NUWHRAIN v. NLRC G.R. No.
179402
September 30, 2008 Chico-Nazario, J.
TYPES OF UNION SECURITY PROVISIONS
SUMMARY: HIMPHLU (SEBA) and Hotel entered into a CBA with a union security clause effective for 5 years. During the
freedom period, the CBA was extended for 2 years. During said period, NUHWRAIN registered as a legit labor union and filed
a PCE. HIMPHLU then sought the dismissal of 36 employees who defected from HIMPHLU and joined NUHWRAIN, based on
the security clause. Hotel issued notices directing said employees to explain, and called the unions and employees concerned
to a conference to avoid the latter’s dismissal. NUHWRAIN then filed a notice of strike based on ULP, alleging that hotel
committed ULP by issuing the said notices, and that the hotel’s officers uttered statements indicating their preference for
HIMPHLU and disapproval of NUHWRAIN. NLRC and CA did not find the hotel guilty of ULP. SC affirmed, stating that the
issuance of the notices was the logical step to be made by the hotel in order to avoid liability for breach of the CBA, and that,
the said employees were not terminated.
FACTS:
Acesite Phil Hotel Corp. (Hotel) entered into a CBA with Hi-Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU), the
SEBA of R&F employees of the Hotel. The parties agreed that the effectivity of the representation and non-
economic provisions will be for 5 years, while economic provisions will be effective for 3 years. The latter was later
on extended for another 2 years, such that all provisions will be effective until June 30 2005.
During the freedom period, HIMPHLU negotiated an extension of the CBA’s effectivity for another 2 years, the
MoA of which was signed and ratified on May 20 and 27, respectively. Thereafter, NUWHRAIN was registered as
a legit labor org and filed a petition for certification election.
After the lapse of the freedom period, but pending disposition of the PCE, HIMPHLU served the Hotel a written
demand, together with an investigation report, for the dismissal of 36 employees, following their expulsion from
the said union for alleged acts of disloyalty and violation of its CBL. These employees, who were members of
HIMPHLU, joined NUWHRAIN, in violation of the union security clause1.
The Hotel then sent these employees notices, directing them to submit a written explanation. It also called the
unions and employees concerned for a reconciliatory conference in order to avoid dismissal. However,
NUWHRAIN proceeded to file a notice of strike on the ground of ULP.
NUWHRAIN: Hotel committed ULP when it issued notices to the 36 employees who switched allegiance. During
the conference, VP Azores stated her preference to deal with HIMPHLU and blamed NUWHRAIN for its labor
problems. Hotel’s Resident Manager, Corpuz, implored NUWHRAIN members to withdraw the PCE and reaffirm
their membership in HIMPHLU.
Hotel: Only complied with its contractual obligations with HIMHPLU and that none of the 36 were dimissed.
Moreover, it denied the alleged statements made by Azores and Corpuz.
NLRC: not guilty. 1) MoA was entered into to address the employee’s economic needs, not to interfere or restrain
the right to freedom of association; 2) Notices were issued in compliance with the CBA; 3) statements made
during the conference were interpreted as merely proposed solutions to avoid the dismissal of the employees.
These statements do not constitute ULP for they could not have coerced or influenced either of the unions, both
of whom did not agree to the suggested course of action; and 4) claim for exemplary and moral damages lacked
sufficient bases. MR denied. In the meantime, the CE was held wherein HIMPHLU won.
CA: Hotel acted prudently in issuing the Notices to the 36 employees after HIMPHLU demanded their dismissal.
Notices did not amount to the termination, but merely sought their explanation on why the union security clause
should not be applied to them. It also gave credence to the denial made by the Hotel’s officers re: statements
made during the conference.
ISSUES: WoN the Hotel is guilty of ULP.
1Section 2. DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO UNION SECURITY CLAUSE. Accordingly, failure to join the UNION within the period specified in the immediately preceding
section or failure to maintain membership with the UNION in good standing either through resignation or expulsion from the UNION in accordance with the UNION’s
Constitution and by-laws due to disloyalty, joining another union or non-payment of UNION dues shall be a ground for the UNION to demand the dismissal from
the HOTEL of the employee concerned. The demand shall be accompanied by the UNION’s investigation report and the HOTEL shall act accordingly subject to
existing laws and jurisprudence on the matter, provided, however, that the UNION shall hold the HOTEL free and harmless from any and all liabilities that may
arise should the dismissed employee question in any manner the dismissal. The HOTEL shall not, however, be compelled to act on any such UNION demand if
made within a period of sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of this agreement.
DIGEST MAKER’S NAME CASE #XX
HELD:
1. No.
“Union security” is a generic term which is applied to and comprehends “closed shop,” “union shop,”
“maintenance of membership” or any other form of agreement which imposes upon employees the
obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting employment, which is recognized
under Art. 248(e) of the LC.
The law allows for such stipulations as a means of encouraging workers to join and support the union of their
choice in the protection of their rights and interests vis-à-vis the employer. In promoting unionism, workers are
able to negotiate with management on an even playing field and with more persuasiveness than if they were to
individually and separately bargain with the employer.
Villar v. Inciong: Employees have the right to disaffiliate from their union and form a new organization of their
own; however, they must suffer the consequences of their separation from the union under the security clause
of the CBA.
To avoid the clear possibility of liability for breaching the union security clause and to protect its own interest,
the only sensible option for the Hotel upon its receipt of the demand for dismissal, was to conduct its own inquiry
on WoN there was sufficient ground to dismiss the said employees who defected from HIMPHLU. Moreover, the
hotel did not take further steps to terminate the said employees. Instead, it arranged a reconciliatory conference
between the contending unions to avoid the possibility of dismissal.
GR: The dismissal of an employee by the company pursuant to a labor union’s demand in accordance with a union
security agreement does not constitute ULP. An employer is not considered guilty thereof if it merely complied
in good faith with the request of the certified union for the dismissal of employees expelled from the union
pursuant to the union security clause in the CBA. There is even less possibility of sustaining a finding of guilt for
ULP when the employer did not in fact dismiss the employees.
Re: statements uttered by hotel officers: NUHWRAIN has the burden of proving that the named officers did
make the statements attributed to them. It failed to discharge such burden. It merely presented a single sworn
statement signed by 6 of its union members, who, undoubtedly, have a natural bias towards their union, which
puts their credibility into question. Morever, findings of fact of quasi judicial agencies are given much weight and
considered conclusive. Withdrawal of the PCE and re-acceptance by HIMHPLU of the employees without
sanctions were merely proposals to settle the dispute. Furthermore, NUHWRAIN admitted that before issuing
the notices, the hotel maintained a neutral stand.
Petition DENIED.
DIGEST MAKER’S NAME CASE #XX
