CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC
Membership in the cooperative is on a
COOPERATIVE, INC. (CENECO)
vs. HON. SECRETARY, DOLE, and CENECO
UNION OF RATIONAL EMPLOYEES (CURE)
FACTS:
Petitioner CENECO seeks to annul the order
issued by then Acting Secretary of Labor
Bienvenido E. Laguesma on June 6, 1990,
declaring the projected certification election
unnecessary and directing petitioner CENECO
to continue recognizing private respondent
CENECO Union of Rational Employees
(CURE) as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of all the rank-and-file
employees of petitioner's electric cooperative
for purposes of collective bargaining.
Petitioner CENECO's Argument
= illegality of the employees' membership in
respondent union despite the fact that they
allegedly are still members of the cooperative.
= propriety of the withdrawal of its members
from the cooperative
=There are legal constraints to the filing of the
certification election
=Cited case: Court in Batangas I Electric
Cooperative Labor Union vs. Romeo A. Young,
(BATANGAS case) to the effect that
"employees who at the same time are
members of an electric cooperative are not
entitled to form or join unions for purposes of
collective bargaining agreement, for certainly
an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-
owners."
= claims that it recognizes the employees' right
to self-organization, but avers that this is not
absolute
= med-arbiter has no jurisdiction to rule on the
issue of withdrawal from membership of its
employees; claims that National Electrification
Administration (NEA) has jurisdiction
ISSUE:
WON the employees of CENECO who
withdrew their membership from the
cooperative are entitled to form or join CURE
for purposes of the negotiations for a collective
bargaining agreement proposed by the latter.
RULING:
Yes.
voluntary basis. The right to join an
organization necessarily includes the
equivalent right not to join the same.
Nowhere in said case is it stated that member-
employees are prohibited from withdrawing
their membership in the cooperative in order to
join a labor union.
CENECO never averred non-compliance with
the terms and conditions for withdrawal, if any.
It appears that the Articles of Incorporation of
CENECO do not provide any ground for
withdrawal from membership which accordingly
gives rise to the presumption that the same
may be done at any time and for whatever
reason.
Art I, Sec 9 of the Articles of Inc and By- Laws
of CENECO
"any member may withdraw from
membership upon compliance with such uniform
terms and conditions as the Board may prescribe."
The same sec provides that upon withdrawal:
=the member is merely required to surrender
his membership certificate
=to be refunded his membership fee.
=no other condition or requirement imposed
Hence, there is no just cause for petitioner's
denial of the withdrawal.
The right of the employees to self-
organization is a compelling reason why their
withdrawal from the cooperative must be
allowed.
As pointed out by CURE, the resignation
of the member- employees is an expression of
their preference. The avowed policy of the
State to afford fall protection to labor and to
promote the primacy of free collective
bargaining mandates that the employees' right
to form and join unions for purposes of
collective bargaining be accorded the highest
consideration.
390 employees of CENECO, some of
whom have never been members of the
cooperative, represent a very small percentage
of the cooperative's total membership of
44,000. It is inconceivable how the withdrawal
of a negligible number of members could
adversely affect the business concerns and
operations of CENECO.