G.R. Nos. L-15453 and L-15723; March 29, 1962
SAN CARLOS MILLING CO., INC. and ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (AWA), SAN CARLOS CHAPTER, petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU), SINFOROSO KYAMKO and 150 OTHERS, respondents.

FACTS

The employer, San Carlos Milling Co., Inc., and the intervenor union, Allied Workers Association of the Philippines (AWA), sought reconsideration of a Supreme Court decision affirming the Court of Industrial Relations’ finding of unfair labor practice. The main decision ordered the reinstatement with backpay of employee Sinforoso Kyamko and members of the rival Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU) who had gone on strike. The dispute stemmed from Kyamko’s dismissal, which was demanded by AWA following his expulsion from their union, pursuant to a union shop agreement between AWA and the company.
The petitioners argued that the union shop agreement’s spirit required all employees, including those like Kyamko who were already working when the agreement was renewed in 1955, to maintain AWA membership to keep their jobs. The agreement’s paragraph 5 stipulated that employees with less than ten years of service were required to join AWA within thirty days. However, it did not explicitly provide for the dismissal of such employees if they were later expelled from the union, unlike paragraph 4, which explicitly covered new employees.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the employer validly dismissed Sinforoso Kyamko based on his subsequent expulsion from the AWA under the union shop agreement, and consequently, whether the strike staged by PLASLU members in protest was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motions for reconsideration. It held that Kyamko’s dismissal was unjustified. The Court adhered to the doctrine that dismissal for non-union membership must be expressly and unequivocally stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement, as such a condition is harsh and must be strictly construed. Since paragraph 5 of the agreement, covering existing employees like Kyamko, did not expressly provide for dismissal upon subsequent union expulsion, the employer had no contractual basis to terminate him. Extending such a condition by implication was disfavored, as it could coercively perpetuate a union’s hold on members even if it no longer represented their interests.
Furthermore, the Court noted that when the company renewed its closed-shop agreement with AWA in December 1955, it was already aware that PLASLU had filed a petition for a certification election claiming majority status. The company thus acted at its own risk in acceding to AWA’s demand to dismiss Kyamko and the strikers, as the union shop clauses would be unenforceable if PLASLU won the bargaining agency right, which it subsequently did. The strike was therefore not illegal. The Court upheld its prior modification reducing the awarded backpay by half, attributing the prejudice equally between the company and the employees, and remanded the case to the Court of Industrial Relations to determine the exact amount and manner of payment.