March 10, 2010
Ponente: Leonardo-De Castro, J.
FACTS:
·
Chapter president Ernesto Casio and other
employees of General Milling Corp. (GMC), comprised of regular employees and
union shop stewards, were accused by the members and officers of Ilaw at Buklod
ng Manggagawa Local 31 Chapter (IBM-Local 31), the SEBA of GMC, of having
committed acts inimical to the interest of the union. Through a letter, the
accused employees were told to file within 3 days their answers to the
accusations lodged against them. Casio, et al. refused to acknowledge said
letter, so the union proceeded to conduct an investigation ex parte, eventually
finding the accused employees guilty. Consequently, Casio, et al. were expelled
from the union.
·
Citing the closed shop provision in the CBA,
Rodolfo Gabiana, the IBM Regional Director for Visayas and Mindanao, requested
GMC to terminate Casio, et al. When the management of GMC did nothing, a second
request was sent, reiterating the union's request for the immediate dismissal
of Casio, et al., this time with a threat that failure to effect the accused
employees' dismissal would constrain the union to file a ULP complaint against the
company for gross violation of the CBA.
·
Pressured by the threatened filing of a suit
for ULP, GMC acceded to the union's request to terminate the employment of
Casio, et al.
·
Casio, et al. proceeded to seek judicial
relief as follows:
o Casio , et
al., in the name of IBM-Local 31, filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB.
Casio, et al. alleged as bases for the strike the illegal dismissal of union
officers and members, discrimination, coercion, and union busting. The NCMB-RO
held conciliation proceedings, but no settlement was reached among the parties.
o Casio, et
al. next sought recourse from the NLRC by filing a complaint for ULP against
GMC and the union officers, particularly the termination of legitimate union
officers, illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and moral and exemplary
damages. The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and endorsed
it to the NCMB because it was found that the case did not undergo voluntary
arbitration. The parties, however, agreed to submit themselves to the company's
grievance machinery procedure.
o Back at
GMC, the SEBA (IBM-Local 31) failed to hold grievance proceedings on Casio, et
al.'s complaint, so the voluntary arbitrator from NCMB assumed jurisdiction
over the same.
o VA's
ruling: Dismissal of Casio, et al. was valid. The dismissed employees were
nonetheless entitled to separation pay and attorney's fees.
o
Casio, et al. filed an appeal with the CA,
which ruled in their favor. According to the CA, while the dismissal of Casio,
et al., was made by GMC pursuant to a valid closed shop provision under the
CBA, the company, however, failed to observe the elementary rules of due
process in implementing the said dismissal. Therefore, their dismissal was
illegal. GMC's MR was denied, hence the instant petition.
RULING:
Whether
Casio, et al. were illegally dismissed. – YES.
·
GMC: The VA's finding that the dismissal of
Casio, et al. was valid should be conclusive. GMC asserted that prior to their
dismissal, Casio, et al. were already accorded the opportunity to defend
themselves by the union, only that they refused to take part in the union
investigation. GMC also averred that it had no authority to investigate whether
Casio, et al. were indeed disloyal to the union because such an issue was an
internal affair of the union. And finally, it should be the union officers, not
the company, which should be held liable for the reinstatement of and payment
of full backwages to Casio, et al. for the company had acted in good faith and
merely complied with the closed shop provision in the CBA.
·
CASIO: To accord them due process, GMC itself,
as the employer, should have held proceedings distinct and separate from those
conducted by the union. GMC cannot justify its failure to conduct its own
inquiry using the argument that such proceedings would constitute an intrusion
by the company into the internal affairs of the union. The claim of GMC that it
had acted in good faith when it dismissed them from service in accordance with
the closed shop provision of the CBA is inconsistent with the failure of the
company to accord the dismissed employees their right to due process.
·
COURT:
The dismissal of Casio, et al. was illegal, having been done without
just cause and the observance of procedural due process.
·
In terminating the employment of an employee
by enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs only to determine
and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is
requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and
(3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel
the employee from the union. These requisites constitute just cause for
terminating an employee based on the union security provision of the CBA.
·
As applied in the present case, the CBA
between GMC and IBM-Local 31 included a maintenance of membership and closed
shop clause. It is similarly undisputed that IBM-Local 31 requested GMC to
terminate the employment of Casio, et al. as a necessary consequence of their
expulsion from the union. It is the third requisite that there is sufficient
evidence to support the decision of IBM-Local 31 to expel Casio, et al. which
appears to be lacking in this case. The failure of GMC to make a determination
of the sufficiency of evidence supporting the decision of IBM-Local 31 to expel
Casio, et al. is a direct consequence of the non-observance by GMC of
procedural due process in the dismissal of employees.
·
GMC also failed to discharge the twin
requirements of notice and hearing. GMC cannot dispense with these requirements
before dismissing Casio, et al. even when said dismissal is pursuant to the
closed shop provision in the CBA. The rights of an employee to be informed of
the charges against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his side in a
controversy with either the company or his own union are not wiped away by a
union security clause or a union shop clause in a collective bargaining
agreement.
·
In sum, the Court finds that GMC illegally
dismissed Casio, et al. because not only did GMC fail to make a determination
of the sufficiency of evidence to support the decision of IBM-Local 31 to expel
Casio, et al., but also to accord the expelled union members procedural due
process, i.e., notice and hearing, prior to the termination of their
employment.
Whether
GMC can choose not to conduct its own investigation and merely rely on the
assertions of the union. – NO.
·
GMC: The acts of the union officers in
expelling Casio, et al. from the union enjoy presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties. As such, there is no need for the company to
conduct a separate investigation.
·
COURT: The presumption of regularity applies
only to public officers from the highest to the lowest in the service of the
Government, departments, bureaus, offices, and/or its political subdivisions,
NOT to union officers.
Whether
GMC should be held liable for the payment of backwages and damages to Casio, et
al. – YES.
·
GMC:
The company should not be held liable for the payment of backwages and
damages to Casio, et al. Instead, the liability for such payment should fall
only upon the union officers and board members who expelled Casio, et al.
·
COURT: The expulsion of Casio, et al. by
IBP-Local 31 and the termination of employment of the same employees by GMC,
although related, are two separate and distinct acts. Despite a closed shop
provision in the CBA and the expulsion of Casio, et al. from IBP-Local 31, law
and jurisprudence impose upon GMC the obligation to accord Casio, et al.
substantive and procedural due process before complying with the demand of
IBP-Local 31 to dismiss the expelled union members from service. The failure of
GMC to carry out this obligation makes it liable for illegal dismissal of
Casio, et al.