement of common interests. In the absence of enforceable provisions in the
federations constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union, a local may sever its
relationship with its parent.
A local union owes its creation and continued existence to the will of its members
and not to the federation to which it belongs. And then the non-compliance of the local
union with the provision in the constitution of the mother federation requiring the service
of three months notice of intention to withdraw did not produce the effect of nullifying the
disaffiliation; this is purely a technical ground which cannot rise above the fundamental
right of self-organization.
But while it is true that a local union, being an entity separate and distinct from
the mother federation, is free to serve the interest of all its members and enjoy the
freedom to disaffiliate, such right may be exercised, and is thus considered a protected
labor activity, only when warranted by circumstances. Generally, a labor union may
disaffiliate from the mother union to form a local or independent union only during the 60
day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA. Even before the
1
Vazzar Industries Employees Union vs Hon. Francisco Estrella et.al, G.R. No. L-46562, March 31, 1978; PLAC vs
Bureau of Labor Relations et.al, G.R. No. L-41288, January 31, 1977
2
Volkschel Labor Union vs Bureau of Labor Relations et.al, G.R. No. L-45824, June 19, 1985
onset of the freedom period (despite the closed-shop provision in the CBA between the
mother union and management) disaffiliation may still be carried out, but such
disaffiliation must be effected by a majority of the members of the union. In such a case,
however, the CBA continues to bind the members of the new or disaffiliated and
independent union up to the CBAs expiration date. 3

Affiliation Gives Rise to Binding Contract

When a labor union affiliates with a parent organization or mother union, or
accepts a charter from a superior body, it becomes subject to the laws of the superior
body under whose authority the local union functions. The constitution, by-laws and
rules of the parent body, together with the charter it issues pursuant thereto to the
subordinate union, constitute an enforceable contract between the parent body and the
subordinate union, and between the members of the subordinate union. 4
The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and
maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee
members in the economic struggle for the fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and
capital; and the association of the locals into the national union was in furtherance of the
same end. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such
legal relations with their members. The essential purpose was the affiliation of the local
units into a common enterprise to increase by collective action the common bargaining
power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic
units of association, free to serve their own and the common interest of all, subject to
the restraints imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the association, and free also
to renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement
which brought it into existence.5

Union Loyalty
While an employee is given the right to join a labor organization, such right
should only be asserted in a manner that will not spell the destruction of the same
organization. Loyalty is necessary to obtain to the full extent the unions cohesion and
integrity. And as an act of loyalty a union may certainly require its members not to
affiliate with any other labor union and to consider its infringement as a reasonable
cause for separation.6
Inherent in every labor union, or any organization for that matter, is the right of
self-preservation. When members of labor union, therefore, sow seeds of dissension
and strife within the union; when they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very

3
Associated Workers Union PTGWO vs NLRC et.al, G.R. No. 87266-69, July 30, 1990
4
Labor Union, Dangel and Shriber, pp. 279-280
5
Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union et.al., vs Liberty Cottom Mills, Inc. et.al, G.R. No. L-33987, September 4, 1975,
citing Harker et.al, vs McKissok et.al, 91A 2nd 480
6
Ang Malayang Mangagawa sa ang Tibay Enterprises et.al, vs Ang Tibay et.al, 102 Phil 669
union to which they belong; they thereby forfeit their rights to remain as members of the
union which they seek to destroy.7

Comments and Annotations

An Unamended Provision
This article again is lifted verbatim from Article 283 of the Original Labor Code as
instituted by PD No. 442 in May 1, 1974.

Conditions under Article 237

a. Federation or national union activity must be confined only to one industry in
an area or region, or all over the country;
b. Each local or chapter need not be registered separately with the Bureau;
c. Locals and chapters will have the same rights and privileges as registered
unions if the registering federation or national union organized then within
their assigned organizational filed of activity; and
d. Local or chapters are organized only within specific industry or region.

7
Villar et.al, vs Inciong et.al, G.R. Nos. L-50283-84, April 20, 1983