ASG Law

Tag: Union Dues

  • Employer Interference: Understanding Unfair Labor Practices in the Philippines

    Non-Remittance of Union Dues: An Unfair Labor Practice

    G.R. No. 235569, December 13, 2023

    Imagine workers diligently paying their union dues, only to find out their employer is withholding those funds. This scenario isn’t just about money; it’s about power, workers’ rights, and the very foundation of collective bargaining. In the Philippines, the Supreme Court recently addressed this issue, clarifying when such actions constitute an unfair labor practice and who has the authority to bring such claims.

    This case, South Cotabato Integrated Port Services, Incorporated (SCIPSI) vs. Officer-in-Charge Romeo Montefalco, Jr., revolves around the non-remittance of union dues collected by an employer. The key legal question: Does this fall under the jurisdiction of a Mediator-Arbiter as an “intra-union dispute,” or is it an unfair labor practice (ULP) that must be addressed by the Labor Arbiter? The Supreme Court’s decision offers crucial insights into the boundaries of labor rights and employer responsibilities.

    The Legal Framework: Unfair Labor Practices and Jurisdiction

    Philippine labor law vigorously protects the right of workers to self-organization and collective bargaining. To ensure these rights are upheld, the Labor Code prohibits unfair labor practices (ULPs) by employers. Article 259 of the Labor Code specifically lists actions that constitute ULP, including:

    ARTICLE 259. [248] Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. — It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:

    (a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;

    This provision is crucial because it shields employees’ ability to form, join, and participate in labor unions without employer interference. Acts that undermine a union’s financial stability or ability to represent its members can be construed as interference.

    Jurisdiction is paramount. The Labor Arbiter handles ULP cases, while Mediator-Arbiters (Med-Arbiters) address representation cases and intra-union disputes. An “intra-union dispute” involves conflicts among union members regarding internal matters like elections, finances, or violations of the union’s constitution and by-laws.

    For example, a dispute over the validity of a union election would fall under the Med-Arbiter’s jurisdiction. However, an employer’s direct interference with a union’s ability to function properly is a matter for the Labor Arbiter.

    The SCIPSI Case: A Story of Withheld Dues and Disputed Authority

    The Makar Port Labor Organization (MPLO), represented by its president Mario Marigon, filed a complaint against South Cotabato Integrated Port Services, Inc. (SCIPSI) for unfair labor practice. MPLO alleged that SCIPSI had withheld union dues collected from members through salary deductions, from August 2006 to February 2007. SCIPSI argued that Marigon lacked the authority to file the complaint because he had been dismissed from employment and a new set of union officers were in place. SCIPSI also claimed the ULP charge had prescribed.

    Here’s a breakdown of the procedural journey:

    • Med-Arbiter Level: The Med-Arbiter initially ruled in favor of MPLO, ordering SCIPSI to release the unremitted dues. However, the Med-Arbiter also noted that Marigon was not a party-in-interest due to his dismissal.
    • Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR): The BLR modified the Med-Arbiter’s order, directing MPLO to submit a list of members and designate an authorized representative to receive the dues. The BLR characterized the case as an intra-union dispute.
    • Court of Appeals (CA): The CA affirmed the BLR’s decision, upholding the Med-Arbiter’s jurisdiction and stating that Marigon’s lack of authority was moot because the labor union actively participated in the proceedings.

    The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the CA and BLR. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Marigon’s complaint clearly alleged ULP, specifically SCIPSI’s interference with the employees’ right to self-organization by withholding union dues.

    The Court quoted its reasoning:

    Clearly, the allegations in Marigon’s Petition did not involve an intra­union dispute as ruled by the BLR and the CA. On the contrary, it was a case of ULP which had a direct connection to the alleged noncompliance of SCIPSI with the check-off provision in its CBA with MPLO. Such noncompliance of SCIPSI is in the form of an interference with the right of its rank-and-file employees to self-organization under Article 259(a) of the Labor Code.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of Marigon’s authority, stating:

    Since Marigon was no longer an employee, he cannot be authorized to represent and collect union fees on MPLO’s behalf. At this juncture, Med-Arbiter Demetillo should have dismissed Marigon’s Petition since a complaint is not deemed as filed if done by a person who was not authorized to do so. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect.

