9. National Congress of Union in Sugar Industry v.

Ferrer-Calleja (Medialdea, 1992)

Pet: National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines (NACUSIP-TUCP) Filed for
certification election (after freedom period) but denied by
Res: Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja as the Dir. of Bureau of Labor Relations on MR by
Priv. Res: National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW-FGT-KMU) the union sought to be replaced by
Pet. because it was in a negotiating deadlock with their employer.

Facts:
1. Dacongcong Sugar and Rice Milling Co. in Negros Occ. Employs about 500 workers during milling
season, and 300workers during off milling season. Dacongcong has 2 competing labor unions for
these workers.
2. Nov. 14, 1984 – Dacongcong entered into a CBA with Priv. Res. Nat’l Federation, effective three
years./ until Nov 14, 1987
3. The CBA was renewed, extended for another 3years, BUT with reservation for amendments
regarding wage increases, hours of work, and other terms of conditions of employment.
4. The negotiation for the reservations in the CBA, went into a deadlock. The parties agreed to a
suspension and cooling off period.
5. Meanwhile (Dec 5, 1988) Pet. National Congress, FILED: direct certification/certification election
(They filed beyond the freedom period of 60days before CBA expiry)
OPPOSED: National Federation moved to dismiss the petition because, (1) it was filed out of
time, (2) there was still the deadlocked CBA.
ANSWER: Dacongcong, petition to dismiss.
6. Med-Arbiter: Directed the conduct of the Certification Election.
Dir. BLR/Res: Reversed, dismissed the petition for being filed out of time. (beyond freedom pd.)
Issue: w/n a petition for certification election may be filed after the 60-day freedom period?
Decision: NO. It should be dismissed outright based on RuleV §6 BookV of the labor code’s IRR.
That the CBA was in deadlock is immaterial because CBA’s are deemed to continue to be in force
until a new CBA is executed. LC 253.
1. Pet. Stand: That IRR provisions should be liberally construed in favor of workers exercising their
right to self-org, Res. does not have jurisdiction, and that Res. ignored SC case of Kapisanan ng
mga Mangagawa sa La Suerte-FOITAF v. Noriel. (Court only touched upon the first contention)
Res. Stand: Petition was filed out of time(More than a year after CBA expired) and should be
dismissed outright.
2. A careful perusal of the provision (RuleV §6 BookV) shows that there is a clear mandate that the
petition should be dismissed outright for having been filed outside the 60-day freedom period.
3. Only a certified CBA may serve as a bar to certification elections. (§3 RuleV, BookV and PAFLU v.
Estrella 170 S 378)
a. Here BLR certified the CBA executed in 1984, hence the contract bar rule is applicable.
b. petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained
within sixty days prior to the expiry date of an existing collective bargaining agreement
c. OR Rule prohibits the filing of a petition for certification election during the existence of
a collective bargaining agreement except within the freedom period, as it is called, when
the said agreement is about to expire
d. PURPOSE: is to ensure stability in the relationships of the workers and the management
by preventing frequent modifications of any collective bargaining agreement earlier
entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated original period (ALU-TUCP v.
Trajano)
4. Despite the lapse of the formal effectivity of the CBA the law still considers the same as
continuing in force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly executed.
a. As held in Lopez Sugar Corp. v. Federation of Free Workers citing Art. 253 of the Labor
code: that "(i)t shall be the duty of both parties to keep the statusquo and to continue in
 full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-
day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties."
WHEREFORE Pet. DENIED. Certification Election was not allowed.
Czarina Dee
Cirtek Employees Labor Union vs Cirtek Electronics
GR 190515
Facts:
This resolves the motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for
reconsideration filed by respondent, Cirtek Electronics, Inc., of the Court’s
Decision dated November 15, 2010.

Respondent-movant maintains that the Secretary of Labor cannot insist on a

ruling beyond the compromise agreement entered into by the parties; and
that, as early as February 5, 2010, petitioner Union had already filed with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a resolution of disaffiliation
from the Federation of Free Workers resulting in the latter’s lack of
personality to represent the workers in the present case.

Issue: WON petitioner lost its personality to represent the workers because
of its disaffiliation from the Federation of Free Workers.
Held:
The issue of disaffiliation is an intra-union dispute which must be resolved in
a different forum in an action at the instance of either or both the FFW and
the Union or a rival labor organization, not the employer.

