The Supreme Court affirmed that a labor union cannot collect increased agency fees from non-union members without strict compliance with legal requirements, particularly the approval of the increase by a majority of its members in a duly called general membership meeting. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in the Labor Code to ensure fairness and transparency in the collection of union dues and agency fees. It serves as a reminder that while unions have the right to collect fees for benefits extended, this right is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law, protecting the interests of both union and non-union employees.

Can a Union Increase Your Dues? Inside the Fight Over Fair Fees at The Peninsula Manila

This case revolves around a dispute between the Peninsula Employees Union (PEU) and a group of non-union employees (NAE) at The Peninsula Manila Hotel concerning the collection of agency fees. PEU sought to increase these fees from one percent to two percent of the employees’ monthly salaries, citing its affiliation with the National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurants and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN). The central legal question is whether PEU complied with the necessary requirements under the Labor Code to validly increase these fees. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the non-union employees, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the law when increasing union dues.

The heart of the matter lies in Article 250 (n) and (o) of the Labor Code, which outlines the process for levying increased union dues. The law mandates three key requirements: first, authorization through a written resolution approved by a majority of all members at a general membership meeting called specifically for that purpose; second, a detailed record of the meeting minutes, including a list of attendees, votes cast, the purpose of the fees, and the recipient; and third, individual written authorizations for check-off, duly signed by the employees. These requirements serve as a safeguard to ensure that any increase in union dues is democratically approved and transparently implemented. Without these protections, employees could be subjected to arbitrary or unjustified fee increases.

In this case, PEU claimed that its general membership approved the increased dues during an October 2008 meeting. However, the Court found that the minutes of this meeting did not adequately demonstrate that the increase was properly deliberated and approved. While the minutes mentioned the need to implement the two percent dues due to PEU’s affiliation with NUWHRAIN, they did not explicitly state that the membership had voted in favor of the increase. Building on this point, the Court noted that a subsequent resolution issued by PEU in July 2010, which sought to retroactively confirm the approval, could not compensate for the initial lack of proper authorization. The Court underscored that the July 2010 resolution was not issued to approve the increase, but merely to affirm a prior action that was never properly established.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted that the individual check-off authorizations submitted by PEU were inconsequential because they were contingent on the valid approval of the increased dues. In other words, even if some employees had signed authorizations allowing the deduction of two percent from their salaries, these authorizations were invalid because the underlying increase in dues had not been properly authorized. The Court reinforced that the express consent of employees to any deduction from their compensation must be obtained by strictly following the steps outlined in the law. This strict interpretation is intended to protect employees from unauthorized or coercive deductions from their wages.

“Jurisprudence states that the express consent of the employee to any deduction in his compensation is required to be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by the law, which must be followed to the letter.”

This ruling has significant implications for labor unions and employees alike. It serves as a stern reminder that unions must meticulously comply with the requirements of the Labor Code when increasing union dues or agency fees. Failure to do so can result in legal challenges and the invalidation of the increase. For employees, the decision reinforces their right to transparent and democratic processes in the management of union funds. It also provides legal recourse if they are subjected to unauthorized or improperly authorized deductions from their paychecks.

The Court cited specific provisions of the Labor Code to emphasize its decision. Article 259 (e) recognizes the right of a collective bargaining agent to assess reasonable fees from non-union members who benefit from a collective bargaining agreement. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to the requirements outlined in Article 250 (n) and (o). These provisions mandate that any special assessment or extraordinary fee must be authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all members in a general membership meeting, and that individual written authorizations for check-off must be duly signed by the employees. The Court’s decision underscores that these provisions must be read together to ensure a fair and balanced approach to the collection of union dues and agency fees.

The Supreme Court emphasized that it found no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals in granting the petition and finding that the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (OSEC) gravely abused its discretion. The OSEC’s order allowing PEU to collect the increased agency fees was deemed patently contrary to law and therefore correctable through certiorari. Certiorari is a legal remedy used to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion on the part of a government agency or lower court. In this case, the Court found that the OSEC’s decision was so flawed that it warranted the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.

This approach contrasts with a more lenient interpretation, where substantial compliance might suffice. The Court made clear that strict adherence to the law is required in matters affecting employees’ compensation. This strict approach is rooted in the recognition that employees are often in a vulnerable position and need legal protection against unauthorized deductions from their wages. It also promotes transparency and accountability in the management of union funds, ensuring that unions act in the best interests of their members and non-union employees.

Building on this principle, the decision reinforces the importance of accurate record-keeping and documentation by labor unions. Unions must maintain detailed and accurate minutes of their meetings, including a list of attendees, votes cast, and the specific purpose of any special assessments or fees. These records serve as evidence of compliance with the Labor Code and can be crucial in defending against legal challenges. In the absence of such records, it can be difficult for a union to demonstrate that it has properly authorized an increase in dues or fees.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a valuable guide for labor unions and employees in the Philippines. It clarifies the legal requirements for increasing union dues and agency fees, and underscores the importance of strict compliance with the Labor Code. By adhering to these requirements, unions can ensure that they are acting fairly and transparently, while employees can protect their rights and interests. The decision promotes a more equitable and balanced relationship between labor unions and employees, fostering a more harmonious and productive workplace.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Peninsula Employees Union (PEU) followed the correct legal procedures to increase agency fees for non-union members. The court examined if the increase was properly authorized by its members.
What is an agency fee?	An agency fee is a payment made by non-union members to a union that represents them in collective bargaining. It covers the costs of negotiating and administering the collective bargaining agreement that benefits all employees.
What does the Labor Code say about increasing union dues?	The Labor Code requires that any increase in union dues or special assessments must be authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all members in a general membership meeting. Detailed meeting minutes and individual check-off authorizations are also required.
What did the Court rule about the minutes of the October 2008 meeting?	The Court found that the minutes of the October 2008 meeting did not clearly show that the increase in union dues had been properly deliberated and approved by the PEU membership. This lack of clarity was a key factor in the Court’s decision.
Why was the July 2010 resolution not sufficient?	The July 2010 resolution was intended to confirm or ratify a prior action. However, the Court determined that the prior action—the approval of the increased dues—had not been properly established, so the resolution could not retroactively validate the increase.
What is a check-off authorization?	A check-off authorization is a written consent from an employee allowing their employer to deduct union dues or other fees from their wages and remit them to the union. These authorizations must be obtained individually and voluntarily.
What happens if a union doesn’t follow the rules for increasing dues?	If a union fails to comply with the requirements of the Labor Code when increasing dues, the increase can be deemed invalid. Employees may be able to challenge the increase in court or through administrative channels.
What was the main takeaway of this case?	The main takeaway is that labor unions must strictly adhere to the requirements of the Labor Code when increasing union dues or agency fees. This includes obtaining proper authorization from their members and maintaining accurate records.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PENINSULA EMPLOYEES UNION vs. ESQUIVEL, G.R. NO. 218454, December 01, 2016