Case Summary (G.R. No. 46739)
Factual Background
The Court of Industrial Relations issued an order directing Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. to recruit from Pambusco Employees' Union, Inc. new employees or laborers to replace union members dismissed from the company's service. The order provided, however, that if the union failed to supply qualified applicants, the company might hire other persons.
Order of the Court of Industrial Relations
The challenged order, as phrased by the Court of Industrial Relations on May 31, 1939, effectively compelled the employer to give preferential employment to members of the union. The order required the company, against its will, to employ union members in preference to other applicants except where the union could not supply qualified persons.
Legal Issue Presented
The primary legal question was whether the Court of Industrial Relations possessed authority to issue a compulsory order that constrained the employer's freedom to select employees by mandating preferential hiring of union members, and whether such an order comported with the constitutional guarantee of due process and the liberty to contract.
The Parties' Contentions
Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. contended that the order unlawfully infringed its liberty to make contracts and to select employees. Pambusco Employees' Union, Inc. sought enforcement of the order to secure preferential hiring of its members. The Supreme Court’s opinion addressed whether the statutory grant of rights to labor organizations authorized such compulsory hiring measures.
Statutory Framework
Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 213 granted labor organizations the right “to collective bargaining with employers for the purpose of seeking better working and living conditions, fair wages, and shorter working hours,” which the Court construed to mean a right to negotiate toward collective agreements rather than a right to compel agreements. Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 213 and Section 21 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 placed limited restrictions on employer conduct, including prohibitions against discharge or coercion for testifying and criminal sanctions against intimidation of employees for joining labor organizations. The Court observed that these provisions resemble the Wagner Act but do not expressly compel employers to enter into collective agreements.
Constitutional and Doctrinal Reasoning
The Court held that the general right to contract in relation to one’s business constituted an essential part of the liberty protected by the due-process clause of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the employer’s right to purchase labor from whom it chose is the constitutional correlate of the laborer’s right to sell his labor to whom he chose, and that compulsory imposition of employment against an employer’s will equated to an unlawful curtailment of liberty. The Court cited the principle that if an employer could force an employee to work against his will it would be servitude, and if an employee could force an employer to give work against the employer’s will it would be oppression.
Reliance on Foreign Precedent
The Court relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. It quoted Hitchman Coal & Co. v. Mitchell for the proposition that collective bargaining is meaningful only when voluntary on both sides, and it cited Adair v. United States and Coppage v. Kansas for the protection of freedom to condition employment on nonmembership. The Court further invoked National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation and Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board to illustrate that statutes modeled on the Wagner Act do not compel employers to enter into
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 46739)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. was the petitioner challenging an order of the Court of Industrial Relations.
- Pambusco Employees' Union, Inc. was the respondent against whom the order was entered.
- The Court of Industrial Relations issued the order on May 31, 1939, directing the petitioner to recruit from the respondent new employees to replace dismissed union members.
- The order contained a proviso allowing the company to employ others only if the union failed to provide qualified employees.
- The petitioner appealed the Court of Industrial Relations' order to the Supreme Court.
- Justice Moran, J. delivered the decision reversing the order and imposing costs against Pambusco Employees' Union, Inc.
- Justices Avancena, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ. concurred.
Key Factual Allegations
- The challenged order effectively compelled the petitioner to give hiring preference to members of the respondent union.
- The order required the company, against its will, to recruit preferentially from the respondent's membership to fill vacancies caused by dismissals.
- The order allowed the company to hire non-union persons only if the union failed to supply suitably qualified candidates.
- The petitioner asserted that the order breached its liberty to contract and to select employees.
- The respondent relied on the Court of Industrial Relations' authority and on statutory protections for labor organizations.
Statutory Framework
- Commonwealth Act No. 213, Section 2, conferred upon labor organizations the right "to collective bargaining with employers for the purpose of seeking better working and living conditions, fair wages, and shorter working hours for laborers, and, in general, to promote the material, social and moral well-being of their members."
- The term "collective bargaining" denotes negotiations looking toward a collective agreement and presupposes voluntary agreement by both parties.
- Commonwealth Act No. 103, Section 21, made it unlawful for any employer to discharge or discriminate against an employee for testifying before the Court or a board of inquiry.
- Commonwealth Act No. 213, Section 5, penalized intimidation or coercion intended to prevent employees from joining legitimate labor organizations and punished dismissal for union membership.
- The provisions of Commonwealth Acts Nos. 103 and 213 were patterned after the Wagner Act and aimed at preventing coercion and promoti