Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Salunga V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Glory Grace Obenza-Nodado
    496 views2 pages
    This case involves Francisco Salunga, an employee of San Miguel Brewery who was also a member of the union PAFLU. Due to criticism of the union, Salunga resigned from the union but then tried to withdraw his resignation. The union did not allow this and had Salunga fired per their collective bargaining agreement. Salunga filed a claim of unfair labor practice against the union and company. The trial court found in Salunga's favor but the CIR reversed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled the CIR decision was in error, as the union did not have just cause to refuse Salunga's withdrawal of resignation given he was critical of the union. The court reinstated Salunga's membership in the union and job with back

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Salunga v CIR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Francisco Salunga, an employee of San Miguel Brewery who was also a member of the union PAFLU. Due to criticism of the union, Salunga resigned from the union but then tried to withdraw his resignation. The union did not allow this and had Salunga fired per their collective bargaining agreement. Salunga filed a claim of unfair labor practice against the union and company. The trial court found in Salunga's favor but the CIR reversed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled the CIR decision was in error, as the union did not have just cause to refuse Salunga's withdrawal of resignation given he was critical of the union. The court reinstated Salunga's membership in the union and job with back

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    496 views2 pages

    Salunga V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Glory Grace Obenza-Nodado
    This case involves Francisco Salunga, an employee of San Miguel Brewery who was also a member of the union PAFLU. Due to criticism of the union, Salunga resigned from the union but then tried to withdraw his resignation. The union did not allow this and had Salunga fired per their collective bargaining agreement. Salunga filed a claim of unfair labor practice against the union and company. The trial court found in Salunga's favor but the CIR reversed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled the CIR decision was in error, as the union did not have just cause to refuse Salunga's withdrawal of resignation given he was critical of the union. The court reinstated Salunga's membership in the union and job with back

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Francisco Salunga v. CIR, San Miguel Brewery, Inc.

    and NABAILUP-PAFLU
    GR. No. L-22456, September 27, 1967

    Facts:
    Petitioner is an employee of San Miguel Brewery, Inc. and a member of PAFLU. Petitioner by
    being a member of PAFLU adheres to its collective bargaining agreement that upon resignation
    from latter he would be forfeiting his position in the company. Due to open criticism by
    petitioner against the union, he has been treated badly and teased by the members of the
    latter, which prompt his resignation. The Union accepted the resignation and transmitted it to
    the company. The company informed petitioner of the consequence of resignation which
    prompted the latter to withdraw the resignation. The union did not accept his withdrawal and
    urged company to implement the collective agreement. Petitioner notified the union that it was
    appealing to the PAFLU National Convention, hence urging to defer his case pending appeal.
    Notwithstanding such appeal, he was given notice of dismissal. Hence, petitioner filed for unfair
    labor practice against PAFLU, the company and etc. The trial judge ruled that the union and
    company has committed unfair labor practice, but upon motion by respondents to the CIR, the
    latter reversed the decision. Hence, this appeal to the Court.

    Issue:
    Whether or not CIR committed error in judgment in not rendering PAFLU and the company
    guilty of unfair labor practice as ruled by the trial court

    Ruling:
    The appeal is well taken. Although, petitioner had resigned from the Union and the latter had
    accepted the resignation, the former had, soon latter – upon learning that his withdrawal would
    result in separation from the company, withdrawn said resignation. The refusal to consent by
    the union was without just cause, furthermore upon the facts, the refusal is based due to his
    critical attitude towards measures taken by them. It should be noted that the CIR did not
    reverse these findings over even question the accuracy thereof. The officers of the union even
    admitted to such when they branded petitioner as disloyal to the union.
    Although, generally, a state may not compel ordinary voluntary associations to admit thereto
    any given individual, because membership therein may be accorded or withheld as a matter of
    privilege, the rule is qualified in respect of labor unions holding a monopoly in the supply of
    labor, either in a given locality, or as regards a particular employer with which it has a closed-
    shop agreement.
    Consequently, it is well settled that such unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified
    applicants for membership, and a closed-shop provision would not justify the employer in
    discharging, or a union in insisting upon the discharge of, an employee whom the union thus
    refuses to admit to membership, without any reasonable ground therefor.
    We cannot agree, however, with the finding of the trial Judge to the effect that the Company
    was guilty of unfair labor practice. It even tried to help him, although to such extent only as was
    consistent with its obligation to refrain from interfering in purely internal affairs of the Union. In
    finding, this notwithstanding, that the Company is guilty of unfair labor practice, the trial Judge
    seemed to have been unduly influenced by the fact that the former had dismissed the
    petitioner despite his announced intention to appeal from the decision of the Union and that of
    the Officers of PAFLU to its "Supreme authority", namely, the PAFLU's "National Convention". In
    other words, said Judge felt that the Company should have waited for the action of the national
    convention before issuing the notice of dismissal.
    Just the same, having been denied readmission into the Union and having been dismissed from
    the service owing to an unfair labor practice on the part of the Union, petitioner is entitled to
    reinstatement as member of the Union and to his former or substantially equivalent position in
    the Company, without prejudice to his seniority and/or rights and privileges, and with back pay,
    which back pay shall be borne exclusively by the Union.
    With this modification, the aforementioned decision of the trial Judge is hereby affirmed in all
    other respects, and the appealed resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc is
    reversed, with costs against respondents, except the Company.

    You might also like