ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (AWA) SAN CARLOS CHAPTER, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE LAND-SEA-AIR LABOR UNION (PLASLU), SINFOROSO KYAM-KO AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL R…

Allied Workers Association of the Philippines San Carlos Chapter versus Philippine Land-Sea-Air Labor Union

The Case

This is an appeal by certiorari brought by the Allied Workers Association of the Philippines, San Carlos Chapter, which I shall call the AWA, against the Philippine Land-Sea-Air Labor Union, which I shall call the PLASLU, against Sinforoso Kyamko, and against the Court of Industrial Relations. The AWA asks the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling of the Court of Industrial Relations that the dismissal of Sinforoso Kyamko was an unfair labor practice, that the strike of April 12, 1956 was lawful, and that the striking workers were entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on the life of a collective bargaining and union shop agreement, on the difference between a promise to renew and an actual renewal, and on the limits of a union shop clause as a ground for dismissing old employees who transfer their allegiance to another union.

Procedural History

Two complaints for unfair labor practice were filed with the Court of Industrial Relations, one in Cebu and one in Iloilo, and these were heard jointly. Presiding Judge Jose S. Bautista rendered a decision ordering the Company to reinstate the striking workers listed in the complaint and to pay them back wages from April 27, 1956, the date they offered to return to work and were refused, up to their actual reinstatement, with certain named workers excluded. On motion for reconsideration, the Court of Industrial Relations sitting en banc affirmed the decision. The AWA then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal by certiorari. In the meantime, a related certification election case and a related unfair labor practice case between the same parties reached the Supreme Court, and the decision in that related unfair labor practice case became final and executory before this appeal was resolved.

Facts

On December 12, 1952, the AWA, a legitimate labor organization composed of laborers and employees of the San Carlos Milling Company, and the Company entered into a collective bargaining and union shop agreement for three years from that date, automatically renewable thereafter unless the parties agreed and decided otherwise. Before the period expired, on July 14, 1955, the parties executed another agreement recording their complete understanding and agreement to effect a renewal for another three years of the December 12, 1952 agreement upon its expiration on December 11, 1955.

Sinforoso Kyamko used to be an AWA member. Having joined the PLASLU and campaigned actively for it, he was expelled from the AWA on December 26, 1955, and the next day the AWA president informed the Company of the expulsion and requested Kyamko's dismissal. About 158 AWA members resigned, and on February 16, 1956, twenty-five of them were expelled, and the Company was furnished a copy of the resolution with a request that the twenty-five be dismissed. Relying on the collective bargaining and union shop agreement, the Company dismissed Kyamko on February 18, 1956. Before the request as to the twenty-five could be acted upon, about 150 workers who had resigned from the AWA, including the twenty-five expelled members, struck on April 12, 1956, in protest against Kyamko's dismissal and the threatened dismissal of the twenty-five, and they also demanded an accounting from the AWA.

On April 27, 1956, the strikers offered to return to work, and the Company refused. The Court of Industrial Relations found that the offer was actually conveyed to the manager when the strikers' intention to report was relayed by the court officer, and that the strike was peaceful and legal, no proof having been presented that the strikers sabotaged company property.

Issues

• Whether or not the collective bargaining and union shop agreement dated December 12, 1952 was still in force at the time of Kyamko's dismissal on February 18, 1956.
• Whether or not the dismissal of Sinforoso Kyamko constituted an unfair labor practice.
• Whether or not the strike of April 12, 1956 was lawful.
• Whether or not the striking workers are entitled to reinstatement and to back wages.

Applicable Provisions

The decision turns on the union shop arrangement embodied in the collective bargaining and union shop agreement of December 12, 1952, whose pertinent renewal clause reads:

The parties further record their complete understanding and agreement to effect a renewal for another three years of the Collective Bargaining and Union Shop Agreement entered into between them on December 12, 1952, upon its expiration on December 11, 1955.

This clause is the textual battleground: the AWA reads it as an automatic renewal, while the Court of Industrial Relations read it as a mere promise to execute a renewal in the future.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court of Industrial Relations held that the agreement of July 14, 1955 was merely an agreement to perform a specific act on a specific future date, that is, for the parties to execute another contract renewing the agreement on the date of its expiration, and that the parties failed to do so. It stressed that to effect a renewal is absolutely different and distinct from a renewal, and it noted that the July 14, 1955 agreement was signed by the chairman of the National Council of the Federation alone rather than by the local officers, and that the alleged renewal was not even listed among the major achievements of the AWA San Carlos Chapter for the period 1947 to 1955, although that list was prepared twenty-five days after the alleged renewal. On this view, the union shop agreement was not in force when Kyamko was dismissed.

On the second issue, the Court of Industrial Relations held that the dismissal of Sinforoso Kyamko on February 18, 1956 was unjustified and for no other cause except his union membership and activities, and therefore constituted unfair labor practice, although the dismissal of Uldarico Fernandez was for a justified cause.

On the third issue, the Court of Industrial Relations held that the strike was provoked by the discriminatory dismissal of Kyamko, by the demand for an accounting from the AWA, and by the threatened dismissal of the twenty-five workers, and that the means employed by the strikers were absolutely peaceful and legal. It held that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike, not an economic strike.

On the fourth issue, the Court of Industrial Relations held that the striking workers are entitled to reinstatement upon application, their jobs still remaining, and that the hiring of replacements should not prejudice that right, with back wages from the date of application for reinstatement.

On appeal, the Supreme Court did not re-litigate these questions from scratch. It noted that in a related case between the same parties and involving the same issues, decided on March 17, 1961, it had already held that although the contract of December 12, 1952 had been renewed, the provisions authorizing dismissal of employees who ceased to be members referred only to new employees and were inapplicable to old employees such as Kyamko, who had been an employee since 1948; that the dismissal was in legal effect an unfair labor practice; that the strike of April 12, 1956 was legally justified; that when the Company refused to admit the strikers back for no valid reason shown, it was virtually applying a standard prohibited by law; and that the union shop agreement itself could not have barred the strikers' readmission. Because the employer acted in good faith in the belief that the dismissal was legally justified under the union shop agreement, and considering the difficulty of the questions involved, the Court reduced the back wages to one-half. That related decision having become final and executory, the Supreme Court held that it had definitely settled the issues before it.

Doctrine

First, a union shop clause authorizing the dismissal of employees who cease to be union members applies only to new employees; it cannot be used to dismiss old employees who transfer their allegiance to another union, and a dismissal so grounded is an unfair labor practice.

Second, a strike provoked by a discriminatory dismissal is an unfair labor practice strike, and the striking workers are entitled to reinstatement upon application even if replacements have been hired, with back wages from the date of the offer to return to work.

Third, where the employer acted in good faith in relying on a union shop agreement, the back wages may be equitably reduced, here to one-half, in light of the difficulty of the questions involved.

Fourth, a prior final decision between the same parties on the same issues is binding and settles those issues in a subsequent appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations as modified, with back wages reduced to one-half, without costs, and the appeal of the AWA failed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a union shop clause cannot be used to dismiss an old employee who merely transfers to another union, and a strike against such a discriminatory dismissal is a lawful unfair labor practice strike. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between an agreement to renew and an actual renewal, and the rule on reinstatement and back wages of strikers, including the equitable reduction of back wages for the employer's good faith.