BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., STANLEY WILLIMONT, EUGENE KNEEBONE, C.W. HEROLD, A.P. DAVIDSON, G.N. WRIGHT AND O.M. WESTERFIELD, PETITIONERS, VS. BCI EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION-PAFL…

On May 3, 1963, respondent labor union and Donaciano Andrada
filed an unfair labor practice charge in the Court of Industrial Relations
against petitioner company alleg­ing that the latter unduly discriminated
against respondent Andrada, one of its employees, with regard to his status and
conditions of employment in violation of Sec. 4(a)(4) of Republic Act 875.

After investigating the charge, the acting prosecutor of the Court
filed on September 4, 1963, the formal com­plaint against petitioners company
and some of its officials.  The principal
averment in the complaint was^[1] –

“That in the year 1954, complainant Dona­ciano Andrada was
promoted to the position of Invoice Processing Clerk, but respondents re­fused
to implement his wage scale as embodied in the several collective bargaining
agree­ments between the Benguet Balatoc Workers Union, the complainant labor
organization and the company, starting 1954, on account of:

“(a)   His militant union activities;

“(b)   his persistent refusal to dis­affiliate from
complainant union;

“(c)   his petitions for the better­ment of his
co-employees for which he was discriminated by the company;”

Petitioners filed their answer on September 28, 1963 denying the
alleged discrimination against respondent Andrada and the alleged unjust
refusal on their part to implement the wage scale under the Collective
Bargaining Agreements.

Issues having been joined, trial was conducted.  On March 23, 1965, Associate Judge Amando
Bugayong before whom the hearings were made, rendered decision finding
petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice based on the following findings of
fact:^[2]

“Respondent Benguet Consolidated, Inc., is a domestic
corporation engaged in the mining industry with respondents Stanley Willi­mont,
Eugene Kneebone, C.W. Herold, G.N. Wright, O.M. Westerfield, A.P. Davidson and
William Johnson as its officers. 
Complainant BCI Em­ployees and Workers Union (PAFLU) is a legiti­mate
labor union while complainant Donaciano Andrada is a member thereof.

“Prior to December 19, 1954, complainant Andrada was a payroll
clerk in the respondent Company with a salary of P3.24 per day.  On Au­gust 28, 1954, he and several others
petitioned the respondent company that they be given the rates of pay as
prescribed in the collective bargaining contract.  It appears that at that time there was an
existing collective bargain­ing contract between the respondent company then
operating under the trade name Benguet Consolidated Mining Company and Balatoc
Mining Company and the Benguet-Balatoc Workers Union of which complainant
Andrada was then a mem­ber.  Said
contract (Exh. “A”) provides for the wage scales of the workers and
pursuant there­to, the wage scale of a payroll clerk, first class category, was
P3.56 per day (Exh. “A-1”). 
Thus, complainant Andrada, together with seve­ral others, requested for
adjustment of their wages (Exh. “B”) and the respondent company, in
compliance thereto, made the necessary sa­lary adjustment with the exception of
complain­ant Andrada who, although he was reclassified from clerk second class
to clerk first class, did not receive any corresponding increase in his pay
(Exh. “1”).

“Then, on or about January 1, 1955, he was transferred from
the Accounting Department, clerk first class, to the Purchasing De­partment
also as clerk first class with the same salary of P97.20 per month or P3.24 per
day (Exh. “E”). His assignment in the Purchas­ing Department was
recommended by S.J. Willi­mont, his former department head, and C.W. He­rold,
head of the Purchasing Department, and approved by A.P. Davidson, General
Superinten­dent.  He was assigned to
replace Ramon M. Alvia, a bodeguero performing invoice clearing duties who
resigned December 19, 1954 and who was re­ceiving a salary of P4.60 per day
(Exh. “E-1”).

“To support his claim that he was discri­minated against
because of his militant union activities, complainant Andrada testified that
sometime after he, together with several others, petitioned the respondent
company for a re­-classification and re-adjustment of their wages, as first
class clerk (Exh. “B”), he brought the matter to the attention of his
union, then the Benguet-Balatoc Workers Union and accordingly the latter,
through Braulio Oximana, union ste­ward, wrote a letter dated October 6, 1954
(Exh. “F”) to the respondent company requesting information as to the
action taken by said res­pondent on the aforesaid petition for reclassi­fication.  He also testified that on or about October
8 1954, he had occasion to talk with Stanley Willimont, then his
department head, and the latter told him that had he not brought his petition
to the union, his future would have teen better; and that as a
matter of fact he was the only employee who did not receive any adjust­ment in
his salary although he was placed in the first class clerk category.
Complainant Andrada further testified that sometime in 1955 after e was
transferred to the Purchasing Department, as replacement of Ramon M. Alvia, a
‘bodeguero’ performing invoice clearing duties and who was receiving a salary
of P4.60 per day, he received the same salary as payroll clerk which was P97.20
per month or P3.24 per day.  So, he
approached C. W. Herold, head of the Purchasing Department, and complained to
the latter about his situation ho­ping that he will be extended the proper wage
ap­pertaining to the position of ‘bodeguero’ as pro­vided in the collective
bargaining contract, but nothing came out of his request.

