A05 Elegance v. CIR

Elegance v. CIR Facts: •

•

•

Private respondents were employees of petitioner Elegance, Inc. and members of the PES abor !ssociation. ! certification election was cond"cted in the company between PES and Elegance Employees and #or$ers %nion. &he latter won. Elegance Employees and #or$ers %nion entered into a C'! with Elegance Inc containing a provision for a "nion(shop agreement: "SEC. 3. — The COMPANY agrees to a UNIONSHIP; All present emploees an! or#ers $n the %arga$n$ng &n$t ho are not no mem%ers o' the Un$on( m&st %e)ome mem%ers $th$n th$rt *3+, !as a'ter the s$gn$ng o' th$s agreement as a )on!$t$on o' )ont$n&e! emploment( $th the e-)ept$on o' s&per$sors. I' an !$sp&te ar$ses as to hether an emploee or or#er $s a mem%er o' the UNION o' goo! stan!$ng( th$s !$sp&te shall %e !$spose! o' as gr$ean)e $n the manner here$n pro$!e!.")rala $rt&a/a library

•

•

S"bse)"ently, in a letter dated !pril *, +-, the contracting "nion demanded from the management to dismiss from wor$ the +/ complainants herein allegedly for fail"re to affiliate themselves with the "nion within the period provided for in the "nion(shop provision of the collective bargaining agreement. !s a res"lt, on !pril 0, +-, a notice signed by the president of the company was posted on the b"lletin board, wherein it was anno"nced that effective !pril 1, +- the employees en"merated therein were considered resigned from their employment

•

•

Complainants allege that their separation from the service was illegal beca"se, they were already members of the PES abor !ssociation. 2evertheless they still complied with the "nion(shop provision by applying for membership with the Elegance Employees and #or$ers %nion within the prescribed period of 3 days, thro"gh a letter dated 4arch 5, +-, which they sent by registered mail. Elegance Inc fo"nd no merit in this claim. !ccording to them, the end of the thirty(day period re)"ired by the "nion(shop is !pril 5, +-. Considering that this date is so close to the time when the letter of application was sent by registered mail by complainants, the probability is that said application m"st have been received by the "nion beyond the prescribed period, hence the "nion decided to compel the company to dismiss complainants.

Iss"e: •

#62 the dismissal of the +/ employees is valid p"rs"ant to the %nion(Shop agreement in the C'! between Elegance Inc and the Elegance Employees and #or$ers %nion

7eld: •

•

2o. &he important fact which cannot be ignored is that the private respondents did comply with the "nion shop provision by applying for membership with the "nion within the prescribed period of thirty days, by means of a letter dated 4arch 5*, +- and sent to the said "nion by registered mail. It sho"ld be noted that they were already in the service when the said contract was entered into, and that only a clear and definite showing of their fail"re to affiliate with the "nion within the period fi8ed for that p"rpose wo"ld 9"stify their dismissal, ass"ming that the "nion shop cla"se was applicable to them. Even this point, however, was not altogether free from do"bt at the time, for it ran co"nter to the spirit of the Ind"strial Peace !ct which recognies the right of the employees to self(organiation and to form, 9oin or assist labor organiations of their own choosing.

•

!s stated in the case of of Freeman Shirt 4an"fact"ring Co., Inc., Et. !l. v. CIR: ;&he closed(shop agreement a"thoried "nder Sec. / s"bsec. a