    Practical Implications: Protecting Workers’ Rights and Union Integrity

    This ruling reinforces the importance of employers’ compliance with check-off provisions in collective bargaining agreements. Failure to remit union dues can be construed as an attempt to weaken the union, thereby interfering with employees’ right to self-organization. It also highlights the need for unions to ensure that their representatives are duly authorized and are active members.

    Key Lessons:

    • Employers must remit union dues as agreed in the CBA to avoid ULP charges.
    • Unions must ensure their representatives are active members and duly authorized.
    • The nature of the complaint determines jurisdiction: ULP goes to the Labor Arbiter, intra-union disputes to the Med-Arbiter.

    Hypothetical Example:

    Imagine a company that suddenly stops remitting union dues, claiming financial difficulties. Even if the claim is true, the union can file an ULP case with the Labor Arbiter, arguing that the non-remittance interferes with its ability to function and represent its members effectively.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

    Q: What is a check-off provision in a CBA?

    A: A check-off provision is a clause in a collective bargaining agreement that authorizes the employer to deduct union dues from employees’ salaries and remit them directly to the union.

    Q: What constitutes unfair labor practice by an employer?

    A: Unfair labor practices include actions that interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, such as forming or joining a union.

    Q: Who has jurisdiction over ULP cases?

    A: Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over unfair labor practice cases.

    Q: What is an intra-union dispute?

    A: An intra-union dispute is a conflict among union members regarding internal matters such as elections, finances, or interpretation of the union’s constitution and by-laws.

    Q: Who has jurisdiction over intra-union disputes?

    A: Mediator-Arbiters have jurisdiction over intra-union disputes.

    Q: Can a dismissed employee represent a labor union in a legal case?

    A: Generally, no. A dismissed employee who is no longer a member of the bargaining unit typically lacks the authority to represent the union.

    ASG Law specializes in labor law and unfair labor practices. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Upholding Union Dues Requirements: When Increased Fees Need Member Approval

    The Supreme Court affirmed that a labor union cannot collect increased agency fees from non-union members without strict compliance with legal requirements, particularly the approval of the increase by a majority of its members in a duly called general membership meeting. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in the Labor Code to ensure fairness and transparency in the collection of union dues and agency fees. It serves as a reminder that while unions have the right to collect fees for benefits extended, this right is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law, protecting the interests of both union and non-union employees.

    Can a Union Increase Your Dues? Inside the Fight Over Fair Fees at The Peninsula Manila

    This case revolves around a dispute between the Peninsula Employees Union (PEU) and a group of non-union employees (NAE) at The Peninsula Manila Hotel concerning the collection of agency fees. PEU sought to increase these fees from one percent to two percent of the employees’ monthly salaries, citing its affiliation with the National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurants and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN). The central legal question is whether PEU complied with the necessary requirements under the Labor Code to validly increase these fees. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the non-union employees, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the law when increasing union dues.

    The heart of the matter lies in Article 250 (n) and (o) of the Labor Code, which outlines the process for levying increased union dues. The law mandates three key requirements: first, authorization through a written resolution approved by a majority of all members at a general membership meeting called specifically for that purpose; second, a detailed record of the meeting minutes, including a list of attendees, votes cast, the purpose of the fees, and the recipient; and third, individual written authorizations for check-off, duly signed by the employees. These requirements serve as a safeguard to ensure that any increase in union dues is democratically approved and transparently implemented. Without these protections, employees could be subjected to arbitrary or unjustified fee increases.

