Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    2 Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    Victoriano was dismissed from his job at the Elizalde Rope Factory after resigning from the union due to his religious beliefs prohibiting union affiliation. He sued the company and union. The union argued that Republic Act 3350, which prohibits compulsory union membership for those whose religion forbid it, infringed on the right to freely form associations. However, the court ruled that RA 3350 does not actually prohibit union affiliation, but merely excludes from closed shop agreements those whose religion prohibits it, upholding freedom of association. RA 3350 leaves those of prohibiting religions the choice to join unions and does not coerce or prohibit their membership. Therefore, it was found constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2 Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    67 views2 pages
    Victoriano was dismissed from his job at the Elizalde Rope Factory after resigning from the union due to his religious beliefs prohibiting union affiliation. He sued the company and union. The union argued that Republic Act 3350, which prohibits compulsory union membership for those whose religion forbid it, infringed on the right to freely form associations. However, the court ruled that RA 3350 does not actually prohibit union affiliation, but merely excludes from closed shop agreements those whose religion prohibits it, upholding freedom of association. RA 3350 leaves those of prohibiting religions the choice to join unions and does not coerce or prohibit their membership. Therefore, it was found constitutional.

    Original Title

    2 Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Victoriano was dismissed from his job at the Elizalde Rope Factory after resigning from the union due to his religious beliefs prohibiting union affiliation. He sued the company and union. The union argued that Republic Act 3350, which prohibits compulsory union membership for those whose religion forbid it, infringed on the right to freely form associations. However, the court ruled that RA 3350 does not actually prohibit union affiliation, but merely excludes from closed shop agreements those whose religion prohibits it, upholding freedom of association. RA 3350 leaves those of prohibiting religions the choice to join unions and does not coerce or prohibit their membership. Therefore, it was found constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views2 pages

    2 Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    Victoriano was dismissed from his job at the Elizalde Rope Factory after resigning from the union due to his religious beliefs prohibiting union affiliation. He sued the company and union. The union argued that Republic Act 3350, which prohibits compulsory union membership for those whose religion forbid it, infringed on the right to freely form associations. However, the court ruled that RA 3350 does not actually prohibit union affiliation, but merely excludes from closed shop agreements those whose religion prohibits it, upholding freedom of association. RA 3350 leaves those of prohibiting religions the choice to join unions and does not coerce or prohibit their membership. Therefore, it was found constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BENJAMIN VICTORIANO, vs. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION and ELIZALDE ROPE FACTORY, INC.

    Facts: Victoriano was an employee of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. and also a member of a religious
    sect Iglesia Ni Crsito. As such employee, he was a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union
    which had a closed shop agreement with the Company that membership in the Union shall be
    required as a condition of employment for all its permanent employees.

    Prior to its amendment, Republic Act No. 875 allows the employer to require as a condition of
    employment membership in a labor organization, if such organization is the representative of the
    employees. However, the provision was later amended by the enactment of Republic Act No. 3350,
    which reads: … “but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit
    affiliation of their members in any such labor organization”.

    Being a member of a religious sect that prohibits the affiliation of its members with any labor
    organization, Victoriano presented his resignation to the Union. In turn, the Union asked the
    Company to dismiss Victoriano from the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from the
    Union as a member. The company dismissed him and notified Vicotriano that unless he could
    achieve a satisfactory arrangement with the Union, the Company would be constrained to dismiss
    him from This prompted Victoriano to file an action to enjoin the Company and the Union from
    dismissing him. The Union assails the constitutionality of RA No. 3350, contending that it infringes on
    the fundamental right to form lawful associations guaranteed by the Bill of Rights; and the also
    contending the court jurisdiction over the case. Upon the facts given by both parties and after the
    deliberation of the trial the lower court rendered judgement in favour of the petitioner Victoriano.
    Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE: Whether RA No. 3550 is unconstitutional for infringing on the fundamental freedom to form
    associations.

    HELD: No. The court stated that Republic Act No. 3350 prohibits and bans the members of such
    religious sects that forbid affiliation of their members with labor unions from joining labor unions
    appears nowhere in the wording of the said R.A. Furthermore, both the Constitution and Republic
    Act No. 875 recognize freedom of association.

    RA No. 3350 merely excludes ipso jure from the application and coverage of the closed shop
    agreement the employees belonging to any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their
    members with any labor organization. What the exception provides, therefore, is that members of
    said religious sects cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have
    closed shop agreements with the employers; that in spite of any closed shop agreement, members
    of said religious sects cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole
    ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining union.

    It is clear, therefore, that the assailed Act, far from infringing the constitutional provision on
    freedom of association, upholds and reinforces it. It does not prohibit the members of said religious
    sects from affiliating with labor unions. It still leaves to said members the liberty and the power to
    affiliate, or not to affiliate, with labor unions. If, notwithstanding their religious beliefs, the members
    of said religious sects prefer to sign up with the labor union, they can do so. If in deference and
    fealty to their religious faith, they refuse to sign up, they can do so; the law does not coerce them to
    join; neither does the law prohibit them from joining; and neither may the employer or labor union
    compel them to join. Republic Act No. 3350, therefore, does not violate the constitutional provision
    on freedom of association.

    You might also like