“He also declared that on or about August 26, 1957, on the
occasion of a grievance meet­ing concerning the adjustment of his wages, Eu­gene
Kneebone, one of the respondents herein, said to him, ‘I am spending much of my
time or your complaint.  My time is
precious.  I tell you that as long as I am
still connected with Ben­guet Consolidated, Inc., this office cannot give you
any change of classification whatsoever’; That Mr. Kneebone further said,
‘By re­presenting your grievance to the union, you are cutting your
neck entirely, and I tell you to think it over or retract your complaint’; that
complainant again met Mr. Kneebone who said to him, ‘The question with
you is, you are too vocal of your union activities.  Had you shut your mouth, your case should
not have happened like that.’ He also testified that sometime in 1955,he
was elected district go­vernor for Balatoc and on July 28, 1958 the union’s
counsel sent a letter to the respondent company informing the latter of the
appoint­ment of complainant Andrada as union steward for Balatoc (Exh.
“D”); that as district go­vernor and steward of the union, he was
most often alone in representing the workers in his district; that sometime in
1959, the respon­dent company offered to transfer him as ‘bo­deguero’ to the
Kias Dynamite Storage area, but the same was intended to take him far from the
company where he performs his duties as union district steward.  Complainant further testified that sometime
in July, 1962, there was an increase of P.24 to all kinds of categories and
that he was not benefited by the increase; that he asked O.M. Westerfield, his
department head, to give him also an increase, but the latter said to him, ‘If
you will not stop asking or complaining about your rate, Mr. Crosby will step
over your head.'”

x               x              x

Accordingly, petitioners were ordered
“to implement the salary scale with respect to the daily wade of complain­ant
Donaciano S. Andrada from 1954 until his wage reaches the level as embodied in
the collective bargaining agree­ments between the Benguet-Balatoc Workers
Union, the com­plainant labor organization, and the respondent company.”

Petitioners subsequently moved for reconsideration, which the
lower court, en banc, denied altho one of the five judges
dissented.  They then elevated the case
to this Court for review by way of certiorari.  Pending the appeal and at petitioners’
instance, this Court issued preliminary injunction to prevent immediate
execution of the judgment.

Petitioners’ principal submission, in the first three errors
assigned, is that they were held liable for discriminating against respondent
Andrada in 1954 on account of militant union activities which, however, were
conducted in 1958.  This is erroneous on
two counts.  First, what was charged was
not discrimination committed in 1954 alone but rather continuing acts of
discrimination com­mitted “starting 1954” as alleged in par. 3 of the
com­plaint for unfair labor practice. 
The charge of discri­mination, consisting in petitioners’ refusal to
imple­ment the proper salary scale as to respondent Andrada is adequately
supported by the following findings of the court a quo.  In August, 1954, Andrada’s category was
changed to clerk first class but he received no salary adjustment unlike the
other employees.  In 1955, after he was
transferred to the Purchasing Department and was assigned to perform the work
done by one Ramon Alvia who held the category of bodeguero (with a higher pay
rate) respondent Andrada still received no corresponding pay increase.  In July, 1962, there was a general pay hike
but Andrada was not benefited.

Second, the militant union activity involved is not
Andrada’s having been elected as Union District Governor and Steward and his
actuations as such, but rather Andrada’s having sought the help of his union in
pursuing what he believed was his right to a salary adjustment.  It should be noted that the damaging
statements on this scores^[3]
imputed to co-petitioners Stanley Willimont and Eugene Kneebone by respondent
Andrada in his testimony to which the court a quo gave credence,
were never denied or controverted by Them. 
And it is unquestionable that the seeking of the union’s help by one of
its members in con­nection with the latter’s correct wages constitutes pro­per
union activity.

The claim that respondent Andrada was guilty of laches is without
merit. The discriminations, from 1954 to 1962, were continuing.  Moreover, as counsel for respon­dents
correctly points out, the unfair labor practice charge was filed only in 1963
because respondent’s com­plaint was first coursed thru a series of conciliation
meetings between the union and petitioner company.

In this connection, petitioner’s final submission that
respondent’s complaint had already been satisfacto­rily settled in the
grievance proceedings as the latter himself admitted is not borne out in the
portion of An­drada’s testimony reproduced in Annex D of the petition.  What could be inferred therefrom is that
respondent An­drada, who was on a monthly wage basis, refused to be classified
on a daily wage basis.  But as the lower
court found,^[4] respondent
was justified in so refusing since an employee on a daily wage basis gets less
than one on the monthly basis assuming the pay rate to be the same.  This finding of the court is based on the
admission of co-petitioner Willimont, one of petitioner company’s own
officials.

In fine, this Court finds that the findings of fact below furnish
satisfactory answers to the questions pre­sented here by petitioners.  And there is not even a slight suggestion
from them that these findings are not based on substantial evidence.  Hence, said findings are controlling.

WHEREFORE, the judgment sought to be reviewed is hereby
affirmed and the preliminary injunction previous­ly issued is hereby revoked
and set aside.  Costs against
petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Acting Chief Justice, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., on leave.

Ruiz Castro, J., no part.

^[1]
Complaint, par. 3, Rollo, p. 33.

^[2] Rollo,
pp. 40-44.

^[3]
See underscored portions of court a quo‘s findings of fact, supra.

^[4]
Annex “E” of Petition, Rollo, p. 45.