    In this case, PEU claimed that its general membership approved the increased dues during an October 2008 meeting. However, the Court found that the minutes of this meeting did not adequately demonstrate that the increase was properly deliberated and approved. While the minutes mentioned the need to implement the two percent dues due to PEU’s affiliation with NUWHRAIN, they did not explicitly state that the membership had voted in favor of the increase. Building on this point, the Court noted that a subsequent resolution issued by PEU in July 2010, which sought to retroactively confirm the approval, could not compensate for the initial lack of proper authorization. The Court underscored that the July 2010 resolution was not issued to approve the increase, but merely to affirm a prior action that was never properly established.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted that the individual check-off authorizations submitted by PEU were inconsequential because they were contingent on the valid approval of the increased dues. In other words, even if some employees had signed authorizations allowing the deduction of two percent from their salaries, these authorizations were invalid because the underlying increase in dues had not been properly authorized. The Court reinforced that the express consent of employees to any deduction from their compensation must be obtained by strictly following the steps outlined in the law. This strict interpretation is intended to protect employees from unauthorized or coercive deductions from their wages.

    “Jurisprudence states that the express consent of the employee to any deduction in his compensation is required to be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by the law, which must be followed to the letter.”

    This ruling has significant implications for labor unions and employees alike. It serves as a stern reminder that unions must meticulously comply with the requirements of the Labor Code when increasing union dues or agency fees. Failure to do so can result in legal challenges and the invalidation of the increase. For employees, the decision reinforces their right to transparent and democratic processes in the management of union funds. It also provides legal recourse if they are subjected to unauthorized or improperly authorized deductions from their paychecks.

    The Court cited specific provisions of the Labor Code to emphasize its decision. Article 259 (e) recognizes the right of a collective bargaining agent to assess reasonable fees from non-union members who benefit from a collective bargaining agreement. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to the requirements outlined in Article 250 (n) and (o). These provisions mandate that any special assessment or extraordinary fee must be authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all members in a general membership meeting, and that individual written authorizations for check-off must be duly signed by the employees. The Court’s decision underscores that these provisions must be read together to ensure a fair and balanced approach to the collection of union dues and agency fees.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that it found no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals in granting the petition and finding that the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (OSEC) gravely abused its discretion. The OSEC’s order allowing PEU to collect the increased agency fees was deemed patently contrary to law and therefore correctable through certiorari. Certiorari is a legal remedy used to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion on the part of a government agency or lower court. In this case, the Court found that the OSEC’s decision was so flawed that it warranted the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.

    This approach contrasts with a more lenient interpretation, where substantial compliance might suffice. The Court made clear that strict adherence to the law is required in matters affecting employees’ compensation. This strict approach is rooted in the recognition that employees are often in a vulnerable position and need legal protection against unauthorized deductions from their wages. It also promotes transparency and accountability in the management of union funds, ensuring that unions act in the best interests of their members and non-union employees.

    Building on this principle, the decision reinforces the importance of accurate record-keeping and documentation by labor unions. Unions must maintain detailed and accurate minutes of their meetings, including a list of attendees, votes cast, and the specific purpose of any special assessments or fees. These records serve as evidence of compliance with the Labor Code and can be crucial in defending against legal challenges. In the absence of such records, it can be difficult for a union to demonstrate that it has properly authorized an increase in dues or fees.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a valuable guide for labor unions and employees in the Philippines. It clarifies the legal requirements for increasing union dues and agency fees, and underscores the importance of strict compliance with the Labor Code. By adhering to these requirements, unions can ensure that they are acting fairly and transparently, while employees can protect their rights and interests. The decision promotes a more equitable and balanced relationship between labor unions and employees, fostering a more harmonious and productive workplace.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Peninsula Employees Union (PEU) followed the correct legal procedures to increase agency fees for non-union members. The court examined if the increase was properly authorized by its members.
    What is an agency fee? An agency fee is a payment made by non-union members to a union that represents them in collective bargaining. It covers the costs of negotiating and administering the collective bargaining agreement that benefits all employees.
    What does the Labor Code say about increasing union dues? The Labor Code requires that any increase in union dues or special assessments must be authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all members in a general membership meeting. Detailed meeting minutes and individual check-off authorizations are also required.
    What did the Court rule about the minutes of the October 2008 meeting? The Court found that the minutes of the October 2008 meeting did not clearly show that the increase in union dues had been properly deliberated and approved by the PEU membership. This lack of clarity was a key factor in the Court’s decision.
    Why was the July 2010 resolution not sufficient? The July 2010 resolution was intended to confirm or ratify a prior action. However, the Court determined that the prior action—the approval of the increased dues—had not been properly established, so the resolution could not retroactively validate the increase.
    What is a check-off authorization? A check-off authorization is a written consent from an employee allowing their employer to deduct union dues or other fees from their wages and remit them to the union. These authorizations must be obtained individually and voluntarily.
    What happens if a union doesn’t follow the rules for increasing dues? If a union fails to comply with the requirements of the Labor Code when increasing dues, the increase can be deemed invalid. Employees may be able to challenge the increase in court or through administrative channels.
    What was the main takeaway of this case? The main takeaway is that labor unions must strictly adhere to the requirements of the Labor Code when increasing union dues or agency fees. This includes obtaining proper authorization from their members and maintaining accurate records.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PENINSULA EMPLOYEES UNION vs. ESQUIVEL, G.R. NO. 218454, December 01, 2016

