Right-to-work Law (affirmative).docx

PESTRANA, RYUEL G. LABOR RELATIONS

RIGHT TO WORK LAW Affirmative Side

According to the Legal Defense Foundation in the United States of America, right-to-work laws prohibit union security agreements, or agreements between employers and labor unions, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government ban on contractual agreements between employers and union employees requiring workers to pay for the costs of union representation.

A closed-shop agreement is an agreement whereby an employer binds himself to hire only members of the contracting union who must continue to remain members in good standing to keep their jobs. (National Labor Union v. Aguinaldo's Echague Inc., 97 Phil. 184)

Labor Code of the Philippines has several provisions under which an employee may be validly terminated, namely: (1) just causes under Article 282; (2) authorized causes under Article 283; (3) termination due to disease under Article 284; and (4) termination by the employee or resignation under Article 285. The said provisions did not mention as ground the enforcement of the Union Security Clause in the CBA. As discussed by Justice Carpio in the case of BPI v BPI Employees Union, G.R. No. 164301, they (employees) cannot be compelled to join the Union as it is their constitutional right to join or not to join any organization… The State policy of promoting unionism should not be blindly and indiscriminately implemented at the expense of other rights as enshrined in the Constitution and the laws.

Consequently, the Labor Code declares that it shall be unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly interfere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to selforganization, which includes the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose or for their mutual aid and protection. (Article 246, Labor Code)

PESTRANA, RYUEL G. LABOR RELATIONS

In terminating an employee, there must also be an observance of the twin-notice rule. We cannot override an employees right to due process. In Carino v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Supreme Court took a firm stand in holding that: The employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services of his employees especially so when it is made upon the request of a labor union pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement x x x. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. The right of an employee to be informed of the charges against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his side in a controversy with either the company or his own Union is not wiped away by a Union Security Clause or a Union Shop Clause in a collective bargaining agreement. An employee is entitled to be protected not only from a company which disregards his rights but also from his own Union, the leadership of which could yield to the temptation of swift and arbitrary expulsion from membership and mere dismissal from his job."

Thought must be given to the freedom of association, likewise an aspect of intellectual liberty. For the late Professor Howe a constitutionalist and in his lifetime the biographer of the great Holmes, it even partakes of the political theory of pluralistic sovereignty. So great is the respect for the autonomy accorded voluntary societies. Such a right implies at the very least that one can determine for himself whether or not he should join or refrain from joining a labor organization, an institutional device for promoting the welfare of the working man. A closed shop, on the other hand, is inherently coercive. That is why, as is unmistakably reflected in our decisions, the latest of which is Guijarno v. Court of Industrial Relations, it is far from being a favorite of the law. For a statutory provision then to further curtail its operation, is precisely to follow the dictates of sound public policy.

In National Labor Relations Board v. General Motors Corporation, the US Supreme Court explained that the Taft-Hartley Act amendments were intended to accomplish twin purposes, one of which is to abolish closed shop to eliminate serious abuses of compulsory unionism. These additions were intended to accomplish twin purposes. On the one hand, the most serious abuses of compulsory unionism were eliminated by abolishing the closed shop. On the other hand, Congress recognized that in the absence of a union-security provision many employees sharing the benefits of what unions are able to accomplish by collective bargaining will refuse to pay their share. Consequently, under the

PESTRANA, RYUEL G. LABOR RELATIONS

new law employers would still be permitted to enter into agreements requiring all the employees in a given bargaining unit to become members 30 days after being hired, but expulsion from a union cannot be a ground of compulsory discharge if the worker is not delinquent in paying his initiation fee or dues. The amendments were intended only to remedy the most serious abuses of compulsory union membership and yet give employers and unions who feel that such agreements promoted stability by eliminating free riders the right to continue such arrangements. Ibid. As far as the federal law was concerned, all employees could be required to pay their way. The bill abolishes the closed shop but permits voluntary agreements for requiring such forms of compulsory membership as the union shop or maintenance of membership.

QUESTIONS:

1. Does closed-shop agreement or being a member of a union guarantee security of tenure?