Union Activities as Grounds for Illegal Dismissal

G.R. No. 125195, July 17, 1997

Imagine losing your job simply because you joined a union or tried to organize one. This scenario is precisely what Philippine labor laws aim to prevent. The case of Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Bandolino-LMLC vs. National Labor Relations Commission delves into the critical issue of illegal dismissal stemming from union activities, highlighting the rights of workers to organize and the corresponding obligations of employers. This case serves as a stark reminder that employers cannot use union affiliation as a basis for termination or discrimination.

This case revolves around the dismissal of employees who were allegedly terminated due to their involvement in union activities. The central legal question is whether the employer, Bandolino Shoe Corporation, committed unfair labor practices (ULP) and illegally dismissed its employees by targeting union members.

Legal Context: Safeguarding Workers’ Rights to Self-Organization

The Philippine Labor Code is very clear about protecting the rights of workers to form and join unions. This protection is enshrined in Article 248, which outlines unfair labor practices for employers. This includes interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.

Article 248(a) of the Labor Code states:

“It shall be unfair labor practice for an employer: (a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.”

This provision ensures that employees can freely associate and bargain collectively without fear of reprisal from their employers. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this right, recognizing that a vibrant labor movement is essential for a just and equitable society.

Previous cases have established that actions such as terminating employees shortly after union formation, or imposing conditions on reinstatement that restrict union activities, can be considered unfair labor practices. The intent of the employer is crucial in determining whether ULP has been committed.

Case Breakdown: The Bandolino Shoe Corporation Dispute

The story begins with employees of Bandolino Shoe Corporation forming a union, Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Bandolino-LMLC. Soon after, several employees were placed on a two-week “rotation” due to a strike at Shoemart, Bandolino’s biggest customer. However, these employees were never recalled, and others were terminated shortly thereafter.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• June 4, 1990: Employees are placed on a two-week leave due to a Shoemart strike.
• June 9, 1990: Other employees are informed of their termination and asked to surrender their IDs.
• June 11, 1990: Employees attempt to return to work but are denied entry.
• August 22, 1990: A complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice is filed.

The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the employees, finding that they were illegally dismissed due to their union activities and that the employer committed unfair labor practices. The employer’s offer to reinstate the employees with conditions—foregoing their strike, withdrawing their petition for certification election, and recognizing the existing union—was a key piece of evidence.

However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, giving credence to the employer’s claim that the “rotation scheme” was not related to union activities and that the offer of reinstatement was privileged communication.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the employees, stating:

“The substantial evidence rule does not authorize any finding to be made just as long as there is any evidence to support it. It does not excuse administrative agencies from considering contrary evidence which fairly detracts from the evidence supporting a finding.”

The Court found that the NLRC had disregarded critical evidence, such as the fact that employees were asked to surrender their IDs and were not allowed to return to work even after the Shoemart strike ended. The court also highlighted the anti-union bias demonstrated by the employer’s questioning of employees about their union activities and opposition to the union’s petition for certification election.

“An employer may be guilty of ULP in interfering with the right to self-organization even before the union has been registered.”

Practical Implications: Protecting Workers and Ensuring Fair Labor Practices

This case reinforces the importance of protecting workers’ rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. It sends a clear message to employers that they cannot use union affiliation as a basis for termination or discrimination. The ruling also clarifies that even before a union is formally registered, employers must refrain from interfering with employees’ organizational activities.

For businesses, this case serves as a reminder to:

• Respect employees’ rights to form and join unions.
• Avoid any actions that could be perceived as interfering with union activities.
• Ensure that termination decisions are based on legitimate business reasons, not union affiliation.

Key Lessons

• Employers cannot terminate or discriminate against employees for union activities.
• Even before a union is registered, employers must not interfere with organizational efforts.
• Conditions on reinstatement that restrict union activities are illegal and constitute unfair labor practices.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is unfair labor practice (ULP)?

A: Unfair labor practice refers to actions by employers or unions that violate the rights of employees or the collective bargaining process. In the case of employers, this includes interfering with employees’ right to self-organization, discriminating against union members, or refusing to bargain in good faith.

Q: Can an employer dismiss an employee for joining a union?

A: No. Dismissing an employee solely for joining a union is illegal and constitutes unfair labor practice. The Labor Code protects employees’ right to self-organization.

Q: What should an employee do if they believe they have been illegally dismissed for union activities?

A: An employee who believes they have been illegally dismissed should file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). They should gather evidence to support their claim, such as records of union membership, termination letters, and any communications with the employer regarding union activities.

Q: What is the role of the NLRC in labor disputes?

A: The NLRC is a quasi-judicial body responsible for resolving labor disputes, including cases of illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and other labor-related issues. It conducts hearings, receives evidence, and issues decisions based on the Labor Code and relevant jurisprudence.

Q: What are the possible remedies for an illegally dismissed employee?

A: An illegally dismissed employee may be entitled to reinstatement to their former position, backwages (compensation for lost earnings), and other damages. The specific remedies will depend on the facts of the case and the decision of the NLRC or the courts.

Q: What is a certification election?

A: A certification election is a process by which employees vote to determine which union, if any, will represent them in collective bargaining with their employer.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.