  • Union Dues and Member Rights: Ensuring Valid Fee Increases in Labor Law

    The Supreme Court ruled that a union cannot retroactively collect increased agency fees from non-union members if it fails to properly authorize the increase through a written resolution approved by a majority of its members during a duly called general membership meeting. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when increasing union dues, protecting the rights of both union and non-union employees.

    When Can Unions Raise Fees? Protecting Employee Rights in Fee Hikes

    This case revolves around the Peninsula Employees Union (PEU) and its attempt to increase union dues after affiliating with the National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurants and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN). The PEU sought to raise union dues/agency fees from one percent to two percent of the rank and file employees’ monthly salaries, arguing that its affiliation with NUWHRAIN necessitated the increase. However, non-union members contested this increase, leading to a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court. At the heart of the matter was whether the PEU followed the legally mandated procedures for increasing union dues, thereby justifying the collection of increased agency fees from non-union members.

    The Labor Code outlines specific requirements for a valid levy of increased union dues, as interpreted by case law. These include: (1) a written resolution authorizing the increase, approved by a majority of all members at a general membership meeting; (2) a secretary’s record of the meeting minutes, detailing the members present, votes cast, and the purpose of the assessment; and (3) individual written authorizations for check-off, signed by the employees concerned. The Supreme Court emphasized that all three documentary requirements must be met to justify a valid increase in union dues. The court’s stringent stance protects employees from arbitrary fee hikes and ensures transparency in union financial matters. It reinforces the principle that unions must adhere to democratic processes when managing membership fees.

    In this case, the PEU argued that a General Membership Resolution (GMR) confirmed the approval of the deduction of two percent union dues. However, the Supreme Court found that the minutes of the General Membership Meeting did not sufficiently demonstrate that the increase had been duly deliberated and approved. While the minutes mentioned the implementation of the increased dues due to the affiliation with NUWHRAIN, it lacked explicit evidence of a vote or thorough discussion on the matter. The court underscored that the GMR, issued after the fact, could not retroactively validate the increase. Because the initial steps for approval were not demonstrably followed, the subsequent attempt to ratify the increase was deemed insufficient. This highlights the importance of documenting the decision-making process within union meetings meticulously.

    The Supreme Court pointed out that the absence of evidence of due deliberation and approval during the initial meeting could not be remedied by a later resolution attempting to confirm or ratify the decision. The Court stated:

    It is evident from the foregoing that while the matter of implementing the two percent (2%) union dues was taken up during the PEU-NUWHRAIN’s 8th General Membership Meeting on October 28, 2008, there was no sufficient showing that the same had been duly deliberated and approved.

    Building on this principle, the Court emphasized the significance of proper documentation. The Supreme Court decision clarifies that unions must meticulously follow all procedural requirements when increasing dues. Specifically, the minutes of the general membership meeting must explicitly reflect a formal approval process, including deliberation and voting on the proposed increase. Should this process not be duly recorded, any subsequent resolution attempting to retroactively validate the increase will be deemed insufficient. The Court further held that if the members approved the increase in union dues, that detail should have been mentioned in the minutes and the GMR of the same date. These requirements ensure transparency and protect the rights of union members.

