TALIM QUARRY COMPANY, INC. AND TALIM QUARRY LABOR UNION, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO BARTOLA ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Appeal under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court from a resolution adopted by the
Court of Industrial Relations en banc on 11 June 1959 setting aside a
previous order entered on 5 August 1958 (Annex D) that dismissed a complaint for
unfair labor practice filed against the petitioners Talim Quarry Company, Inc.
and Talim Quarry Labor Union (case No. 1008-ULP, Annex G).

The Talim Quarry Company, Inc., a domestic corporation, owns and operates a
quarry in Talim Island, Cardona, Rizal. Its employees or laborers belong to two
labor unions: the Talim Quarry Labor Union and the Ang Gabay ng Subay. Upon
petition by the former filed on 7 December 1954, a certification election was
held on 1 March 1955 to determine which union should represent the employees or
laborers for the purpose of collective bargaining with the Company. Winning the
election, the Talim Quarry Labor Union was certified by the Court of Industrial
Relations on 10 March 1955 as the employees’ or laborers’ sole representative
for the purpose of collective bargaining with the Company (Annex 2 of Annex B).
Thereafter, on 18 August 1955 the Talim Quarry Labor Union made labor demands
upon the Company, to which tie latter disagreed. On 16 January 1956 the union
filed with Conciliation Service, Department of Labor, a notice of strike; and on
23 February went on strike and picketed the company’s premises on a 24-hour
basis. After a series of negotiations held in the Conciliation Service, on 24
April 1956 the Company and the striking union entered into a post-strike
agreement, whereby the Union undertook and bound itself to end the strike,, to
withdraw the two cases for unfair labor practice it had filed against the
Company, and the latter to admit the strikers back to work the following day,
and to give the union P1,500 upon execution of the agreement and the withdrawal
of the two cases (Annex 1 of Annex B). On the same date, they concluded another
agreement providing, among others, for a “union shop” contract which reads as
follows:

UNION SHOP.—Any new worker or laborer hired by the COMPANY shall, within
thirty (30) days after employment, join the UNION. Failure to join the UNION
within said time shall give right to the UNION to demand the separation of such
worker or laborer.

Laborers or employees who are not presently members of the UNION on the date
of the execution of this agreement shall join the UNION within thirty (30) days
from the execution hereof and shall continue to be members in good standing as a
condition to their continued employment with the company, provided, however,
that mere application by any such laborer for membership with. the UNION, in
accordance with the union’s constitution and by-laws, shall be considered
sufficient compliance with the above shop agreement.

The employees or laborers affiliated with the Ang Gabay ng Subay working in
the quarry refused to join the Talim Quarry Labor Union. Forthwith, the latter
demanded their dismissal. On 9 July 1956 the company dismissed Gavino Bartola,
Bernardo Abello, Wenceslao Bartola, Bernardo Ditablan, Alfonso Anore, Leoncio
Valdez, Juan Valdez, Antonio Antazo, Pedro Garingal, Segundo Figurasin, Eulogio
Rivera, Bayani Anore and Anatalio Ditablan, all belonging to the Ang Gabay ng
Subay, for refusal to join the Talim Quarry Labor Union. On 14 August 1956 the
dismissed employees filed with the Court of Industrial Relations a complaint
charging the Company with unfair labor practice and praying for the dissolution
of the respondent Union, the Talim Quarry Labor Union, and reinstatement of the
13 complainants dismissed by the respondent Company on 9 July 1956 to their
former position without losing their seniority and rank and full back wages from
the date of dismissal up to their actual reinstatement (case No. 1088—ULP, Annex
A). On 5 August 1958 the Court, presided over by Judge Jose S. Bautista,
dismissed the complaint) mainly upon the ground that the union-shop agreement
was legal and binding: (Annex D). On 9 August 1958 the complainants therein,
respondents herein, filed a motion for reconsideration (Annex E). The Company,
petitioner herein, respondent therein, filed its objection to the motion (Annex
F). On 11 June 1959, the Court en banc reversed the order of dismissal
and ordered the reinstatement without back wages of the 13 dismissed employees
to their former positions (Annex G). The Company and labor union, respondents
therein, petitioners herein, have appealed by certiorari from the last mentioned
resolution.

Whether a union-shop or closed-shop agreement applies to future or
prospective employees or laborers only, or also to employees or laborers
belonging to a labor union other than the one in whose favor the closed-shop
agreement had been entered, already employed at the time of the execution of the
closed-shop agreement, is the main question to be determined in this case. The
petitioners claim that the agreement applies to both; whereas the respondents
contend that the agreement is effective only upon those yet to be hired, but not
upon those already employed and affiliated with another labor union. This is
settled. In Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial
Relations et al., (110 Phil., 962; 61 Off. Gaz., [21] 3107) this Court held that
a closed-shop clause in a collective bargaining agreement does not apply to
persons belonging to another labor union already hired but is effective only
upon those yet to be hired, and that a dismissal of the former for refusing to
comply with the closed-shop contract is unlawful. The dismissal, therefore, by
the petitioner, the Talim Quarry Company, Inc., upon demand by the other
petitioner, the Talim Quarry Labor Union, of the 13 employees or laborers,
respondents herein, for refusing to become members of the Talim Quarry Labor
Union, as required by the union-shop contract, is illegal.

The other issues raised being merely incidental need not be passed upon.

The resolution of 11 June 1959 adopted by the Court of Industrial Relations
en banc appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the
petitioners.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B. L.,
Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.