Union Officers' Failure to Act on Member's Appeal Is Unfair Labor Practice

The Supreme Court has clarified an important point for union members and officers alike: when a union's own constitution and by-laws guarantee a member the right to appeal a disciplinary penalty, the union officers' failure to act on that appeal can amount to unfair labor practice (ULP). In Mendoza v. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union (G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016), the Court ruled that ignoring a member's timely appeal—leading to his suspension, disqualification from running for office, and eventual expulsion—violates the constitutional right to self-organization.

The Facts of the Case

Allan Mendoza was a member of the Manila Water Employees Union (MWEU). In 2007, MWEU charged him with non-payment of increased union dues. After a grievance hearing, the union's Executive Board imposed a 30-day suspension. When Mendoza received a second suspension notice, he immediately filed a written appeal under the union's constitution and by-laws, which allowed appeals to the General Membership Assembly. The Executive Board did not act on his appeal.

Mendoza was charged a third time for non-payment of dues and was expelled from the union. Again, his appeal was ignored. Because of his suspension, he was disqualified from running for union Vice-President in the September 2007 elections. He later joined another union, WATER-AFWC, and was elected its President.

Mendoza filed a complaint for unfair labor practices, damages, and attorney's fees before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case, ruling that Mendoza should first exhaust intra-union remedies. The NLRC and the Court of Appeals both dismissed the case on the ground that the dispute was intra-union in nature and thus outside the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction.

The Issue

The central question was whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over Mendoza's complaint, or whether the case should have been filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) as an intra-union dispute.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. The Court held that while some of Mendoza's causes of action were indeed intra-union disputes cognizable by the BLR, his charge of unfair labor practice fell within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters under Article 217 of the Labor Code. Article 247 further provides that the civil aspects of all ULP cases—including claims for moral, exemplary, and other damages, plus attorney's fees—are under the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction.

The Court found that MWEU's constitution and by-laws gave suspended members the right to appeal within three working days, and expelled members the right to appeal within seven days. The Executive Board was obligated to act on these appeals by simple majority vote. Mendoza filed his appeals on time, but the Board simply ignored them.

The Court rejected the union's argument that Mendoza lost his right to appeal because he failed to gather the required 30% or majority petition to convene the General Assembly. As the Court explained, the Executive Board must first act on the member's appeal before the matter could be referred to the general membership. By refusing to act, the Board prevented the appeal process from even beginning.

Unfair Labor Practice Under Article 249

The Court held that the respondents' inaction constituted ULP under Article 249(a) and (b) of the Labor Code, which prohibit labor organizations from restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, and from causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee.

The Court emphasized that the right to self-organization includes the right to join or affiliate with a labor union of one's choosing. By ignoring Mendoza's appeals, the union officers violated his rights as a member, deprived him of due process, and effectively forced him to leave the union. The Court found this conduct willful and in bad faith, warranting an award of P100,000.00 in moral damages, P50,000.00 in exemplary damages, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total award.

Three respondents—Carlos Villa, Ric Briones, and Chito Bernardo—were excluded from liability because the Court found no evidence they participated in the acts complained of.

Practical Takeaways

• Union officers must act on member appeals. When a union's constitution and by-laws grant members the right to appeal disciplinary penalties, officers cannot simply ignore those appeals. Failure to act can constitute unfair labor practice.
• ULP complaints belong to the Labor Arbiter. Even if a dispute also involves intra-union matters, a charge of unfair labor practice under Articles 248 or 249 of the Labor Code falls within the Labor Arbiter's original and exclusive jurisdiction.
• Exhaustion of remedies has limits. A member need not gather the required percentage of signatures to convene a general assembly if the Executive Board itself refuses to act on the initial appeal. The Board cannot use its own inaction to defeat a member's right to appeal.
• Document everything. Mendoza's case succeeded because he kept copies of his written appeals and the union's letters. Union members facing disciplinary action should always submit appeals in writing and keep proof of filing.
• Officers are personally liable. Union officers who actually participate in or ratify unfair labor practices can be held personally liable for damages, as the Court did here.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.