G.R. No. 179402 September 30, 2008
National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries—Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter, Petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Acesite Philippines Hotel Corporation, Respondents.

FACTS

The Manila Pavilion Hotel had a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with HI-MANILA PAVILION HOTEL LABOR UNION (HIMPHLU), the incumbent exclusive bargaining agent. The CBA contained a union security clause. During the 60-day freedom period before the CBA’s expiration, HIMPHLU and the Hotel negotiated and signed a two-year extension of the CBA. Shortly after, petitioner NUWHRAIN was certified as a legitimate labor union and filed a Petition for Certification Election to challenge HIMPHLU’s majority status. After the freedom period lapsed but while the certification election was pending, HIMPHLU demanded the Hotel dismiss 36 employees for disloyalty, alleging they joined NUWHRAIN in violation of the CBA’s union security clause. The Hotel subsequently issued Disciplinary Action Notices to these employees.

ISSUE

Whether the Hotel committed unfair labor practice by issuing the disciplinary notices against employees who switched union membership from HIMPHLU to NUWHRAIN.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Hotel did not commit unfair labor practice. The issuance of the notices was a valid exercise of management prerogative in compliance with its contractual obligations under the CBA’s union security clause with the incumbent bargaining agent, HIMPHLU. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that during the pendency of a certification election, the employer must maintain the status quo and continue recognizing the incumbent union until a new one is officially certified. The union security clause remained legally operative as the CBA extension was validly executed within the freedom period. The Hotel’s actions were merely preliminary and investigatory, as no employees were actually dismissed; it was attempting to verify the facts behind HIMPHLU’s demand. The statements made by Hotel officials, viewed in context, did not constitute coercion but were part of reconciliatory efforts. For unfair labor practice to exist, there must be substantial evidence of a deliberate intent to interfere with the employees’ right to self-organization. The Hotel’s conduct, being a good-faith response to a contractual demand from the recognized bargaining agent, lacked this illicit intent. The Court emphasized that an employer’s compliance with a union security clause, upon the demand of the incumbent union, is not per se an unfair labor practice.