Santos Juat v.

CIR

DOCTRINE: A closed shop proviso of a CBA entered into between an employer and duly
authorized labor union is applicable not only to employees that are employed after the collective
bargaining agreement had been entered into but also to old employees who are not members of
any labor union at the time. Old employees who are not members of any labor union prior to the
CBA with the closed shop proviso can be obliged by his employer to join the labor union which
had entered into a collective bargaining agreement that provides for a closed-shop as a condition
for his continuance in his employment, otherwise his refusal to join the contracting labor union
would constitute a justifiable basis for his dismissal.
SUMMARY:
Bulaklak Publications entered into a CBA with Busocope Labor Union which had a closed shop
proviso that provides that all employees, as a condition of maintaining their employment, must
become members of the union. Purusant to the provision of the CBA, Juat, an employee of
Bulaklak Publications, was thus required to become a member of the union. Juat refused to
become member and was suspended for 15 days. After the expiry of his suspension, he still
refused to report to work and was thus dismissed. Juat filed a case for ULP against Bulaklak for
dismissing him due to his refusal to join the union. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the
CIR that the closed shop proviso validly applies to him. At the time the CBA was entered into,
Juat was not a member of any union. Thus, he could validly be compelled to join the union.
A closed shop proviso of a CBA entered into between an employer and duly authorized labor
union is applicable not only to employees that are employed after the collective bargaining
agreement had been entered into but also to old employees who are not members of any labor
union at the time. Old employees who are not members of any labor union prior to the CBA with
the closed shop proviso can be obliged by his employer to join the labor union which had entered
into a collective bargaining agreement that provides for a closed-shop as a condition for his
continuance in his employment, otherwise his refusal to join the contracting labor union would
constitute a justifiable basis for his dismissal.
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision made by the Court of Industrial Relations
regarding charges of unfair labor practice.
On December 1, 1959, a collective bargaining agreement was entered into between the Bulaklak
Publications and the BUSOCOPE LABOR UNION, to remain in effect for 3 years, and renewable
for another term of 3 years. Section 4 of said agreement contains a closed shop proviso. On
December 27, 1960, said Section 4 of said agreement was amended to read as follows:
"All employees and/or workers who on January 1, 1960 are members of the Union in
good standing in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws and all members who
become members after that date shall, as a condition of employment, maintain their
membership in the Union for the duration of this Agreement. All employees and/or
workers who on January 1, 1961 are not yet members of the Union shall, as a condition
of maintaining their employment, become members of such union."
In sum, the closed shop provision of the CBA between Bulaklak Publications and Busocope
Labor Union required Juat to become a member the said union. However, Juat refused to
become a member. Evangelista, the executive officer of Bulaklak, suspended Juat for 15 days.
After the expiration of the suspension of Juat, Mr. Evangelista wrote a letter to Juat ordering him
to report back for duty. Juat did not report for work and was dropped from service of the

company. It was later learned that Juat did not return because he has his own business Juat
Printing Press Co. Inc. The CIR found that Juats refusal to become a member of Busocope
Labor Union and refusal to report back to work when ordered by his superior were deemed
inimical to the interest of his employer and thus his dismissal was valid.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the closed shop proviso should apply to Juat? YES.
Whether or not CIR erred in holding that Bulaklak Publications did not commit ULP when it
dismissed Juat for his refusal to join the Union? NO.
RULING:
The contentions of the petitioner are without merit. The closed shop proviso applies to Juat and
the company is justified in dismissing Juat for refusing to join the Union.
A closed-shop proviso in a collective bargaining agreement between employer and employee is
sanctioned by law. Under the Industrial Peace Act, Sec. 4, nothing precludes an employer
from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of
employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the
employees.
A closed-shop agreement has been considered as one form of union security whereby only union
members can be hired and workers must remain union members as a condition of continued
employment. The requirement for employees or workers to become members of a union as a
condition for employment redounds to the benefit and advantage of said employees because by
holding out to loyal members a promise of employment in the closed-shop the union wields group
solidarity. In fact, it is said that "the closed-shop contract is the most prized achievement of
unionism.
The closed shop proviso of the CBA between Bulaklak Publications and Busocope Labor Union
provides that, All employees and/or workers who on January 1, 1961 are not yet members of the
Union shall, as condition of maintaining their employment, become members of such Union."
Juat contends that such proviso cannot and should not apply to him since he is an old employee
of Bulaklak Publications since 1953 and such CBA with the closed shop proviso was only entered
into in 1959 and modified in 1960. It was established however that Juat was NOT a member of
any labor union when the CBA was entered into and has never been a member of any
labor union.
According to jurisprudence (Freeman Shirt Manufacturing v. CIR), a closed-shop proviso of a
collective bargaining agreement entered into between an employer and a duly authorized
labor union is applicable not only to the employees or laborers that are employed after the
collective bargaining agreement had been entered into but also to old employees who are
not members of any labor union at the time the said collective bargaining agreement was
entered into. In other words, if an employee or laborer is already a member of a labor union
different from the union that entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the
employer providing for a closed-shop, said employee or worker cannot be obliged to
become a member of that union which had entered into a collective bargaining agreement with
the employer as a condition for his continued employment.
The case of Findlay Miller Timber Co. vs. PLASLU also established that old employees or
workers can be obliged by his employer to join the labor union which had entered into a collective
bargaining agreement that provides for a closed-shop as a condition for his continuance in his
employment, otherwise his refusal to join the contracting labor union would constitute a justifiable
basis for his dismissal.

In this case, it was established by evidence that Juat, although an old employee of Bulaklak, was
never a member of any labor union at the time the CBA was entered into. Thus, he was validly
obliged to become a member of Busocope Union. His refusal to join the Union justified his
dismissal. (Additionally, his dismissal was also justified by the fact that he refused to report back
to work after his suspension expired.)