INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL-AGRICULTUEAL WORKERS ORGANIZATIONS (ICAWO) AND/OR FEDERICO G. LOZADA, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR AND/OR ANTONIO BELZARENA, C…

The sole controversy involved in this petition to review on
certiorari the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations dated
December 29, 1959 as well as its resolution en banc dated
February 24, 1960 (in CIR Case No. 74-ULP), concerns the interpretation
of a so-called union shop clause in the questioned collective
bargaining agreement which reads as follows:

“The EMPLOYER agrees that in hiring unskilled
employees and laborers, the members of the Workers Association should
be given preference and the Management should notify accordingly to the
Workers Association of any vacancy existing in all Departments. New
employees and laborers hired who are not members of the WORKERS
ASSOCIATION will be on TEMPORARY STATUS and the Employer agrees that
before they will be considered regular employees and laborers they have
to become members of the CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PlLAR ALLIED WORKERS’
ASSOCIATION Within thirty (30) days from the date of employment and if
they refuse to affiliate with the said labor organization within this
time they will be immediately dismissed by the EMPLOYER;”

The facts pertinent to the issue presented herein, briefly stated, are:

Petitioners Federico G. Lozada, Delimon Diestro, Salvador Azores,
Tomas Beso, Antero Beso, Damiano Dichosa, Sebastian Salem, Telesforo
Bucayan and Ricaredo Diehosa, before their dismissal on March 7, 1956,
were employed in the Central Azucarera de Pilar located in the
municipality of President Roxas, Capiz, even prior to the resumption of
its operations in 1947. At that time, petitioners were members of the
local chapter of the Allied Workers Association (AWA), a duly
registered labor organization with main office in Bacolod, Negros
Occidental, and with which the Central had a collective bargaining
agreement. Subsequently, or on June 10, 1954, the Central’s workers
dissolved the awa chapter in Capiz, and instead organized the branch
into an independent unit known as the Central Azucarera de Pilar Allied
Workers Association (CAPAWA). This dissolution of the AWA chapter and
the organization of the CAPAWA were approved by a resolution adopted in
a meeting of the AWA members by a vote of the majority, by virtue of
which the was members automatically became members of the CAPAWA.

In October, 1955, the capawa, as the sole collective bargaining
agent, and the Central entered into a 2-year collective bargaining
agreement containing the union-shop clause herein-above quoted.

One month thereafter or in November, 1955, some members of the
capawa among whom were the herein petitioning workers, organized the
petitioner-union Industrial, Commercial, and Agricultural Workers
Organization (ICAWO). This new organization then demanded that it be
recognized by the Central as the sole collective bargaining agency, and
that a collective bargaining agreement be entered into with it. The
Central called attention to the existing agreement it had with the
capawa and refused the demand of the icawo. The members of the latter
union thereupon went on strike, but the same was settled and the
strikers were allowed to return to work upon agreement that a
certification election be requested from the Department of Labor. On
the other hand, the capawa, not being agreeable to this settlement,
demanded of the Central the enforcement of the “union-shop clause”
contained in its collective bargaining agreement and insisted that the
petitioners be dismissed unless they reaffiliate with it and
disassociate themselves from the ICAWO. As the petitioners refused to
do so, the Central was constrained to dismiss them. Hence, the filing
of the complaint for unfair labor practice in the Court of Industrial
Relations against the Central and the CAPAWA, charging them of causing
petitioners ICAWO members’ discharge due to union activities.

The Court of Industrial Relations, in its decision and resolution
appealed from, found that the provisions of the collective bargaining
agreement with the CAPAWA empowered said union to demand, and
authorized the Central to order, the dismissal of the petitioners-ICAWO
members for having proven disloyal to the CAPAWA, and for losing their
status as members of good standing in the latter union.

The issue herein presented is not new. The same has been resolved in the case of Confederated Sons of Labor vs. Anakan Lumber Company, et al. 107
Phil., 915, promulgated on April 29, 1960. In said case, the so-called
union or close shop agreement is of the following tenor:

“That the UNION shall have the exclusive right, and
privilege to supply the COMPANY with such laborers, employees and
workers as are necessary in the logging, mechanical, sawmill, office,
logponds, motor pools, security guards and all departments in its many
phases of operations, excepting such positions which are highly
technical and confidential in character and/or such positions which
carry the exercise of authority in the interest of the COMPANY which
exercise is not merely clerical or routinary within the contemplation
of the law, and that the COMPANY agrees to employ or hire in any of its
departments only such person or persons who are members of the UNION.”

Construing the import and extent of said clause, this Court ruled
that it did not establish a true or complete “close shop”, in the sense
that it authorized the dismissal of members of the union who, after the
execution of the collective bargaining contract, ceased to be members
of such union. It was also held that in order to effect such a result,
if intended, there should be a clear and unequivocal statement that the
loss of the status of a member of good standing in the union shall be a
cause for dismissal.

“In order that an employer may be deemed bound,
under a collective bargaining agreement, to dismiss employees for
non-union membership, the stipulation to this effect must be so clear
and unequivocal as to leave no room for doubt thereon. An undertaking
of this nature is so harsh that it must be strictly construed, and
doubts must be resolved against the existence of ‘closed shop’.
Referring particularly to the above-quoted Article II, we note that the
same establishes the exclusive right of respondent union to ‘supply’
laborers etc., and limits the authority of the company to ’employ or
hire’ them. In other words, it requires that the laborers, employees
and workers hired or employed by the company be members of respondent
union at the time of the commencement of the employer-employee
relation. Membership in respondent union is not a condition for the continuation of said relation or for the retention of a laborer or employee engaged either before said agreement or while he was a member of said union.”

It should be noted that in the alleged union-shop clause relied upon
by the lower court and quoted at the beginning of this opinion, there
is absolutely nothing to show that such was the intention of the
parties. It merely provides that in the hiring of unskilled employees
and laborers, the members of the capawa, should be given preference;
and that new employees or laborers who are not members of the capawa
would have temporary status; that before they could be considered
regular employees, they have to become members of the capawa within 30
days from the date of their employment; and if they refuse to be
affiliated with the union, they would be immediately dismissed.

This clause, as may be seen, refers to future or new employees or
laborers. Nothing, however, is provided with respect to old employees
or laborers already in the employ of the Central, whether members of
the capawa or not. There is, likewise, no requirement whatsoever on
union members to remain as such under pain of being dismissed.

We find, therefore, the ruling in the Confederated Sons of Labor case, supra, controlling in the present controversy.

In the view that we have taken of this case, it becomes unnecessary
to discuss the other points raised by the petitioners herein.

We take note of the fact that the dismissal of herein petitioners
was upon demand of the capawa and before the promulgation of the
decision in the case of Confederated Sons of Labor vs. Anakan Lumber Company, supra, and, therefore, was done by the Company in good faith.

Wherefore, the decision and resolution appealed from are hereby
reversed, and judgment is entered herein ordering the reinstatement of
petitioners-members of the ICAWO to their former positions in the
Central. Without costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.