    This ruling has significant implications for both union members and non-union employees. For union members, it reinforces their right to participate in decisions regarding union dues and ensures that increases are not imposed arbitrarily. For non-union employees who benefit from collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), it clarifies the limits of agency fees and ensures that they are not required to pay more than what is legally justified. By requiring strict compliance with procedural requirements, the Supreme Court has struck a balance between the rights of unions to manage their finances and the rights of employees to be protected from unauthorized deductions. The Court’s decision safeguards the financial interests of employees. By mandating stringent adherence to procedural requirements, it ensures that any increase in dues or fees must be supported by evidence of proper deliberation and approval from the union membership.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the necessity of individual check-off authorizations. Given that the process of increasing union dues was flawed, the submission of check-off authorizations becomes inconsequential. The Court underscored the necessity of obtaining express consent from employees for any deduction in their compensation. This consent must be obtained by adhering strictly to the steps outlined in the law. The Court’s emphasis on strict compliance with legal procedures highlights the importance of transparency and fairness in union operations. Ensuring that all requirements are meticulously followed not only protects the rights of individual employees but also fosters a more democratic and accountable union environment.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Peninsula Employees Union (PEU) validly increased union dues/agency fees from one percent to two percent of employees’ monthly salaries.
    What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court ruled that the PEU failed to comply with the legal requirements for a valid increase in union dues, making the collection of increased agency fees unjustified.
    What are the requirements for increasing union dues? The requirements include a written resolution of the majority of all members, a secretary’s record of the meeting minutes, and individual written authorizations for check-off.
    Why was the General Membership Resolution (GMR) deemed insufficient? The GMR was deemed insufficient because the minutes of the General Membership Meeting did not show that the increase had been duly deliberated and approved.
    What is an agency fee? An agency fee is a fee collected by a union from non-union members who benefit from a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union.
    Can a union retroactively validate an increase in union dues? No, a union cannot retroactively validate an increase in union dues if the initial approval process was flawed.
    What is a check-off authorization? A check-off authorization is an individual written authorization signed by an employee allowing deductions from their compensation for union dues or other fees.
    Who benefits from this Supreme Court ruling? Both union members and non-union employees benefit, as it protects their rights regarding union dues and agency fees.

    In conclusion, this case reinforces the importance of unions adhering to procedural requirements when increasing dues, ensuring that the rights of both union and non-union employees are protected. The ruling serves as a reminder that unions must follow democratic processes and provide transparent documentation to justify any increase in fees.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PENINSULA EMPLOYEES UNION VS. MICHAEL B. ESQUIVEL, G.R. NO. 218454, December 01, 2016

  • Union Dues and Tuition Fee Hikes: Protecting Faculty Benefits Under the Law

    In Eduardo J. Mariño, Jr. v. Gil Y. Gamilla, the Supreme Court addressed whether a faculty union could collect attorney’s fees from a benefits package funded by tuition fee increases. The Court ruled that such deductions were illegal because Republic Act No. 6728 mandates that 70% of tuition increases must directly benefit teaching and non-teaching personnel. The decision emphasizes the importance of protecting faculty benefits and strictly adhering to legal requirements for union assessments and check-offs. This case highlights the limitations on unions’ ability to collect fees from funds earmarked for specific employee benefits.

    The P42 Million Package: Bargained Benefit or Protected Increment?

    This case emerged from disputes within the University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU). Several controversies arose between the Mariño Group, then-leaders of USTFU, and a group of UST professors (the Gamilla Group) regarding the management of union funds and the validity of certain collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). At the heart of the dispute was a P42 million economic benefits package granted to faculty members. This package was part of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed between UST and USTFU. This MOA aimed to provide additional economic benefits for the fourth and fifth years of the 1988-1993 CBA, specifically covering the period from June 1, 1992, to May 31, 1993. The central legal question: Can a union collect attorney’s fees from an economic package intended for faculty benefits, especially when that package originates from a statutory allocation of tuition fee increases?

