Case Digest: Manila Mandarin Employees Union v. NLRC, G.R. No. 76989, September 29, 1987

 Labor Law | Appeal 

• Melba C. Beloncio, an employee of Manila Mandarin Hotel, was expelled from Manila Mandarin Employees Union for alleged acts against the union's interests.
• The union demanded Beloncio's dismissal based on the union security clause in the collective bargaining agreement, and the hotel placed her on forced leave.
• Beloncio filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal against the union and the hotel.
• Labor Arbiter: Ruled the union guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered payment of wages, fringe benefits, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees to Beloncio.
• NLRC: Modified the decision on appeal and ordered the union to pay the wages and benefits Beloncio from the time she was placed on forced leave until she is actually reinstated, plus attorey's fees. Manila Mandarin Hotel was ordered to reinstate Beloncio and to pay her whatever service charges may be due her during that period, which amount would be held in escrow by the hotel.

WoN the NLRC erred in declaring that the present controversy involved intra-union conflicts and therefor it has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter thereof. YES

On the issue of the NLRC jurisdiction over the case, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC conclusion that the dispute is not purely intra-union but involves an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provisions and whether or not there was an illegal dismissal. Under the CBA, membership in the union may be lost through expulsion only if there is non-payment of dues or a member organizes, joins, or forms another labor organization. The charge of disloyalty against Beloncio arose from her emotional remark to a waitress who happened to be a union steward, "Wala akong tiwala sa Union ninyo." The remark was made in the course of a heated discussion regarding Beloncio's efforts to make a lazy and recalcitrant waiter adopt a better attitude towards his work.

We agree with the Solicitor General when he noted that:

... The Labor Arbiter explained correctly that "(I)f the only question is the legality of the expulsion of Beloncio from the Union undoubtedly, the question is one cognizable by the BLR (Bureau of Labor Relations). But, the question extended to the dismissal of Beloncio or steps leading thereto. Necessarily, when the hotel decides the recommended dismissal, its acts would be subject to scrutiny. Particularly, it will be asked whether it violates or not the existing CBA. Certainly, violations of the CBA would be unfair labor practice."

Article 250 of the Labor Code provides the following:

Art. 250. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. — It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members. (Emphasis supplied)

Article 217 of the Labor Code also provides:

Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission — (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide ... the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or nonagricultural;

(1) Unfair labor practice cases;

xxx xxx xxx

(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters. (Rollo, pp. 155-157.)

The petitioner also questions the factual findings of the public respondent on the reasons for Beloncio's dismissal and, especially, on the argument that she was on forced leave; she was never dismissed; and not having worked, she deserved no pay.

The Court finds nothing in the records that indicates reversible error, much less grave abuse of discretion, in the NLRC's findings of facts.

It is a well-settled principle that findings of facts quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. (Akay Printing Press vs. Minister of Labor and Employment, 140 SCRA 381; Alba Patio de Makati vs. Alba Patio de Makati Employees Association, 128 SCRA 253; Dangan vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 127 SCRA 706; De la Concepcion vs. Mindanao Portland Cement Corporation, 127 SCRA 647).

The petitioner now questions the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission ordering the reinstatement of the private respondent and directing the Union to pay the wages and fringe benefits which she failed to receive as a result of her forced leave and to pay attorney's fees.

We find no error in the questioned decision.

The Hotel would not have compelled Beloncio to go on forced leave were it not for the union's insistence and demand to the extent that because of the failure of the hotel to dismiss Beloncio as requested, the union filed a notice of strike with the Ministry of Labor and Employment on August 17, 1984 on the issue of unfair labor practice. The hotel was then compelled to put Beloncio on forced leave and to stop payment of her salary from September 1, 1984.

Furthermore, as provided for in the collective bargaining agreement between the petitioner-the Union and the Manila Mandarin Hotel "the Union shall hold the Company free and blameless from any and all liabilities that may arise" should the employee question the dismissal, as has happened in the case at bar.

It is natural for a union to desire that all workers in a particular company should be its dues-paying members. Since it would be difficult to insure 100 percent membership on a purely voluntary basis and practically impossible that such total membership would continuously be maintained purely on the merits of belonging to the union, the labor movement has evolved the system whereby the employer is asked, on the strength of collective action, to enter into what are now familiarly known as "union security" agreements.

The collective bargaining agreement in this case contains a union security clause — a closed-shop agreement.

A closed-shop agreement is an agreement whereby an employer binds himself to hire only members of the contracting union who must continue to remain members in good standing to keep their jobs. It is "the most prized achievement of unionism." It adds membership and compulsory dues. By holding out to loyal members a promise of employment in the closed-shop, it welds group solidarity. (National Labor Union vs. Aguinaldo's Echague, Inc., 97 Phil. 184). It is a very effective form of union security agreement.

This Court has held that a closed-shop is a valid form of union security, and such a provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. (Lirag Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Blanco, 109 SCRA 87; Manalang vs. Artex Development Company, Inc., 21 SCRA 561).

The Court stresses, however, that union security clauses are also governed by law and by principles of justice, fair play, and legality. Union security clauses cannot be used by union officials against an employer, much less their own members, except with a high sense of responsibility, fairness, prudence, and judiciousness.

A union member may not be expelled from her union, and consequently from her job, for personal or impetuous reasons or for causes foreign to the closed-shop agreement and in a manner characterized by arbitrariness and whimsicality.

This is particularly true in this case where Ms. Beloncio was trying her best to make a hotel bus boy do his work promptly and courteously so as to serve hotel customers in the coffee shop expeditiously and cheerfully. Union membership does not entitle waiters, janitors, and other workers to be sloppy in their work, inattentive to customers, and disrespectful to supervisors. The Union should have disciplined its erring and troublesome members instead of causing so much hardship to a member who was only doing her work for the best interests of the employer, all its employees, and the general public whom they serve.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.