G.R. No. 169254
August 23, 2012
FACTS:
Respondent
DLFSUEA-NAFTEU has two opposing factions. The Aliazas faction filed a petition
for election of union officers in the Bureau of Labor Relations. They alleged
that there has been no election for respondent’s officers since 1992 in
supposed violation of the respondent union’s constitution and by-laws which provided
for an election of officers every three years. It would appear that the
respondent’s members repeatedly voted to approve the hold-over of the
previously elected officers led by Baylon R. Banez (Banez faction) and to defer
the elections to expedite the negotiations of the economic terms covering the
last two years of the 1995-2000 collective bargaining agreement.
Due
to the brewing conflict between the two factions, petitioner thru a letter to
the respondent informed the latter that the intra-union dispute between the incumbent
set of officers of the Union on one hand and a sizeable number of its members
on the other hand has reached serious levels. By virtue of the 19 March 2001
Decision and the 06 July 2001 Order of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), the hold-over authority of Union’s incumbent set of officers has been
considered extinguished and an election of new union officers, to be conducted
and supervised by the DOLE, has been directed to be held. Until the result of
this election [come] out and a declaration by the DOLE of the validly elected
officers is made, a void in the Union leadership exists.
In
light of these circumstances, the University has no other alternative but to
temporarily do the following:
1.
Establish a savings account for the Union where all the collected union dues
and agency fees will be deposited and held in trust; and
2.
Discontinue normal relations with any group within the Union including the
incumbent set of officers.
In
view of the foregoing decision of petitioner, respondent filed a complaint for
unfair labor practice in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on
August 21, 2001. It alleged that petitioner committed a violation of Article
248(a) and (g) of the Labor Code which provides:
Article 248. Unfair labor practices of
employers. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following
unfair labor practice:
(a) To
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization.
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise
interfere with the formation or administrator of any labor organization,
including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or
supporters.
Respondent
union asserted that the creation of escrow accounts was not an act of
neutrality as it was influenced by the Aliazas factions’s letter and was an act
of interference with the internal affairs of the union. Thus, petitioner’s
non-remittance of union dues and discontinuance of normal relations with it
constituted unfair labor practice.
Petitioner,
for its defense, denied the allegations of respondent and insisted that its
actions were motivated by good faith.
The Labor
Arbiter dismissed the complaint for unfair labor practice against petitioner
for lack of merit affirming
the need to conduct an election of the union’s officers. The labor arbiter, in
effect, upheld the validity of petitioner’s view that there was a void in the
leadership of respondent.
The Secretary
of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to Article 263 of the
Labor Code as petitioner, an educational institution, was considered as
belonging to an industry indispensable to national interest.
The Secretary
of Labor issued a Decision, finding petitioner guilty of violating Article
248(g) in relation to Article 252 of the Labor Code. The salient portion
thereof stated:
The
University is guilty of refusal to bargain amounting to an unfair labor
practice under Article 248(g) of the Labor Code. Indeed there was a requirement
on both parties of the performance of the mutual obligation to meet and convene
promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an
agreement. Undoubtedly, both [petitioner] and [respondent] entered into a [CBA]
on [March 20, 2001. The term of the said CBA commenced on [June 1, 2000 and
with the expiration of the economic provisions on the third year, [respondent]
initiated negotiation by sending a letter dated March 15, 2003, together with
the CBA proposal. In reply to the letter of [respondent], [petitioner] in its
letter dated [March 20, 2003 refused.
Such an act
constituted an intentional avoidance of a duty imposed by law. There was
nothing in the [March 19, 2001 and July 6, 2001 orders] of Director Maraan and
Cacdac which restrained or enjoined compliance by the parties with their
obligations under the CBA and under the law. The issue of union leadership is
distinct and separate from the duty to bargain.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner’s refusal to
bargain amount to unfair labor practice under the Labor Code.
HELD: YES. Petitioner erred in
unilaterally suspending negotiations with respondent since the pendency of the
intra-union dispute was not a justifiable reason to do so.
The
continued refusal by the University to negotiate amounts to unfair labor
practice. The non-proclamation of the newly elected union officers cannot be
used as an excuse to fulfill the duty to bargain collectively.
Petitioner’s
reliance on the July 12, 2002 Decision of Labor Arbiter Pati, and the NLRC’s
affirmance thereof, is misplaced. The unfair labor practice complaint dismissed
by Labor Arbiter Pati questioned petitioner’s actions immediately after the
March 19, 2001 Decision of BLR Regional Director Maraan, finding that "the
reason for the hold-over of the previously elected union officers is already
extinguished." The present controversy involves petitioner’s actions
subsequent to (1) the clarification of said March 19, 2001 Maraan Decision by
BLR Director Cacdac who opined in a May 16, 2003 memorandum that the then
incumbent union officers (i.e., the Bañez faction) continued to hold office
until their successors have been elected and qualified, and (2) the July 28,
2003 Decision of the Secretary of Labor in OS-AJ-0015-2003 ruling that the very
same intra-union dispute (subject of several notices of strike) is insufficient
ground for the petitioner to suspend CBA negotiations with respondent union. We
take notice, too, that the aforesaid Decision of Labor Arbiter Pati has since
been set aside by the Court of Appeals and such reversal was upheld by this
Court’s Second Division in its Decision dated April 7, 2009 in G.R. No. 177283,
wherein petitioner was found liable for unfair labor practice.
Neither can petitioner seek refuge in its
defense that as early as November 2003 it had already released the escrowed
union dues to respondent and normalized relations with the latter. The fact
remains that from its receipt of the July 28, 2003 Decision of the Secretary of
Labor in OS-AJ-0015-2003 until its receipt of the November 17, 2003 Decision of
the Secretary of Labor in OS-AJ-0033-2003, petitioner failed in its duty to
collectively bargain with respondent union without valid reason. At most, such
subsequent acts of compliance with the issuances in OS-AJ-0015-2003 and
OS-AJ-0033-2003 merely rendered moot and academic the Secretary of Labor’s
directives for petitioner to commence collective bargaining negotiations within
the period provided.
No comments:
Post a Comment