Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27079)
Facts:
Manila Cordage Company v. The Court of Industrial Relations and Manila Cordage Workers Union, G.R. No. L-27079; Manco Labor Union (NLU) v. Manila Cordage Workers Union and The Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-27080, August 31, 1977, Supreme Court First Division, Fernandez, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are Manila Cordage Company (an employer) and Manco Labor Union (NLU) (the then-recognized exclusive bargaining agent); the respondent union is the Manila Cordage Workers Union, and the administrative respondent is the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). In 1957 and again in 1959 the Company and Manco entered collective bargaining agreements that included a “maintenance of membership” provision stating that employees who were union members at signing “shall continue to remain members of the UNION for the duration of this AGREEMENT.”
After 1959 a rival union, the Manila Cordage Workers Union, organized and persuaded some employees to resign from Manco and join it. At Manco’s instance the Company dismissed several who had resigned from Manco, among them Silvino Rabago, Natalio Nisperos and Ricardo Trajano; some resignations were later withdrawn and those employees were re-employed. At the behest of the Manila Cordage Workers Union, the acting prosecutor of the CIR filed (and later amended) an unfair labor practice complaint (Case No. 2728‑ULP) against the Company and Manco alleging concerted action to dismiss employees for joining the rival union.
After trial the CIR rendered its decision of May 4, 1966 finding unfair labor practice by both the Company and Manco in violation of provisions of the Industrial Peace Act, ordering them to cease and desist, to reinstate Rabago, Nisperos and Trajano, and to pay back wages from dismissal until actual reinstatement. Motions for reconsideration were denied by CIR resolution of October 19, 1966 (the Presiding Judge, however, voted to eliminate the back wages award while concurring in reinstatement). The Company filed a petition to review the CIR decision (G.R. No. L-27079); Manco separately filed a petition (G.R. No. L-27080) and moved to consolidate with L-27079 and to adopt Manila Cordage’s petition and brief, which the Court allowed (motions granted February 15, 1967 and subsequent pleadings adopting the Company’s brief were filed).
The Company’s assignments of error challenged (1) whether the maintenance‑of‑membership clause constituted a condition of continued employment authorizing dismissal, (2) whether dismissed individuals who failed to obtain substantially equivalent work cease to be “employees” under Section 2(d) of R.A. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the “maintenance‑of‑membership” clause in the collective bargaining agreement operate as a condition of continued employment, authorizing the employer to dismiss employees who resigned from Manco?
- Do individuals dismissed and who have not obtained substantially equivalent and regular employment cease to be “employees” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of Republic Act No. 875, as amended, and thereby lose entitlement to statutory protection and relief?
- Are employees dismissed pursuant to a union‑security clause barred from recovering back wages when the employer acted in good faith and honestly believed the clause authorized dismissal? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)