1.) Mandated by law in Art. 111, Book Three of the Labor Code, and
2.) Mandated by the federation where our union is a member.
And that not signing the said resolution can be a ground for:
1.) Withholding the benefit of the member;
2.) Removal from membership;
3.) Posting of names on the unions bulletin board, and
4.) Enforcing a deduction whether or not a member affixed his/her signature.
they said these while the forms for the resolution is being passed and asked to be signed by the members,and while the issue is being discussed.
Under the said circumstances most member have signed the said resolution, and at the same time, the union submitted to the member for approval/signature another resolution making the 10% deduction on the future CBA negotiation(attorneys fee, special assessment fee etc)mandatory. It was not clear during the said meeting whether how many signed the two resolutions mentioned above. Furthermore, a signing campaign was initiated by the union and its officer even after the shifting meeting, by way of gathering signatures in the production, canteen, and service/shuttle. My questions are:
1.) Is the resolution pertaining to php3, 100 deductions in our signing bonus within the bounds of law given the manner of how our signature/approval had been acquired?
2.) Would the deduction be applied to those members who did not affix their signature on the said resolution?
3.) Is our rights as mandated by article 222 (b); art 241 (n) (o) as prescribed is the labor code violated?
4.) Are the steps by which the special assessment issue. the procedure on how it was conducted, our signatures gathered makes it legal and binding?
The union is threatening those who did not sign the resolution with a disciplinary action, citing the Constitution and bylaws of the union as a basis? Are our basic rights with regard to the issue of special assessment be overtaken by the unions constitution and by laws? What is the remedy for the members who are questioning the legality and validity of said resolutions?
6.) Can the union still take from us the said amount as part of our penalty for not signing theresolution?
by the way the union did not inform the members of thier rights in the labor code nor the unions contitution and bylaws,
There were at least 200 employees who did not sign the resolution, nor gave their individual written authorization. So, the deduction was not effected on them. The union had said that they are going to summon the aforementioned members to a hearing, in reference to their refusal to sign the resolution. The said hearing is in accordance with the CBL of the union before an employee can be given a penalty or sanction in violation of the CBL. Instead of calling for a single date or a shifting meeting for the 200 or so employees, the union has opted, through the executive board, to schedule July 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21, 27 and 28, August 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, 24, 25 and 31, and September 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 28 and 29 as the dates for when a member can attend the said hearing. Could there be malice in the move of the executive board to spread the dates for attendance to the hearing in order to weaken the resolve of the members concerned, thus making them sign the questioned resolution? In cases wherein a possible conflict with the union’s CBL in reference to a member’s rights as to that of the Labor Code; which takes precedence over the other? Should the union’s CBL adapt/accept all the provisions of the Labor Code pertaining to the rights and conditions of membership (Art. 241) and other pertinent chapters and articles in relation to membership and labor unions? Would the Supreme Court’s decisions in cases that are similar, i.e. , validity/legality of deduction on special assessment be a guide in settling the issue?