Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations - Case

G.R. No.
L-45824 June 19, 1985
VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION, Petitioner, vs. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS,

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION FOR METAL, WORKERS, DMG, INC.,
PEOPLE'S CAR, INC., KARBAYAN INC., and RTC TRADING,
INC., Respondents.
Ignacio P. Lacsina for petitioner.
William D. Dichoso for respondent DMG, Inc.
Abraham B. Drapiza for private respondent.
CUEVAS, J.:
Petition for certiorari to review the Resolutions dated January 25, 1977 and
March 14, 1977 of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
On April 25. 1977, however, a Supplemental Petition was filed seeking the
issuance of -
(1) A preliminary mandatory injunction commanding respondents to return to

petitioner the union dues amounting to about P55,000.00 lawfully pertaining
to it but illegally levied upon, collected and handed over by respondent Bureau,
acting through the NLRC sheriff, to respondent Associated Labor Union for
Metal workers, with the collusion of respondents DMG, Inc., Karbayan, Inc.
and RTC Machineries, Inc.;
(2) A preliminary restraining order prohibiting respondents from making

further delivery to respondent Associated Labor Union for Metal workers of
Union dues collected or to be collected through check-off from the wages of
petitioner's members by respondents, DMG, Inc., Karbayan, Inc., RTC
Machineries, Inc., and People's Car, Inc., under or by virtue of the questioned
writ of execution issued by respondent Bureau, dated April 4, 1977.
Petitioner was once affiliated with the Associated Labor Union for Metal
Workers (ALUMETAL for short). On August 1, 1975, both unions, using the
name Volkschel Labor Union Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers, jointly
entered into a collective bargaining agreement with respondent companies. One
of the subjects dealt with is the payment of union dues which is provided for in
Section 3, Article 1, of the CBA, which reads:
Section 3. CHECK-OFF. - The COMPANY agrees to make payroll deductions not

softener than twice a month of UNION membership dues and such special
assessments fees or fines as may be duly authorized by the UNION, provided
that the same is covered by the individual check-off authorization of the UNION
members. All said deductions shall be promptly transmitted within five (5) days
by the COMPANY to the UNION Treasurer. The COMPANY shall prepare two (2)
checks. One (1) check will be under the name of the local union as their local
fund including local special assessment funds and the other check will be for
the ALU Regional Office regarding the remittance of the UNION dues deduction.
On March 10, 1976, a majority of petitioner's members decided to disaffiliate

from respondent federation in order to operate on its own as an independent
labor group pursuant to Article 241 (formerly Article 240) of the Labor Code of
the Philippines, the pertinent portion of which reads:
Incumbent affiliates of existing federations or national unions may disaffiliate

only for the purpose of joining a federation or national union in the industry or
region in which it properly belongs or for the purpose of operating as an
independent labor group.
Accordingly, a resolution was adopted and signed by petitioner's members

revoking their check-off authorization in favor of ALUMETAL and notices
thereof were served on ALUMETAL and respondent companies.
Confronted with the predicament of whether or not to continue deducting from

employees' wages and remitting union dues to respondent, ALUMETAL which
wrote respondent companies advising them to continue deducting union dues
and remitting them to said federation, respondent companies sought the legal
opinion of the respondent Bureau as regards the controversy between the two
unions. On November 11, 1976, Med-Arbiter George A. Eduvalla of respondent
Bureau rendered a Resolution which in effect found the disaffiliation legal but
at the same time gave the opinion that, petitioner's members should continue
1
paying their dues to ALUMETAL in the concept of agency fees.
From the said Resolution, of the Med-Arbiter both petitioner and respondent
ALUMETAL appealed to the Director of respondent Bureau. Petitioner'
contended that the Med-Arbiter's opinion to the effect that petitioner's
members remained obligated to pay dues to respondent ALUMETAL was
inconsistent with the dispositive finding that petitioner's disaffiliation from
ALUMETAL was valid. ALUMETAL, on the other hand, assailed the Resolution
in question asserting that the disaffiliation should have been declared contrary
to law.
On January 25, 1977, respondent Bureau, through its Acting Director,

Francisco L. Estrella, REVERSED the Med-Arbiter's Resolution., and declared
that the Bureau recognized "the continued affiliation of Volkschel Labor Union
2
with the Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers."
Petitioner appealed the Acting Director's Resolution to the Secretary of Labor

know Minister of Labor and Employment) who, treating the appeal as a Motion
for Reconsideration referred the same back to respondent Bureau On March
14, 1977, the Bureau denied the appeal for lack of merit.
Hence, the instant petition.
Meanwhile, on April 4, 1977, on motion of ALUMETAL, the then Acting

