G.R. No. 162943 ; December 6, 2010
EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILS., FFW and JUANITO S. FACUNDO, in his capacity as President, Petitioners, vs. BAYER PHILIPPINES, INC., DIETER J. LONISHEN (President), ASUNCION AMISTOSO (HRD Manager), AVELINA REMIGIO AND ANASTACIA VILLAREAL, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (EUBP) is the exclusive bargaining agent for rank-and-file employees of Bayer Philippines, Inc. After a 1997 bargaining deadlock and strike, the DOLE Secretary issued an arbitral award ordering the execution of a CBA. Subsequently, an intra-union conflict arose when a group led by respondent Avelina Remigio, without authorization from EUBP leadership, solicited signatures to disaffiliate from the national federation, rename the union, and adopt a new constitution. This splinter group, Reformed Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (REUBP), claimed to represent the majority. Bayer, caught between the two factions, initially placed collected union dues in a trust account. However, in February 1999, Bayer remitted the dues to REUBP and later negotiated and signed a new CBA with REUBP in December 1999, while the existing CBA with EUBP was still in force. EUBP filed complaints for unfair labor practice (ULP), alleging that Bayer interfered with union affairs by supporting a company union and grossly violated the CBA.

ISSUE

Whether Bayer Philippines, Inc. committed unfair labor practice by negotiating and entering into a new collective bargaining agreement with the splinter group (REUBP) and by remitting union dues to it.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, finding Bayer guilty of unfair labor practice. The legal logic is twofold. First, Bayer’s act of negotiating and concluding a new CBA with REUBP constituted unlawful interference in the internal affairs of the legitimate bargaining agent, EUBP. At the time of the negotiation, EUBP was still the certified exclusive bargaining representative, and its CBA was subsisting until December 31, 2001. By recognizing and bargaining with a rival group during the life of an existing agreement, Bayer violated Article 248(d) of the Labor Code, which prohibits employers from interfering with the administration of any labor organization. Second, the act of remitting union dues to REUBP was a gross violation of the CBA. The CBA explicitly designated EUBP as the sole recipient of checked-off dues. Bayer’s unilateral diversion of these funds to the splinter group, despite knowledge of the intra-union dispute and pending grievances, was a flagrant and malicious refusal to comply with the CBA’s economic provisions. Such gross violation is treated as an unfair labor practice under Article 248(i) in relation to Article 261 of the Labor Code. The Court emphasized that the duty to bargain collectively exists only with the certified bargaining agent, and an employer cannot simply recognize a splinter group based on a mere claim of majority support without a proper certification election or other verified proof of a shift in majority allegiance.