8 Palacol Vs Calleja

CARMELITO L. PALACOL, ET AL.
approval of the general membership, but likewise

vs. complied with the legal requirements of Article 241.
PURA FERRER-CALLEJA,
Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, MANILA ISSUE:
CCBPI SALES FORCE Whether or not a special assessment be validly deducted
UNION, and COCA-COLA BOTTLERS (PHILIPPINES), by a labor union from the lump-sum pay of its members,
INC. granted under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA),
G.R. No. 85333 notwithstanding a subsequent disauthorization of the
same by a majority of the union members.
FACTS:
On October 12, 1987, the respondent Manila CCBPI RULING:
Sales Force Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union), The deduction of the 10% special assessment by the
as the collective bargaining agent of all regular salesmen, Union was not made in accordance with the requirements
regular helpers, and relief helpers of the Manila Plant and provided by law.
Metro Manila Sales Office of the respondent Coca-Cola
Bottlers (Philippines), Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Under Article 241, the Union must submit to the Company
Company) concluded a new collective bargaining a written resolution of a majority of all the members at a
agreement with the latter. Among the compensation general membership meeting duly called for the purpose.
benefits granted to the employees was a general salary In addition, the secretary of the organization must record
increase to be given in lump sum including recomputation the minutes of the meeting which, in turn, must include,
of actual commissions earned based on the new rates of among others, the list of all the members present as well
increase. as the votes cast.
On the same day, the president of the Union submitted to The Union, however, failed to comply with the
the Company the ratification by the union members of the requirements of Article 241 of the Labor Code. It held local
new CBA and authorization for the Company to deduct membership meetings on separate occasions, on
union dues equivalent to P10.00 every payday or P20.00 different dates and at various venues, contrary to the
every month and, in addition, 10% by way of special express requirement that there must be a general
assessment, from the CBA lump-sum pay granted to the membership meeting. The contention of the Union that
union members. "the local membership meetings are precisely the very
general meetings required by law" is untenable because
As embodied in the Board Resolution of the Union dated the law would not have specified a general membership
September 29, 1987, the purpose of the special meeting had the legislative intent been to allow local
assessment sought to be levied is "to put up a cooperative meetings in lieu of the latter.
and credit union; purchase vehicles and other items
needed for the benefit of the officers and the general It submitted only minutes of the local membership
membership; and for the payment for services rendered meetings when what is required is a written resolution
by union officers, consultants and others." adopted at the general meeting. Worse still, the minutes
of three of those local meetings held were recorded by a
This "Authorization and CBA Ratification" was obtained union director and not by the union secretary. The
by the Union through a secret referendum held in minutes submitted to the Company contained no list of the
separate local membership meetings on various dates. 3 members present and no record of the votes cast. Since
The total membership of the Union was about 800. Of this it is quite evident that the Union did not comply with the
number, 672 members originally authorized the 10% law at every turn, the only conclusion that may be made
special assessment, while 173 opposed the same. therefrom is that there was no valid levy of the special
assessment.
Subsequently however, one hundred seventy (170)
members of the Union submitted documents to the Even assuming that the special assessment was validly
Company stating that although they have ratified the new levied, and granting that individual written authorizations
CBA, they are withdrawing or disauthorizing the deduction were obtained by the Union, nevertheless there can be no
of any amount from their CBA lump sum. Later, 185 other valid check-off considering that the majority of the union
union members submitted similar documents expressing members had already withdrawn their individual
the same intent. These members, numbering 355 in all authorizations. A withdrawal of individual authorizations is
(170 + 185), added to the original oppositors of 173, equivalent to no authorization at all. This is so even if the
turned the tide in favor of disauthorization for the special withdrawal of authorization was done in collective form.
assessment, with a total of 528 objectors and a remainder There is nothing in the law which requires that the
of 272 supporters. disauthorization must be in individual form.
Petitioners assailed the 10% special assessment as a

violation of Article 241in relation to Article 222(b) of the
Labor Code. The Union however contended that the
deductions not only have the popular indorsement and

8 Palacol Vs Calleja

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 Palacol Vs Calleja

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 Palacol Vs Calleja

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CARMELITO L. PALACOL, ET AL.

approval of the general membership, but likewise

Petitioners assailed the 10% special assessment as a

You might also like