GR L 19048; (October, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19048 October 29, 1966
CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC., petitioner, vs. LA UNION UNITED WORKERS ASSOCIATION (PLUM), respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Central Cooperative Exchange, Inc. (CCE) operated a seasonal tobacco redrying plant in Agoo, La Union. Its 1956 redrying season ended on August 31, 1956, and all employees were served termination papers effective that date. Respondent union, La Union United Workers Association (PLUM), was organized and informed CCE of its existence on August 26, 1956, and presented demands on September 23, 1956. For the 1957 season, CCE established a hiring policy giving priority to: (1) recommendees of landowners who sold land to CCE at P0.20 per square meter; (2) recommendees of FACOMAS; and (3) workers from any source or recommended by government officials. Several union members who worked in 1956 were not rehired in 1957. The union charged CCE with unfair labor practice, alleging discrimination based on union membership. A special case involved Dominador Padilla, dismissed in July 1956 on theft charges (later cleared) and not rehired in 1957. The Court of Industrial Relations found CCE guilty of discrimination against union members who were also recommendees of landowners and fit to work, and ordered payment of back wages to Padilla and other listed laborers without reinstatement.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in finding petitioner CCE guilty of unfair labor practice (discrimination) for failing to rehire certain union members for the 1957 redrying season.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. The respondent union failed to substantiate its claim of discrimination. There was no evidence that the union members who were not rehired were recommendees of landowners who sold land at P0.20 per square meter and thus entitled to priority under CCE’s hiring policy. The mere fact that they were union members and not rehired, without more, does not establish unfair labor practice. The termination at the end of the 1956 season was lawful, and the rehiring for 1957 constituted new employment. CCE was free to establish a non-discriminatory hiring policy for the new season. Regarding Dominador Padilla, the Court found he was not entitled to priority as his parents sold land at P0.80, not P0.20, per square meter. His non-rehire was pursuant to the policy, not due to union activities. The union did not meet its burden of proof to show discrimination motivated by union membership.