G.R. No. L-15768. April 29, 1961. TALIM QUARRY COMPANY, INC. and TALIM QUARRY LABOR UNION, petitioners, vs. GAVINO BARTOLA, et al., and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
FACTS

Talim Quarry Company, Inc. operates a quarry in Rizal. Following a certification election, the Talim Quarry Labor Union was certified as the sole bargaining representative. After a strike, the Company and the Union entered into a collective bargaining agreement on April 24, 1956, which included a union shop clause. This clause required all new hires to join the Union within thirty days and, critically, also mandated that employees “not presently members of the UNION on the date of the execution of this agreement shall join the UNION within thirty (30) days.” Thirteen employees, who were members of a different union called Ang Gabay ng Subay, refused to comply. Upon the Union’s demand, the Company dismissed these thirteen employees on July 9, 1956, for their refusal to join the certified bargaining agent.
The dismissed employees filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). The CIR initially dismissed the complaint on August 5, 1958, upholding the legality of the union shop agreement. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the CIR en banc reversed this order on June 11, 1959, and ordered the reinstatement of the thirteen employees without back wages. The Company and the Union appealed this resolution to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the union shop agreement legally compelled employees who were already members of a rival labor union at the time of the agreement’s execution to join the certified bargaining union, under pain of dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the CIR en banc, ruling that the dismissal was illegal. The Court applied the doctrine established in Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, promulgated on January 28, 1961. The legal logic is clear and specific: a union shop or closed-shop clause in a collective bargaining agreement is valid only as applied to future or prospective employees. It cannot be enforced retroactively to compel existing employees, who are already bona fide members of a different labor union at the time the agreement is executed, to abandon their affiliation and join the contracting union.
The Court held that the agreement’s clause attempting to cover employees “not presently members” was invalid as applied to the respondents. Their dismissal for refusing to transfer their membership from Ang Gabay ng Subay to the Talim Quarry Labor Union constituted an unfair labor practice. The right to self-organization includes the freedom to remain with one’s chosen union, and a certified bargaining agent’s right to a union shop cannot extinguish this freedom for workers who had already exercised it prior to the agreement. The order for reinstatement was therefore proper. Costs were imposed on the petitioners.