Union Security Agreements

Liberty Flour Mills Employees, Biascan and Evaristo v. Liberty Flour Mills (1989)

Doctrine: The rationale for upholding the validity of union shop clauses in a CBA, even if they impinge upon the individual employees right or freedom of association, is NOT to protect the union for the unions sake. Laws and jurisprudence promote unionism and afford certain protections to the certified bargaining agent in a unionized company because a strong and effective union presumably benefits all employees in the bargaining unit since such a union would be in a better position to demand improved benefits and conditions of work from the employer.

Feb 1974: entered into 3-year CBA with Phil. Labor Alliance Council (PLAC), the Union of the rank-and-file employees of Liberty In the CBA, parties agreed to establish a union shop by imposing "membership in good standing for the duration of the CBA as a condition for continued employment" of workers. Oct. 1974: PLAC filed complaint against company for the nonpayment of emergency cost of living allowance (ecola) 1975: Biascan and Evaristo (B&E) filed similar complaint as regards ecola at this point B&E are veering away from PLAC 1975: B&E organized new Union for rank and file employees of Liberty B&E filed petition for certification election as the Union among the rank and file PLAC expelled B&E due to disloyalty PLAC demanded from Liberty the dismissal from employment of B&E in accordance with the Union Shop clause in the CBA The matter of the dismissal of B&E were submitted to compulsory arbitration as well as the demand for ecola Meanwhile, the certification election held at the Liberty Flour Mills, Inc. on December 27, 1976, the Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (ILAW), with which the union organized by Biascan and Evaristo was affiliated, won overwhelmingly with 441 votes as against the 5 votes cast for PLAC In 1977, Libertys new CBA was agreed with ILAW B&E were terminated and claimed that they were illegally dismissed for organizing a new union opposed to PLAC which they described as a company union B&Es argument: merely exercising right to self organization NLRC ruled in favor of B&E, holding that the CBA was not certified hence it was not yet in effect and so could not be the basis of the action taken against B&E

ISSUE: WON B&E were illegally dismissed as the CBA was not yet certified at the time they were dismissed?

HELD: Dismissal was valid CBA concluded in 1974 was certifiable and was in fact certified on April 11, 1975 Evaristo and Biascan were dismissed only on May 20, 1975, more than a month after the said certification. Even if the new union organized by B&E is the one chosen by the rank and file employees this does not excuse the fact that the two disaffiliated from PLAC as early as March 1975 and thus rendered themselves subject to dismissal under the union shop clause in the CBA Roselles Note: nagpasaway sila habang reign pa ng first union (PLAC) Union Shops and closed shops are encouraged by law purposes could be thwarted if every worker were to choose to go his own separate way instead of joining his co-employees in planning collective action and presenting a united front when they sit down to bargain with their employers