Dear PAO,
I am a newly hired professor in a prestigious university in Metro Manila. When I received my first salary, I noticed an item deduction on my payslip which indicates “union dues.” Hence, I visited the payroll department for clarification and was informed that it is mandatory to join the employees’ union to guarantee continued employment and company benefits. Is it legal for a company to automatically enroll an employee to a union even without procuring his/her consent?
Adidang
Dear Adidang,
The general rule is that employees have a constitutional right to self-organization, which includes the freedom to form, join, or choose a labor organization according to their own free will and without undue interference. This also includes the freedom to choose not to join a labor organization. Consequently, acts that interfere with or violate an employee’s right to self-organization may constitute unfair labor practices.
However, the Philippine Labor Code recognizes “union security” arrangements, such as a union shop or closed shop, where membership in the recognized bargaining union can be made a condition of employment or continued employment.
Section 259(e) [formerly Section 248(e)] of the same Code provides:
“ART. 259. [248] Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. – It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:
“xxx
“(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. xxx”
Thus, requiring an employee to become a member of a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition of employment is not, by itself, illegal, provided that the requirement is based on a valid and enforceable union-security provision.
In SLORD Development Corporation vs. Benerando M. Noya, [G.R. No. 232687, February 4, 2019; Ponente: Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe], citing BPI v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, [G.R. No. 164301, August 10, 2010; Ponente: Associate Chief Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro], the Supreme Court explained that a union-security clause in a CBA does not, by itself, violate the constitutional right to self-organization:
“When certain employees are obliged to join a particular union as a requisite for continued employment, as in the case of Union Security Clauses, this condition is a valid restriction of the freedom or right not to join any labor organization because it is in favor of unionism. This Court, on occasion, has even held that a union security clause in a CBA is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution.
“A closed-shop agreement, in particular, is an arrangement under which the employer agrees to hire only members of the contracting union, who must remain members in good standing as a condition for retaining their employment. The Supreme Court has described the closed shop as the ‘most prized achievement of unionism,’ as it strengthens union membership, facilitates the collection of union dues, and promotes solidarity among union members.”
Accordingly, individual consent is not necessarily required for the validity or enforcement of a union-security obligation. An employee may be bound by such obligation by virtue of the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), provided that the following conditions are satisfied:
– The employee is part of the bargaining unit covered by the CBA;
– There is a valid and subsisting collective bargaining agreement;
– The CBA contains a valid union-security, union-shop, or closed-shop provision; and
– The union-security provision legally applies to the employee, including compliance with any statutory or recognized exceptions.
Thus, in answer to your query, the mere absence of an employee’s individual consent does not necessarily invalidate a union-security requirement. An employee may automatically be enrolled to a union as long as he/she is legally covered by a valid union-security provision in an applicable CBA and its enforcement is consistent with the Labor Code and prevailing jurisprudence.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