    A key point of contention was a 10% check-off, amounting to P4.2 million, which the Mariño Group collected from the P42 million package. They argued that this was a lawful deduction to cover the union’s efforts in securing the benefits. However, the Gamilla Group challenged this, arguing that the P42 million was primarily sourced from the 70% allocation of tuition fee increases mandated by Republic Act No. 6728, which is meant to directly benefit the faculty. This law stipulates that a significant portion of tuition increases must be allocated to the salaries, wages, and benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel. The issue escalated through the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and eventually reached the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court sided with the Gamilla Group, ultimately determining that the P4.2 million check-off was indeed illegal. The Court’s decision rested on two primary grounds. First, it affirmed that the P42 million economic benefits package was sourced from the faculty’s share in tuition fee increases under Republic Act No. 6728. This means the funds were legally earmarked for the direct benefit of the faculty. The Court emphasized that because the law requires these funds to be used for specific purposes, they cannot be diminished by deductions for attorney’s fees or other union expenses.

    Furthermore, the Court addressed the legality of the check-off itself under the Labor Code. Article 222(b) of the Labor Code prohibits attorney’s fees, negotiation fees, or similar charges from being imposed on individual members of a contracting union. While attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds under certain conditions, the Court clarified that the P42 million package was not a “union fund.” Rather, it was a fund intended for all members of the bargaining unit, regardless of their union membership status. Therefore, the deduction of P4.2 million effectively reduced the benefits accruing to individual faculty members, contravening both the Labor Code and the intent of Republic Act No. 6728. The Court underscored that strict compliance with legal requirements is essential when special assessments or check-offs impact employee compensation.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court further examined whether the USTFU complied with the prerequisites for a valid special assessment or check-off. The Court referenced Article 241(n) and (o) of the Labor Code. These provisions require a written resolution authorized by a majority of union members, a record of the meeting minutes, and individual written authorization from each employee for the deduction. Similarly, the USTFU Constitution and By-Laws mandated ratification by the general membership through secret balloting for any special assessments. In this case, the Mariño Group attempted to meet these requirements through a document that combined ratification of the MOA and authorization for the check-off. The Court found this insufficient.

    The Court clarified that combining the authorization for the check-off with the ratification of the P42 million economic benefits package tainted the consent of USTFU members. Given the substantial award of economic benefits, it was unreasonable to assume that any member would casually reject the package. However, members had no option to approve the benefits without simultaneously authorizing the check-off of union dues and special assessments. This lack of clear separation between the benefit and the assessment undermined the legitimacy of the authorization. The ruling ensures that faculty members receive the full benefits mandated by law and collective bargaining agreements, safeguarding their economic interests against unauthorized deductions.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the USTFU could legally collect attorney’s fees from the P42 million economic benefits package, which was largely sourced from tuition fee increases under Republic Act No. 6728.
    What is Republic Act No. 6728? Republic Act No. 6728, also known as the “Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education Act,” mandates that a certain percentage of tuition fee increases be allocated to the salaries, wages, and benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel.
    Why did the Supreme Court disallow the P4.2 million check-off? The Court disallowed the check-off because the P42 million benefits package was primarily funded by tuition fee increases mandated by law to go directly to faculty, and because the authorization for the check-off was improperly combined with the ratification of the benefits package.
    What are the requirements for a valid check-off or special assessment? A valid check-off requires authorization by a written resolution of the majority of union members, a record of the meeting minutes, and individual written authorization from the employee, specifying the amount, purpose, and beneficiary of the deduction.
    What did the Court mean by “union funds” in this context? The Court clarified that the P42 million was not considered “union funds” because it was intended for all members of the bargaining unit, whether or not they were members of the USTFU.
    What is the significance of Article 222(b) of the Labor Code? Article 222(b) of the Labor Code prohibits attorney’s fees, negotiation fees, or similar charges from being imposed on individual members of a contracting union. It mandates that these fees should only be charged against union funds.
    What happened to the disputed funds after the Supreme Court’s ruling? The Supreme Court ordered the petitioners to reimburse the P4.2 million to the faculty members of the University of Santo Tomas, belonging to the collective bargaining unit.
    How does this ruling affect labor unions and collective bargaining agreements? This ruling clarifies the limitations on labor unions’ ability to collect fees from funds that are legally earmarked for specific employee benefits, ensuring that faculty members receive the full benefits mandated by law and CBAs.

    This case emphasizes the need for transparency and adherence to legal procedures when dealing with union dues and employee benefits. The Supreme Court’s decision protects faculty rights and sets a precedent for ensuring that legally mandated benefits are not eroded by unauthorized deductions. The importance of legally sound labor practices and the safeguarding of faculty interests is, thus, emphasized.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: EDUARDO J. MARIÑO, JR. vs. GIL Y. GAMILLA, G.R. No. 149763, July 07, 2009

  • Union Dues and Attorney’s Fees: Protecting Employee Rights in Collective Bargaining

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Gabriel v. Secretary of Labor and Employment clarifies the limitations on deducting attorney’s fees from employees’ wages for collective bargaining negotiations. The Court firmly establishes that such deductions require explicit, individual written consent from each employee. This ruling protects workers from forced contributions and ensures that the financial burden of union representation is borne by the union itself, safeguarding the individual rights of employees in collective bargaining agreements.

    SolidBank Union’s Fees: Whose Responsibility Is It Anyway?

    The case originated from a dispute within the SolidBank Union regarding the legality of attorney’s fees deducted from employees’ benefits following a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The union’s Executive Board had retained a lawyer to negotiate the CBA, agreeing to pay him 10% of the total economic benefits secured. This agreement was approved at a general membership meeting, and the bank was authorized to deduct the attorney’s fees from the employees’ lump sum payments. However, some union members contested these deductions, claiming they were illegal because they lacked individual written authorization. The central legal question was whether the general membership’s approval was sufficient to justify the deduction of attorney’s fees from individual employees’ wages.

    In resolving this issue, the Supreme Court turned to the Labor Code, emphasizing the importance of protecting employees from unauthorized deductions. The Court highlighted two key provisions: Article 222(b) and Article 241(o). Article 222(b) states that:

    “No attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any collective bargaining negotiations or conclusions of the collective agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting union: Provided, however, that attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void.”

    This provision underscores that while attorney’s fees are permissible, they should primarily be the responsibility of the union, not the individual members. Building on this, Article 241(o) provides further clarity, stating:

    “Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessment, attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction.”

    This requirement of individual written authorization is crucial. It ensures that employees are fully informed about the deductions and voluntarily agree to them. Without this explicit consent, the deduction is deemed illegal. The Court emphasized that these provisions collectively establish a clear framework for check-offs, requiring not only a general agreement but also individual consent to protect employee rights. The absence of individual written authorizations in the SolidBank Union case was a critical factor in the Court’s decision.

    The Supreme Court found that the General Membership Resolution of the SolidBank Union did not meet the legal requirements for validly deducting attorney’s fees. There was a lack of individual written authorizations from the employees concerned, rendering the deductions illegal. The Court cited previous cases, such as Palacol vs. Ferrer-Calleja and Stellar Industrial Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, to reinforce the principle that express consent, obtained in accordance with the law, is mandatory. These cases emphasized that no shortcuts are allowed when it comes to obtaining consent for deductions from employees’ wages.

    The Court further referenced ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, et. al., and Bank of the Philippine Island Employees Union-Association Labor Union (BPIEU-ALU) vs. NLRC, highlighting the prohibition against forced contributions for attorney’s fees. These cases affirmed that the obligation to pay attorney’s fees rests with the union, not the individual workers. The Court in BPIEU-ALU vs. NLRC explicitly stated:

    “… the afore-cited provision (Article 222 (b) of the Labor Code) as prohibiting the payment of attorney’s fees only when it is effected through forced contributions from workers from their own funds as distinguished from the union funds. The purpose of the provision is to prevent imposition on the workers of the duty to individually contribute their respective shares in the fee to be paid the attorney for his services on behalf of the union in its negotiations with management. The obligation to pay the attorney’s fees belongs to the union and cannot be shunted to the workers as their direct responsibility. Neither the lawyer nor the union itself may require the individual worker to assume the obligation to pay attorney’s fees from their own pockets. So categorical is this intent that the law makes it clear that any agreement to the contrary shall be null and void ab initio.”