Indeed, as respondent-movant itself argues, a local union may disaffiliate at

any time from its mother federation, absent any showing that the same is
prohibited under its constitution or rule. Such, however, does not result in it
losing its legal personality altogether. Verily, Anglo-KMU v. Samahan Ng Mga
Manggagawang Nagkakaisa Sa Manila Bay Spinning Mills At J.P. Coats
enlightens:

A local labor union is a separate and distinct unit primarily designed to secure
and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their
employee-members. A local union does not owe its existence to the federation
with which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association
owing its creation to the will of its members. The mere act of affiliation does
not divest the local union of its own personality, neither does it give the
mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It only
gives rise to a contract of agency where the former acts in representation of
the latter. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
MR denied.

Cirtek Employees Labor Union – Federation of Free Workers

v.
Cirtek Electronics, Inc.

G.R. No. 190515 June 6, 2011

FACTS: A memorandum of agreement between the petitioner and respondent was signed.
Despite the ratification of this memorandum of agreement however, a labor dispute regarding
the matters covered by the memorandum of agreement arose between petitioner and
respondent.

When the case reached the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary found that the MOA came about as
a result of the constitution, at respondent’s behest, of the Labor-Management Council (LMC)
which, he reminded the parties, should not be used as an avenue for bargaining but for the
purpose of affording workers to participate in policy and decision-making. Hence, the
agreements embodied in the MOA were not the proper subject of the LMC deliberation or
procedure but of CBA negotiations and, therefore, deserving little weight. The Secretary of
Labor rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner-union beyond what was stated in the
compromise agreement entered into by the parties.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Secretary did not have the authority to give an
arbitral award higher than what was stated in the MOA. The Court of Appeals relied on the
parol evidence rule to support its decision.

TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION-

CGW et al vs.TROPICAL HUT FOOD
MARKET, INC., et al DIGEST
DECEMBER 19, 2016 ~ VBDIAZ

TOPIC: DISAFFILIATION

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-of
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-of 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-of 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.

TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION-

CGW vs.
TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC.
G.R. No. L-43495-99, 20 January 1990

FACTS:

The rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market Incorporated organized a loc
al union called the Tropical Hut Employees Union, known for short as the THEU, electe
d their officers, adopted their constitution and by-laws and immediately sought affiliatio
n with the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). The NATU accepted the THE
U application for affiliation. Following such affiliation with NATU, Registration Certifica
te was issued by the Department of Labor in the name of the Tropical Hut Employees U
nion — NATU. It appears, however, that NATU itself as a labor federation, was not regist
ered with the Department of Labor.

Company and THEU-NATU entered into a new Collective Bargaining which incorporate
d the previous union-shop security clause and the attached check-off authorization form
. NATU received a letter jointly signed by the incumbent officers of the local union infor
ming the NATU that THEU was disaffiliating from the NATU federation. On despite bei
ng given the chance to affirm their membership with THEU-NATU, they did not. The u
nion security clause set forth in the CBA was enforced which says membership is a condi
tion of continued employment. And they were dismissed.
 ISSUE:

Whether or not disaffiliation is a violation of union security clause and be the basis of th
e dismissal of the employees.

HELD:

No. The union security clause embodied in the Collective Bargaining Agreement cannot
be used to justify the dismissals meted to petitioners since it is not applicable to the circ
umstances obtaining in this case. The CBA imposes dismissal only in case an employee i
s 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 th
e withdrawal of merely some employees from the union but of the whole THEU itself fro
m 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 said employees.

In view of the fact that the dispute revolved around the mother federation and its local,
with the company suspending and dismissing the workers at the instance of the mother f
ederation then, the company’s liability should be limited to the immediate reinstatemen
t of the workers. And since their dismissals were effected without previous hearing and a
t the instance of NATU, this federation should be held liable to the petitioners for the pa
yment of their backwages, as what We have ruled in the Liberty Cotton Mills Case.

TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION-CGW vs.

TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC G.R. No.L-
43495-99
FACTS:

1. On January 2, 1968, the rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market Incorporated, organized a
local union called the Tropical Hut Employees Union (THEU) and elected their officers, and adopted their
constitution and by-laws and immediately sought affiliation with the National Association of Trade Unions
(NATU).
2. On January 3, 1968, the NATU accepted the THEU application for affiliation. Following such affiliation with
NATU, Registration Certificate No. 5544-IP was issued by the Department of Labor in the name of the
Tropical Hut Employees Union —NATU. It appears, however, that NATU itself as a labor federation, was
not registered with the Department of Labor.
3. Collective Bargaining Agreement was concluded between the parties on April 1, 1968, the term of which
expired on March 31, 1971.

