Manila Mandarin V. Nlrc c6dd

MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC and MELBA C. BELONCIO G.R. No. 76989, 1987 Sep 29 GUTIERREZ, JR., J. FACTS: Private respondent, Melba C. Beloncio, assistant head waitress at the hotel's coffee shop, was expelled from the Manila Mandarin Employees Union for acts allegedly inimical to the interests of the union. The charge of disloyalty against Beloncio arose from her emotional remark to a waitress who happened to be a union steward, "Wala akong tiwala sa Union ninyo." The remark was made in the course of a heated discussion regarding Beloncio's efforts to make a lazy and recalcitrant waiter adopt a better attitude towards his work. The union demanded the dismissal from employment of Beloncio on the basis of the union security clause of their collective bargaining agreement and the Hotel acceded by placing Beloncio on forced leave. the Labor Arbiter held that the union was guilty of unfair labor practice when it demanded the separation of Beloncio and the employer was ordered to reinstate her. ISSUES: Is petitioner union is guilty of ULP by reason of the arbitrary use of the union security clause in the CBA? HELD: Yes. The Hotel would not have compelled Beloncio to go on forced leave were it not for the union's insistence and demand to the extent that because of the failure of the hotel to dismiss Beloncio as requested, the union filed a notice of strike with the Ministry of Labor and Employment on the issue of unfair labor practice. Although the CBA contained a union security clause or closed-shop agreement, it is, however, stressed that such are also governed by law and by principles of justice, fair play, and legality. Union security clauses cannot be used by union officials against an employer, much less their own , except with a high sense of responsibility, fairness, prudence, and judiciousness. A union member may not be expelled from her union, and consequently from her job, for personal or impetuous reasons or for causes foreign to the closedshop agreement and in a manner characterized by arbitrariness and whimsicality. Beloncio was merely trying her best to make a hotel bus boy do his work promptly and courteously so as to serve hotel customers in the coffee shop expeditiously and cheerfully. Union hip does not entitle waiters, janitors, and other workers to be sloppy in their work, inattentive to customers, and disrespectful to supervisors. The Union should have disciplined its erring and troublesome instead of causing so much hardship to a member who was only doing her work for the best interests of the employer, all its employees, and the general public whom they serve.