8/13/2019 Gabriel v SOLE

1/2

Gabriel v. Secretary of Labor and Employment (2000)Quisumbing, J.

FACTS:

Petitioners are members of the Executive Board of the Solidbank Union (Union). The Union is the sole andexclusive bargaining agent of Solidbanksrank-and-file employees. Private respondents are union members.

Since the Unions CBA was up for renewal, petitioners decided to retain the services of Atty. Ignacio Lacsina. Ageneral membership meeting for the purpose was called. A majority of the union members signed a resolutionexpressing their conformity with the decision to retain Atty. Lacsina as union counsel.

The Resolution provided:o That 10% of the total economic benefits that may be secured through the negotiations shall be given to

Atty. Lacsina; ando That Solidbank was authorized to check-off the amount of attorneys fees from the first lump sum

payment of benefits to the employees under the new CBA.

After the signing of the new CBA, the Bank, on the request of the Union, made payroll deductions for attorneysfees from the CBA benefits paid to the union members.

Herein respondents filed a complaint against petitioners and the union counsel before the DOLE for illegadeduction of attorneys fees. Petitioners moved for dismissal.

Med-Arbiter: Granted the petition in part.o Ordered the Union to refund the illegally deducted amount to complainants (herein respondents); ando Directed complainants to pay 5% of the total amount to be refunded as attorneys fees in favor of union

counsel Armando Morales.

SOLE: Appeal granted in part.o Refund limited to those union members who have not signified their conformity to the check-off;o Deleted the directive on the award of 5% attorneys fees for lack of basis.

MR: Affirmed with modification.o Unions counsel should be dropped as party litigant;o The workers through their unionshould be made to shoulder the expenses incurred for attorneys fees

charged to the unions general fund/account.

ISSUE + RULING:

Did the respondent Secretary commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the attorneys fees should be charged to theUnions general fund?NO.

In check-off, the employer, on agreement with the Union, or on prior authorization from employees, deducts uniondues or agency fees from the latterswages and remits them directly to the union.

o Primarily for the benefit of the union and only indirectly for the individual employees.

Art. 222 (now 228) provides:

No attorneys fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any colle ctive bargaining negotiations oconclusions of the collective agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting union: Providedhowever, that attorneys fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the pa rties. Anycontract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void.

Art. 241 (now 247) states:

Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessment, attorneys fees, negotiation fees or any otheextraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an individual written authorization dulysigned by the employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction.

Three requisites for the validity of the special assessment of unions incidental expenses, attorneys fees, andrepresentation expenses:1. Authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all members at the general membership meeting called

for the purpose;2. Secretarys record of the minutes of the meeting; and3. Individual written authorization for check-off duly signed by the employees concerned.

In this case, there were no individual written check-off authorizations by the employees concerned. Thus, theassessment cannot be legally deducted by their employer.

Palacol v. Ferrer-Calleja: The express consent of the employees is required, and this consent must be obtained inaccordance with the steps outlined by law, which must be followed to the letter. No shortcuts are allowed.

Stellar Industrial Services, Inc. v. NLRC: Written individual authorization duly signed by the employee concernedis a condition sine qua nonfor such deduction.

8/13/2019 Gabriel v SOLE

2/2