Sec. 1. The COMPANY recognizes the UNION 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.

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 conditionof continued employment.
xxx

Sec. 3—Any employee who is expelled from the UNION for joining another federation or forming another union, or
who fails or refuses to maintain his membership therein as required, . . . shall, upon written request of the UNION be
discharged by the COMPANY.

4. May 21, 1971, respondent company and THEU-NATU entered into a new Collective Bargaining
Agreement which ended on March 31, 1974. This new CBA incorporated the previous union-shop security
clause and the attached check off authorization form.
5. NATU received a letter dated December 15, 1973, jointly signed by the incumbent officers of the local
union informing the NATU that THEU was disaffiliating from the NATU federation.
6. Secretary of the THEU, Nemesio Barro, made an announcement in an open letter to the general
membership of the THEU, concerning the latter’s disaffiliation from the NATU and its affiliation with the
Confederation of General Workers (CGW). The letter was passed around among the members of the
THEU-NATU, to which around 137 signatures appeared as having given their consent to and
acknowledgment of the decision to disaffiliate the THEU from the NATU.

7. The then so-called THEU-CGW held its annual election of officers, with Jose Encinas elected as
President. On January 3, 1974, Encinas, in his capacity as THEU-CGW President, informed the
respondent company of the result of the elections. On January 9, 1974, Pacifico Rosal, President of the
Confederation of General Workers (CGW), wrote a letter in behalf of complainant THEU-CGWto the
respondent company demanding the remittance of the union dues collected by the Tropical Hut Food
Mart, Incorporated to the THEU-CGW, but this was refused by the respondent company.
8. A request made by the NATU federation to the respondent company to dismiss him (Encinas) in view of
his violation of Section 3 of Article III of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
9. The respondent company applied for clearance with the Secretary of Labor to dismiss the other officers
and members of THEU-CGW. The company also suspended them effective that day.
10. NLRC Case No. LR-2521 was filed by THEU-CGW and individual complainants against private
respondents for unfair labor practices.

THEU-CGW asked the employees to affirm their membership. Some did not abidenso they were informed
that they will be dismissed under the CBA.

President/General Manager of respondent company, upon Dilag’s request, suspended twenty four (24)
workers on March 5, 1974, another thirty seven (37) on March 8, 1974 and two (2) more on March 11,
1974, pending approval by the Secretary of Labor of the application for their dismissal.

Labor Arbiter, Arbitrator Daniel Lucas issued an orderdated March 21, 1974, holding that the issues raised
by the parties became moot and academic with the issuance of NLRC Order dated February 25, 1974 in
NLRC Case No. LR-2670, which directed the holding of a certification election among the rank and file
workers of the respondent company between the THEU-NATU and THE CGW.

He also ordered: a) the reinstatement of all complainants; b) for the respondent company to cease and
desist from committing further acts of dismissals without previous order from the NLRC and for the
complainant Tropical Hut Employees UNION-CGW to file representation cases on a case to case basis
during the freedom period provided for by the existing CBA between the parties.
 NLRC reversed the decision. Secretary of Labor rendered a decision affirming the findings of the
Commission.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they immediately
elevated the case to this Court without an appeal having been made to the Office of the President;

2) Whether or not the disaffiliation of the local union from the national federation was valid; and

3) Whether or not the dismissal of petitioner employees resulting from their Unions’ disaffiliation for the
mother federation was illegal and constituted unfair labor practice on the part of respondent company and
federation

RULING:

1) The remedy of appeal from the Secretary of Labor to the Office of the President is not a mandatory
requirement before resort to courts can be had, but an optional relief provided by law to parties seeking
expeditious disposition of their labor disputes. Failure to avail of such relief shall not in any way served as
an impediment to judicial intervention. And where the issue is lack of power or arbitrary or improvident
exercise thereof, decisions of the Secretary of Labor may be questioned in a certiorari proceeding without
prior appeal to the President.

2) The 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.

All employees enjoy the right to self organization and to form and join labor organizations of their own
choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid
or protection. This is a fundamental right of labor that derives its existence from the Constitution.

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. 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
and protection of common interests. In the absence of enforceable provisions in the federation’s
constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union a local may sever its relationship with its parent.
Nothing in the constitution and by laws of THEU NATU, prohibits the disaffiliation from NATU. Besides
NATU is not even recognized as a national federation.

3) 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 thedismissals 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 theCBA,
there was no sufficient ground to terminate the employment of petitioners.