Tropical Union V Tropical Mart

TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION-CGW vs.
TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC. G.R. No. L-43495-99, 20 January 1990
FACTS:
Tropical Hut Employees’ Union (THEU) was organized by the rank and file employees of
Tropical Hut Food Market in January 1968. The union adopted their constitution and by laws and sought
affiliation with National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) which accepted said application.
On December 1973, NATU received a letter jointly signed by the incumbent officers of THEU
informing them that the local union was disaffiliating from the federation. THEU consequently
announced to its general membership their new affiliation with Confederation of General Workers
(CGW).
The President of CGW then wrote the management of Tropical Hut Food Mart InC (THFMI) to
remit to them the collected union dues but was refused by the company. On the other hand, NATU wrote
the current president of THEU, Jose Encisas, informing him that they made a request to the THFMI about
his dismissal in view of his violation of Sec 3 of their CBA.
(An agreement that any employee who is expelled from union for joining another federation or forming
another union, or who refuse to maintain his membership therein as required. shall, upon written request
of the Union be discharged from the company.)
In lieu of the NATU’s letter, THFMI suspended Encisas pending clearance from DOLE. THEU-
CGW passed a resolution protesting the suspension of Encisas and reiterated their ratification of their
disaffiliation with NATU and a case was filed in NLRC against THFMI for unfair labor practice. 147
members of THEU-CGW also sought the assistance of Juan Ponce Enrile.
In spite this cases, NATU made another request for dismissal of the officers of THEU-CGW and
other employees invoking sec 3 of the CBA. For their failure to reinstate their membership to NATU, 63
more were suspended from employment upon request of NATU. An unnumbered cases was then filed
against NATU and THFMI.
ISSUE:
Whether or not dis
affiliation is a violation of union security clause and be the basis of the dismissal of the employees.
HELD:
No. The union security clause embodied in the Collective BargainingAgreement cannot be used to justify
the dismissals meted to petitioners since it is not aplicable to the circumstances obtaining in this case. The
CBA imposes dismissal only in case an employee is expelled from the union for joining another fédératio
n or for forming another union or who fails or refuses to maintain membership therein. The case at bar do
es not involve the withdrawal of merely some
employees from the union but of the whole THEU itself from its
federation. Clearly, since there is no violation of the union security
provision in the CBA, there was no sufficient ground to terminate the employment of said employees.
In view of the fact that the dispute revolved around the mother
federation and its local, with the company suspending and
dismissing the workers at the instance of the mother federation then, the company’s liability should be lim
ited to the immediate reinstatement of the workers. And since their dismissals were
effected without previous hearing and at the instance of NATU,
this federation should be held liable to the petitioners for the payment of their backwages.
No. The union security clause embodied in the Collectiv
e Bargaining Agreement cannot be used to justify the dismissals meted to petitioners since it is not applic
able to the circumstances obtaining in this case. The CBA imposes dismissal only in case an employee is
expelled from the union for joining another federation or for forming another union or who fails or refuse
s to maintain membership therein. The case at bar does not involve the withdrawal of merely some emplo
yees from the union but of the whole THEU itself from its federation. Clearly, since there is no violation o
f the union security provision in the CBA, there was no sufficient ground to terminate the employment of
said employees.
In view of the fact that the dispute revolved around the mother federation and its local, with the company
suspending and dismissing the workers at the instance of the mother federation then, the company’s liabili
ty should be limited to the immediate reinstatement of the workers. And since their dismissals were effect
ed without previous hearing and at the instance of NATU, this federation should be held liable to the petiti
oners for the payment of their backwages.

Tropical Union V Tropical Mart

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tropical Union V Tropical Mart

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

Tropical Union V Tropical Mart

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION-CGW vs.

You might also like