G.R. No. 170112 - Del Pilar Academy vs. Del Pilar Academy Employees Union

DEL PILAR ACADEMY (petitioner) and Del Pilar Academy Employees Union (the UNION, respondent) are involved in a labor dispute.
The UNION is the certified collective bargaining representative for teaching and non-teaching personnel of DEL PILAR, an educational institution located in Imus, Cavite.
On September 15, 1994, the UNION and DEL PILAR entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which provided for salary increases and other employment benefits.

Section 1: The parties agreed that basic pay increases would be maintained at an absolute amount programmed in a computation dated June 30, 1994.
Section 2: Teachers’ weekly teaching load was set at twenty-three (23) hours; any excess was to be treated as overload work with additional pay.
Section 3: Overload pay was stipulated to be based on the teacher’s basic monthly rate.
Section 4: Longevity pay was granted at P100.00 for every five (5) years of continuous service, to be integrated into the basic salary within three (3) years.

Section 1: Faculty members with at least six (6) consecutive academic semesters were entitled to the 11th and 12th month pay as summer vacation leave with pay, subject to possible reporting or seminars.
Section 2: Non-teaching employees with a minimum of one (1) year of service were entitled to fifteen (15) days of leave with pay.

The UNION assessed agency fees from non-union employees who, despite their non-membership, were beneficiaries under the CBA.
DEL PILAR initially refused to deduct these fees from the employees’ salaries, claiming that non-union employees were not amenable to such check-off without individual authorization.

In September 1997, during negotiations for the CBA’s renewal, DEL PILAR proposed amending the summer vacation leave with pay provision to limit the benefit only to teachers with at least three consecutive academic years of service.
The UNION objected on the ground that this amendment would diminish benefits, leading to a negotiation deadlock.
The UNION requested voluntary arbitration, which DEL PILAR allegedly refused, prompting the filing of an unfair labor practice case before the Labor Arbiter.

DEL PILAR erred in not deducting the agency fees from non-union employees who benefited from the CBA.
The employer’s reliance on the absence of individual written check-off authorization had no basis in law, as non-union members accepting the benefits did not require such authorization.
Although there was error in the deduction issue, the amendment proposal on vacation leave did not constitute bad faith nor an unfair labor practice.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Arbiter’s ruling, recognizing the UNION’s right to collect agency fees while not deeming DEL PILAR’s conduct an unfair labor practice.
On July 19, 2005, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the NLRC resolution by ordering DEL PILAR to deduct agency fees from non-union employees’ salaries, equal to the dues paid by union members.
DEL PILAR’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on September 28, 2005.
DEL PILAR then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari challenging the CA decision.

Is the UNION entitled to collect agency fees from non-union employees who benefit from the provisions of the CBA?

Must individual written authorization be obtained from non-union employees prior to deducting agency fees from their salaries?

Is the annual salary increase, mandated by governmental directives and included in the CBA, considered a benefit from which agency fees can be deducted?