Natl. Brewers and Allied Industries Labor Union vs San Miguel Brewery

 Natl. Brewers and Allied Industries Labor Union vs San Miguel Brewery

G.R. No. L-18170

August 31, 1963

DOCTRINE: The benefits of a collective bargaining agreement are extended to all employees regardless of their membership in the union because to withhold the same from the nonmembers would be to discriminate against them.

FACTS:

The union, National Brewery & Allied Industries Labor Union of the Philippines, brought suit in the CFI of Manila on November 17, 1960 for the collection of union agency fees under the bargaining contract. Alleging that it had obtained benefits for all workers in the company and that "defendant Independent S.M.B. Workers' Association refused and still refuses to pay UNION AGENCY FEE to the plaintiff UNION and defendant COMPANY also refuses and still refuses to deduct the UNION AGENCY FEE from the wages of workers who are not members of the plaintiff UNION and remit the same to the latter” The lower court in dismissing the complaint held that nothing in the Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act No. 875) which would authorize the collection of agency fees and that neither may such collection be justified under the rules of quasi contract because the workers had not neglected their business so as to warrant the intervention, of an officious manager. MR is denied. Hence, the union appealed.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the payment of union agency fee among the non-members is a condition to enjoy the benefits of CBA.

HELD: 

NO. It is true, as the union claims, that whatever benefits the majority union obtains from the employer accrue to its members as well as to nonmembers. But this alone does not justify the collection of agency fee from non-members. The benefits of a collective bargaining agreement are extended to all employees regardless of their membership in the union because to withhold the same from the nonmembers would be to discriminate against them. (International Oil Factory Workers Union (FFW) v. Martinez, et al., G.R. No. L-15560, Dec. 31, 1960).

Moreover, when a union bids to be the bargaining agent, it voluntarily assumes the responsibility of representing all the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. That is why Section 12 of the law states that "The labor organization designated or selected for the purpose of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment."

The benefits that accrue to nonmembers by reason of a collective bargaining agreement can hardly be termed "unjust enrichment" because, as already pointed out, the same are extended to them precisely to avoid discrimination among employees. (International Oil Factory Workers' Union (FFW) v. Martinez, et al., G.R. No. L-15560, Dec. 31, 1960).

Lastly, it is contended that the collection of agency fee may be justified on the principle of agency. In answer to this point, it may be stated that when a union acts as the bargaining agent, it assumes the responsibility imposed upon it by law to represent not only its members but all employees in the appropriate bargaining unit of which it is the agent. The Civil Code states that agency is presumed to be for compensation unless there is proof to the contrary. (Art. 1875.) There can be no better proof that the agency created by law between the bargaining representative and the employees in the unit is without compensation than the fact that these employees in the minority voted against the appellant union. CFI is correct.