Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ferrer vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 100898 July 5, 1993 Facts

    Uploaded by

    ico246
    206 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the termination of employees pursuant to a union security clause in a collective bargaining agreement is invalid if done without due process. In this case, Ferrer and other employees were dismissed by their employer, Occidental Foundry Corporation, after being expelled from the union. However, the union did not conduct any hearing to allow the employees to explain their side. The dismissal was therefore in violation of the employees' right to procedural due process. The Court found that notice and a hearing are required before termination can be validly carried out under a union security clause. It ordered the reinstatement of the employees with back pay.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Ferrer vs NLRC

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that the termination of employees pursuant to a union security clause in a collective bargaining agreement is invalid if done without due process. In this case, Ferrer and other employees were dismissed by their employer, Occidental Foundry Corporation, after being expelled from the union. However, the union did not conduct any hearing to allow the employees to explain their side. The dismissal was therefore in violation of the employees' right to procedural due process. The Court found that notice and a hearing are required before termination can be validly carried out under a union security clause. It ordered the reinstatement of the employees with back pay.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    206 views1 page

    Ferrer vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 100898 July 5, 1993 Facts

    Uploaded by

    ico246
    The Supreme Court ruled that the termination of employees pursuant to a union security clause in a collective bargaining agreement is invalid if done without due process. In this case, Ferrer and other employees were dismissed by their employer, Occidental Foundry Corporation, after being expelled from the union. However, the union did not conduct any hearing to allow the employees to explain their side. The dismissal was therefore in violation of the employees' right to procedural due process. The Court found that notice and a hearing are required before termination can be validly carried out under a union security clause. It ordered the reinstatement of the employees with back pay.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Ferrer vs.

    National Labor Relations Commission


    G.R. No. 100898
    July 5, 1993

    Facts:

    Petitioner Ferrer and other employees were regular and permanent employee of the Occidental Foundry
    Corporation (OFC) in Malanday, Valenzuela, Metro Manila under the management of Hui Kam Chang. They had
    been in the employ of OFC for about ten years at the time of their dismissal in 1989.On January 5, 1989 the
    SAMAHAN and OFC entered into a CBA which would be effective for the period of 3 years. Article 2 of the CBA
    provides for a Union Security Clause. On May 16 1989, petitioner Ferrer and the SAMAHAN, filed in the
    Department of Labor and Employment a complaint for the expulsion of its officers headed by Genaro Capitle
    (President). The complaint was founded on the ground that the officers alleged inattentiveness to the economic
    demands of the workers. However Ferrer and company withdrew their petition. The petitioners also conducted
    an election of officers of the union. On September 11, 1989 the union –SAMAHAN expelled Ferrer’s group from
    the Union. Ferrer and his group filed a complaint sent a letter to Federation of Democratic Labor Unions (FEDLU)
    and volunteered to be admitted as members of the FEDLU and requested that they be represented
    ("katawanin") by said federation before the DOLE in the complaint which they intended to file against the union
    (SAMAHAN), the FFW and the company for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, and other benefits in accordance
    with law. Thereafter, on various dates, petitioners sent individual letters to Hui Kam Chang professing innocence
    of the charges leveled against them by the SAMAHAN and the FFW and pleading that they be reinstated. Their
    letters appear to have elicited no response. Thus, contending that their dismissal was without cause and in utter
    disregard of their right to due process of law, petitioners through the FEDLU, filed a complaint for illegal
    dismissal and unfair labor practice before the Labor Arbiter against Hui Kam Chang, OFC, M.S. Velasco (as
    representative of the FFW), the FFW, and the SAMAHAN officers headed by Capitle. The Labor Arbiter dismissed
    the Petition and ruled that the dismissal of the petitioners was an exercise of legitimate management
    prerogative which cannot be considered as an unfair labor practice. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC. NLRC
    affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Hence this petition.

    Issue:

    WON termination of employment pursuant to union security clause is valid without due process of laws.

    Held:

    NO.Dismissal under union security clause must be effected after prior notice and hearing.

    In the case at bar, it is true that the CBA between OFC and the SAMAHAN provided for the dismissal of
    employees who have not maintained their membership in the union but the manner in which the dismissal was
    enforced left much to be desired in terms of respect for the right of petitioners to procedural due process. The
    union has a specific provision for the permanent or temporary "expulsion" of its erring members in its
    constitution and by-laws ("saligang batas at alituntunin") but no hearing ("pandinig") was ever conducted by
    the SAMAHAN to explain their side for the ousting Capile. The petitioner’s actions might have caused
    divisiveness, disloyalty to the union but still they should have the opportunity to explain their grievance and
    side.
    What aggravated the situation in this case is the fact that OFC itself took for granted that the SAMAHAN had
    actually conducted an inquiry and considered the CBA provision for the closed shop as self-operating that, upon
    receipt of a notice that some members of the SAMAHAN had failed to maintain their membership in good
    standing in accordance with the CBA, it summarily dismissed petitioners. To make matters worse, the labor
    arbiter and the NLRC shared the same view in holding that "the matter or question, therefore, of determining
    why and how did complainants fail to retain Membership in good standing is not for the company to inquire via
    formal investigation."

    The need for the company investigation is founded on the consistent ruling of this court that the twin
    requirements of notice and hearing which are essential elements of due process must be met in employment-
    termination cases.

    The Decision appealed from is hereby set aside and private respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate
    petitioners to their former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and with full back wages,
    inclusive of allowances and other benefits.

    You might also like