Secretary of Labor, Amado Gat Inciong, issued a of execution commanding the
Sheriff of the National Labor Relations Commission to enforce and execute the
3
order of January 25, 1977, which has become final and executory. Pursuant
thereto, the NLRC Sheriff enforced and implemented the Order of January 25,
1977, as a result of which respondent companies turned over and handed to
respondent federation the union dues and other assessments in accordance
with the check-off provision of the CBA,
From the pleadings filed and arguments of counsel, the following issues
present themselves for this Court's resolution.
I Is petitioner union's disaffiliation from respondent federation valid?
II Do respondent companies have the right to effect union dues collections

despite revocation by the employees of the check-off authorization? and
III Is respondent federation entitled to union dues payments from petitioner

union's members notwithstanding their disaffiliation from said federation?
We resolve the first issue in the affirmative.
The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother union is well-settled. In
previous cases, 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
4
including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right
is consistent with the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of association
(Article IV, Section 7, Philippine Constitution).
Petitioner contends that the disaffiliation was not due to any opportunists
motives on its part. Rather it was prompted by the federation's deliberate and
habitual dereliction of duties as mother federation towards petitioner union.
Employees' grievances were allegedly left unattended to by respondent
federation to the detriment of the employees' rights and interests.
In reversing the Med-Arbiter's resolution, respondent Bureau declared: the

Department of Labor is set on a task to restructure the labor movement to the
end that the workers will unite themselves along industry lines. Carried to its
complete fruition, only one union for every industry will remain to bargain
collectively for the workers. The clear policy therefore even now is to conjoin
5
workers and worker groups, not to dismember them. This policy is
commendable. However, we must not lose sight of the constitutional mandate of
protecting labor and the workers' right to self-organization. In the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its
implementing regulations, the workingman's welfare should be the primordial
and paramount consideration. In the case at bar, it would go against the spirit
of the labor law to restrict petitioner's right to self-organization due to the
existence of the CBA. We agree with the Med-Arbiter's opinion that "A
disaffiliation does not disturb the enforceability and administration of a
collective agreement; it does not occasion a change of administrators of the
6
contract nor even an amendment of the provisions thereof." But nowhere in
the record does it appear that the contract entered into by the petitioner and
ALUMETAL prohibits the withdrawal of the former from the latter.
This now brings us to the second issue. Under Section 3, Article I, of the CBA,
the obligation of the respondent companies to deduct and remit dues to
ALUMETAL is conditioned on the individual check-off authorization of
petitioner's members, In other words, ALUMETAL is entitled to receive the dues
from respondent companies as long as petitioner union is affiliated with it and
respondent companies are authorized by their employees (members of
petitioner union) to deduct union dues. Without said affiliation, the employer
has no link to the mother union. The obligation of an employee to pay union
dues is coterminous with his affiliation or membership. "The employees' check-
off authorization, even if declared irrevocable, is good only as long as they
7
remain members of the union concerned." A contract between an employer
and the parent organization as bargaining agent for the employees is
terminated by the disaffiliation of the local of which the employees are
8
members. Respondent companies therefore were wrong in continuing the
check-off in favor of respondent federation since they were duly notified of the
disaffiliation and of petitioner's members having already rescinded their check-
off authorization.
With the view we take on those two issues, we find no necessity in dwelling
further on the last issue. Suffice it to state that respondent federation is not
entitled to union dues payments from petitioner's members. "A local union
which has validly withdrawn from its affiliation with the parent association and
which continues to represent the employees of an employer is entitled to the
9
check-off dues under a collective bargaining contract."
WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of the Bureau of Labor Relations of January 25,

1977 and March 14, 1977 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent
ALUMETAL is ordered to return to petitioner union all the union dues enforced
and collected through the NLRC Sheriff by virtue of the writ of execution dated
April 4, 1977 issued by respondent Bureau.
No costs.SO ORDERED.

Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations - Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations - Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations - Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-45824 June 19, 1985

VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION, Petitioner, vs. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS,

Ignacio P. Lacsina for petitioner.

William D. Dichoso for respondent DMG, Inc.

Abraham B. Drapiza for private respondent.

(1) A preliminary mandatory injunction commanding respondents to return to

(2) A preliminary restraining order prohibiting respondents from making

Section 3. CHECK-OFF. - The COMPANY agrees to make payroll deductions not

On March 10, 1976, a majority of petitioner's members decided to disaffiliate

Incumbent affiliates of existing federations or national unions may disaffiliate

Accordingly, a resolution was adopted and signed by petitioner's members

Confronted with the predicament of whether or not to continue deducting from

On January 25, 1977, respondent Bureau, through its Acting Director,

Petitioner appealed the Acting Director's Resolution to the Secretary of Labor

Hence, the instant petition.

Meanwhile, on April 4, 1977, on motion of ALUMETAL, the then Acting

II Do respondent companies have the right to effect union dues collections

III Is respondent federation entitled to union dues payments from petitioner

We resolve the first issue in the affirmative.

In reversing the Med-Arbiter's resolution, respondent Bureau declared: the

WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of the Bureau of Labor Relations of January 25,

You might also like