GR 43495; (January, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 43495-99; January 20, 1990
TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION-CGW, ET AL., petitioners, vs. TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were rank-and-file employees of Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc. They initially organized the Tropical Hut Employees Union (THEU) and affiliated with the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU), resulting in a certified bargaining agent, THEU-NATU. A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was executed containing a union shop clause, requiring employees to maintain membership in THEU-NATU as a condition of employment and authorizing the company to dismiss any employee expelled from the union. In December 1973, the local union’s officers informed NATU of THEU’s disaffiliation from NATU and its subsequent affiliation with the Confederation of General Workers (CGW). NATU, through its vice president, then wrote to the company requesting the dismissal of the employees involved in the disaffiliation for allegedly violating the CBA’s union security clause. The company complied, suspending and subsequently dismissing the petitioners.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the dismissal of the employees, based on the union security clause at the instance of the mother federation (NATU) after the local union’s disaffiliation, was valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled the dismissals were invalid. The legal logic centered on the nature of union security clauses and the right of a local union to disaffiliate. A union shop clause is designed to ensure union stability against members who refuse to support the collective bargaining agent. However, it cannot be invoked to prevent the local union itself from severing its relationship with its mother federation. The act of disaffiliation by the local union is a legitimate exercise of its right to choose its affiliation, and members who follow the local in this act are not guilty of disloyalty warranting dismissal under the CBA. The Court emphasized that the union security clause binds the employees to the bargaining agent, THEU-NATU, but when the local union as a body disaffiliates, the employees remain with the local union, which continues to be their collective representative. Therefore, their dismissal for supporting the disaffiliation constituted an invalid application of the security clause. Furthermore, the Court found the dismissal process lacking in due process, as the employees were not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the company was ordered to reinstate the petitioners, and the NATU federation was held solely liable for the payment of backwages, as the company’s liability was limited to reinstatement since it acted at NATU’s instance.