Labor II

Mactan Workers Union v. Aboitiz (1972) Fernando

Under what topic: Right to Self-Organization Party ProtectedPlaintiff-Appellees: Mactan Workers Union and Tomas Ferrer, as President thereofDefendant-Appellees: Ramon Aboitiz, President, Cebu Shipyard * Engineering Works, Inc.; Eddie Lim, as Treasurer; Jesus Diago, Superintendent of the Aforesaid Corporation; Wilfredo Viray, as Resident Manager of the Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc.; and the Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc.Intervenor-Appellant: Associated Labor UnionSynopsis:There were 2 rival labor organizations in the company, ALU and MWU. ALU was able to get the majority vote needed in order to become the exclusive bargaining representative of the workers in that capacity, it entered into a CBA with the company. One of the benefits granted by the CBA was a profit-sharing bonus. The company was to give the bonus to ALU and in turn ALU was to distribute it to all workers. Members of MWU ended up not getting their share of the bonus as they refused to go to the office of ALU. ALU returned the unclaimed portion to the company and advised the company not to give it to MWU except when there is a court order to do so. The company instead deposited the money with the Labor Administrator. Thus, MWU filed a case with the City Court of Lapulapu to recover the bonus. The City Court decided in favor of MWU, as did the CFI of Cebu on appeal. ALU then filed an appeal with the SC, as intervenor-appelant.The SC affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. It said that there was nothing to impugn, as all the lower courts did was to enforce the provisions of the CBA, which constituted the law between the workers and the company. MWU members were just as entitled to the profit-sharing bonus as the other employees were.Doctrine: The terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract constitute the law between the parties. Those who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. The benefits of a collective bargaining agreement extend to the laborers and employees in the collective bargaining unit, including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor organization. The labor union that gets the majority vote as the exclusive bargaining representative does not act for its members alone. It represents all the employees in such a bargaining unit. It is not to be indulged in any attempt on its part to disregard the rights of non-members.

Labor IIDodot

Facts:

The Antecedents

There were 2 rival labor unions in Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc (Company): Associated Labor Union (ALU) and Mactan Workers Union (MWU). ALU was able to get the majority vote needed in order to become the exclusive bargaining representative of the workers thus, ALU was the labor union that entered into the CBA with the company.

One of the benefits secured in the CBA was a profit-sharing scheme (found in Article XIII) which made workers entitled to 10% of the net profits or net income[footnoteRef:1] derived from the direct operations of the shipyard and ship in Lapu-Lapu City, to be given in two installments March and June with each workers entitlement in proportion to his/her salary or wages. [1: Less income tax and the bonus given annually to the General Manager, the Superintendent, and the members of the Board of Directors, as well as the Corporate Secretary.]

This bonus was to be paid by the Company to ALU. ALU then had the duty to distribute the bonus to the workers, and to furnish and deliver to the company the corresponding receipts duly signed by the recipient-employees. If any employee does not want to accept the profit-sharing bonus, it was the duty of ALU to return the money to the company, within 60 days from the time that the company delivered the money.

In accordance with Article XIII of the CBA, the company delivered the profit-sharing bonus to ALU for distribution. All workers got their share, with the exception of those (72) affiliated with MWU. The members of MWU did not like to go the office of ALU to collect their shares.

Thus, 60 days from its receipt of the profit-sharing bonus, ALU returned the unclaimed portion to the company. ALU also advised the company NOT to deliver the amount to the members of MWU unless ordered by the Court otherwise, ALU will take such step to protect the interest of its members. Due to the warning, the company, instead of distributing the money to the members of MWU, deposited the same with the Labor Administrator.

The Case

MWU, on behalf of its members, filed an action to recover the profit-sharing bonus (P4,035.82) with the City Court of Lapulapu.

The City Court decided in favor of the plaintiff-union. The plaintiffs were able to secure a similar judgment with the CFI of Cebu, on appeal.

Thus, this appeal, intersposed by ALU.

Issue/s - Holding:

(1) Are the members of MWU entitled to the profit-sharing bonus granted by the CBA? (YES.)

(*) Did the complaint lack a cause of action? (NO. There was a right violated on the part of the members of the MWU and this called for redress)

(*) Did the City Court of Lapulapu have jurisdiction over the subject matter? (YES. According to the Judiciary Act, City Courts have jurisdiction over all civil actions not exclusively cognizable by the CFI where the value of the subject-matter or amount of demand does not exceed P10,000. In the case at bar, the profit-sharing bonus being demanded by MWU on behalf of its members totals P4,035.82. It is only in cases where unfair labor practice may be discerned in the enforcement of a CBA when the matter becomes solely cognizable by the CFI. This is not the case in the present action.)

(*) Did MWU have standing to file a suit on behalf of its members? (YES. Note that the SC indirectly dismissed this contention as a half-hearted attempt on the part of ALU. The ponencia said that [t]here was an element of surprise, considering that such a contention came from a labor organization, which under normal condition should be the last to lay itself open to a charge that it is not averse to denigrating the effectiveness of labor unions.)

Ratio:

(1) Members of MWU are as much entitled to the benefits granted by the CBA as are the members of ALU, the exclusive bargaining representative of the collective bargaining unit.

Workers entitlement under the CBA

The terms and conditions of a CBA constitute the law between the parties the rights therein granted are judicially enforceable in the event of non-compliance.

The CBA is entered into by exclusive bargaining representative elected by a majority of the employees comprising the collective bargaining unit. "[T]he right to be the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is vested in the labor union 'designated or selected' for such purpose 'by the majority of the employees' in the unit concerned." (United Restauror's Employees and Labor Union vs. Torres)

At the same time, it is a well-settled doctrine that the benefits of a CBA extend to all laborers and employees in the collective bargaining unit including those who do NOT belong to the chosen bargaining organization. An opposing view would constitute discrimination, on which the law frowns. A collective bargaining scheme is meant to allow labor to secure better terms and employment conditions, and even higher rates of pay to exclude non-members of the exclusive representative organization would frustrate this objective. The labor union that gets the majority vote as the exclusive bargaining representative does NOT act for its members alone. It represents ALL the employees in such a bargaining unit. Any effort on its part to disregard the rights of non-members will NOT be indulged. [I]t is not to be forgotten that what is entitled to constitutional protection is labor, or more specifically the working men and women, not labor organizations. Labor organizations are merely the instrumentalities though which workers welfare may be promoted and fostered. The utmost care should be taken then, lest in displaying an unyielding, intransigent attitude on behalf of their members, injustice be committed against opposing labor organizations.

As applied to the case

ALU had no business disregarding the rights of the members of MWU, as regards their share in the profit-sharing bonus. As the exclusive representative organization, they represented all employees in entering into the CBA with the company. The benefits secured by the CBA apply to all those in the bargaining unit including members of MWU.

Thus, there is nothing to impugn the decisions of the lower court. The lower courts had the covenants contained in the CBA carried out and respected. They restricted themselves to compelling the parties to abide by what had been agreed upon.

Dispositive:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court of February 22, 1968 is affirmed. Costs against Associated Labor Union.

Digesters notes: