A complaint charging the employer for non-remittance of collected union member dues by virtue of a check-off provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) constitutes unfair labor practice, not an intra-union dispute.
Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s First Division, in a Decision penned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo granting the petition for review on certiorari filed by South Cotabato Integrated Port Services Incorporated (SCIPSI). The petition challenged the rulings by the Court of Appeals (CA) which upheld the jurisdiction of the Mediator-Arbiter (Med-Arbiter) over a case involving the non-remittance by the employer of union dues to the exclusive bargaining representative.
In 2010, Makar Port Labor Organization (MPLO), through its President Mario Marigon (Marigon), filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. 12 a petition for unfair labor practice against SCIPSI. MPLO was the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of SCIPSI from October 12, 1999 to February 2007.
Marigon claimed that SCIPSI withheld collections of monthly dues deducted from the salary of MPLO members from August 2006 to February 2007.
In an Order, Med-Arbiter Jasmin M. Demetillo (Med-Arbiter Demetillo) subsequently directed SCIPSI to release the unremitted union dues in favor of MPLO, which was likewise ordered to determine the duly authorized person/officer to receive the said dues.
The Med-Arbiter also held that Marigon is not a party-in-interest in the case because of his dismissal from employment.
On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) upheld the Med-Arbiter’s jurisdiction as the case involved not unfair labor practice, but an intra-union dispute between two factions within MPLO: the Colomida-Las Piñas group and the Marigon group. This was affirmed by the CA, prompting SCIPSI to file the present petition before the Court.
In resolving the petition, the Court stressed that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover on his claims.
The Court added that if the allegations in the complaint involve unfair labor practice, which generally refers to acts that violate the worker’s right to self-organization, it is the Labor Arbiter who has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 224 of the Labor Code.
Article 259 of the Labor Code further enumerates the different types of unfair labor practice, among which is interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.
Thus, an employer incurs liability for unfair labor practice when it engages in acts that reasonably tend to interfere with the employees’ right to self-organization. “Direct evidence of intimidation or coercion by the employer is not required, if it can be reasonably inferred that the anti-union conduct of the employer has an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining,” held the Court.
The Court also reiterated its ruling in Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. v. Joaquin, where the Court held that an employer may be liable for unfair labor practice when it fails to deduct union dues and assessments from the employees’ salaries by virtue of a check-off provision in the CBA. The Court explained that “an employer’s full compliance with the check-off provision in the CBA is vital to the union’s role of advocating for the interests of the members of the bargaining unit.”
A Med-Arbiter, on the other hand, is an officer in the DOLE Regional Office or BLR authorized to hear and decide representation cases, inter/intra-union disputes and other labor relation disputes, except cases involving cancellation of union registration.
The Court also clarified the definition of an “intra-union dispute” as any conflict between and among union members, including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering or affiliation of union.
Applying the foregoing, the Court ruled that the determination of whether jurisdiction was properly acquired by Med-Arbiter Demetillo depends on the allegations of Marigon in the petition.
The Court found that the allegations in the petition reveal that Marigon’s cause of action arose from the non-remittance by SCIPSI of the collected monthly dues from its employees by virtue of a check-off. This is supported by paragraphs in the petition where Marigon accused SCIPSI of collecting monthly dues from the members of MPLO, through salary deductions, from August 2006 until February 2007, and illegally withholding the same despite demands to turn-over the collections to him.
The Court thus held that the allegations did not involve an intra-union dispute but unfair labor practice, adding that SCIPSI’s noncompliance is in the form of an interference with the right of its rank-and-file employees to self-organization.
The Court further stressed that the process of check-off, which involves the deduction of fees from the employees and the subsequent remittance of the collected amount to the bargaining representative, assures the latter of continuous funding. “Without such funds, the union, in this case MPLO, would not be effective in discharging its duties and responsibilities as the exclusive bargaining representative of its members.”
Thus, the Med-Arbiter cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case since the Labor Code expressly vests jurisdiction over unfair labor practice cases on the Labor Arbiter.
The Court also ruled that since Marigon was dismissed from employment more than two years before he filed the complaint, he is not entitled to represent MPLO nor receive the union dues on the latter’s behalf. It added that Med-Arbiter Demetillo should have dismissed Marigon’s petition since a complaint is not deemed as filed if done by a person who was not authorized to do so.
The Order of Med-Arbiter Demetillo was thus null and void for lack of jurisdiction, concluded the Court, setting aside the Order and dismissing the petition filed by Marigon. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
FULL TEXT of G.R. No. 235569 (South Cotabato Integrated Port Services, Inc. v. Officer-in-Charge Romeo Montefalco, Jr., et al., December 13, 2023) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/235569-south-cotabato-integrated-port-services-incorporated-scipsi-and-or-gabriel-munasque-as-general-manager-vs-officer-in-charge-romeo-montefalco-jr-and-maria-consuelo-s-bacay-in-their-capa/