Right To Work Law Position Paper (negative).docx

Pucate, Elaiza Jamez N. Labor Relations

RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW Negative As defined by National Right To Work Committee and the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation in America, Right-To-Work law guarantees that no person can be compelled, as a condition of employment, to join or not to join, nor to pay dues to a labor union. It negates the companies to have a contract providing a union security clause called “Closed-shop Agreement.” 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). Philippine laws consider the validity of closed-shop agreement. Supreme Court expressly stated that a closed-shop is a valid form of union security, and such a provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. (Lirag Textile Mills, Inc. v. Blanco, 109 SCRA 87) It does not bar the freedom of the employees to individually bargain, but it only strengthens the solidarity of the union. Right-to-work law does not need to be passed in the Philippines since there is already an act which regulates the stipulations to be included in such contract. Republic Act No. 3350, amending paragraph (4), subsection (a) of section four of republic act no. 875, provides: "(4) Provided, That nothing in this Act or in any Act or statute of the Republic of the Philippines shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in Section twelve, but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization." Republic Act No. 3350 created an exemption as to the coverage of closed-shop agreements. It excludes the employees who are members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any labor

Pucate, Elaiza Jamez N. Labor Relations organization to protect their Constitutional right under Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Since closed-shop agreements is already regulated, the implementation of right-to-work law will now be considered worthless. Right-to-work law is unconstitutional. Section 10, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that, “No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.” To fall within the prohibition the change must impair the obligation of the existing contract. (Gaspar v. Molina, G.R. 2206) Right-to-work law explicitly prohibits establishments to enter into a closed-shop agreement with their employee. It bars them to exercise their right to contract. Such law changes the intention of the parties to bolster the solidarity between the employees in the union and loyalty with respect to the establishment or company they are working with. It is true that non-impairment clause may be limited, but it is only through the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare. (Abe v. Foster Wheeler Corporation, GR Nos. L-14785 and L-14923, Nov 29, 1960) Prohibiting union-security clauses is not among the limitations stated by the Supreme Court considering that it does not endanger the public welfare. Thus, right-to-work law cannot be passed by the Congress. Right-to-work law does not protect the security of tenure of employees. The supporters of right-to-work law claims that being a non-member in the union is not one of the just and authorized causes of termination of employees, as laid down by Articles 282, 283, and 284 of the Labor Code. However, the employees are bound by the contract they entered. The Supreme Court have stressed the rule that a contract is the law between the parties, and courts have no choice but to enforce such contract so long as it is not contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy. Otherwise, courts would be interfering with the freedom of contract of the parties. Simply put, courts cannot stipulate for the parties or amend the latter's agreement, for to do so would be to alter the real intention of the contracting parties when the contrary function of courts is to give force and effect to the intention of the parties. (Norton Resources and Development Corporation v. All Asia Bank Corporation, G.R. No. 162523) Hence, the employees who signed closed-shop agreements may be terminated under the grounds provided by the Labor Code and by the stipulation indicated in the closed-shop agreement.

Pucate, Elaiza Jamez N. Labor Relations Right-to-work law is anti-union. By enacting such law, the force of labor unions and organizations and its power to represent the collective interest of the workers in negotiations will weaken. Labor union dues are collected from the union members for the sustenance of their union funds. These funds are used for collective bargaining or representation of their members in negotiations with the employees, legal representation, strike fund, safety and healthy funds, and other purposes which are for the benefit of the members of the union. Employees are not forced to join the union. It is not a violation of their freedom to association. They have free will to sign the closed-shop agreement and to enter the company or not. The Supreme Court stated in PADCOM v. Ortigas, G.R. No. 146807, “Neither are we convinced by PADCOMs contention that the automatic membership clause is a violation of its freedom of association. PADCOM was never forced to join the association. It could have avoided such membership by not buying the land from TDC. Nobody forced it to buy the land when it bought the building with the annotation of the condition or lien on the Certificate of Title thereof and accepted the Deed. PADCOM voluntarily agreed to be bound by and respect the condition, and thus to join the Association.”

Right-to-work law should not be passed in the Philippines for it is a wolf in a sheep’s clothing. It appears to be a law which protects the democracy and security of tenure of workers. But what it really does is that it debilitates the activities and power to bargain of the union for its members. It paralyzes the plans and programs prepared by the union to further strengthen their voice to the higher-ups.

Collective bargaining is undeniably more powerful than individual bargaining. Right-to-work law makes it appear that employees can easily reach an agreement with the management if such negotiation is done individually. But the truth is, unions are more prioritized since it represents a larger crowd giving their complaints and proposal with their employers.

“Ang Pinoy parang walis ting-ting pag pinagsama mas malakas mas matibay di kayang baliin di kayang sirain.”