    The legal implications of this decision are significant. It reinforces the importance of adhering to the strict requirements of the Labor Code regarding check-offs and deductions from employees’ wages. It clarifies that a general membership resolution is insufficient to authorize deductions for attorney’s fees; individual written consent is mandatory. The decision also protects employees from being forced to shoulder the financial burden of union representation, ensuring that the union bears the primary responsibility for its expenses. This approach contrasts with situations where employees might feel pressured to contribute to attorney’s fees even if they do not fully support the union’s actions. The decision promotes transparency and protects the rights of individual employees within the context of collective bargaining.

    The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Secretary of Labor did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering that the union should shoulder the expenses for the attorney’s services and that reimbursement should be charged to the union’s general fund. No deductions can be made from the salaries of employees except those mandated by law. This decision balances the rights of the union to engage legal counsel with the rights of individual employees to control their wages and prevent unauthorized deductions.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether attorney’s fees could be deducted from employees’ wages based on a general membership resolution, without individual written authorization.
    What does the Labor Code say about deducting attorney’s fees? The Labor Code requires individual written authorization for deducting attorney’s fees or special assessments from an employee’s wages. This ensures voluntary consent and transparency.
    Why is individual written authorization so important? It protects employees from forced contributions and ensures they are fully informed about the deductions from their pay. It also allows employees to make an autonomous decision.
    Who is primarily responsible for paying attorney’s fees in collective bargaining? The union is primarily responsible for paying attorney’s fees, and this obligation cannot be directly passed on to individual workers without their consent.
    What happens if attorney’s fees are deducted without authorization? The deductions are considered illegal, and the employer or union may be required to refund the amounts deducted to the employees.
    Can a general membership resolution replace individual written authorization? No, a general membership resolution is not sufficient. Individual written authorization is a mandatory requirement under the Labor Code.
    Does this ruling affect mandatory deductions like taxes? No, this ruling only affects special assessments, attorney’s fees, and other extraordinary fees that are not mandated by law.
    What is the effect of an agreement contrary to the Labor Code’s provisions? Any agreement that contradicts the Labor Code’s requirements for individual authorization is considered null and void from the beginning (ab initio).
    What did the Supreme Court decide in this case? The Supreme Court affirmed that the union should bear the expenses for the attorney’s services, and no unauthorized deductions should be made from employee salaries.

    The Gabriel v. Secretary of Labor and Employment case stands as a crucial reminder of the importance of protecting employee rights in the context of collective bargaining. By requiring individual written authorization for deductions, the Supreme Court ensures that workers are not unfairly burdened with the financial obligations of union representation. This decision reinforces the principles of transparency, consent, and fairness in labor relations.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Gabriel v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 115949, March 16, 2000

  • Union Dues and Employee Rights: Ensuring Legal Check-Offs in the Philippines

    Protecting Your Paycheck: Understanding the Legalities of Union Check-Offs in the Philippines

    Unions play a vital role in advocating for workers’ rights, but the process of collecting union dues must adhere strictly to legal guidelines to protect employee wages. This case clarifies the crucial requirements for validly deducting union fees from employee salaries, ensuring transparency and consent are at the forefront. It serves as a reminder that while check-offs can benefit unions, they must be implemented with utmost respect for the law and individual employee rights.

    G.R. No. 106518, March 11, 1999

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine discovering deductions on your payslip you didn’t fully understand or authorize. For many Filipino employees, union dues are a common deduction, supporting collective bargaining and worker advocacy. However, the legality of these deductions, particularly special assessments for union expenses, hinges on strict compliance with the Philippine Labor Code. The Supreme Court case of ABS-CBN Supervisors Employee Union Members vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. sheds light on these regulations, specifically concerning the requirements for valid ‘check-off’ provisions in Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs).

    In this case, a group of ABS-CBN employees challenged a 10% special assessment levied by their union to cover negotiation and attorney’s fees, arguing it was illegal. The central legal question was whether this special assessment, deducted directly from their salaries, adhered to the stringent requirements of the Labor Code concerning union dues and special assessments. This case delves into the procedural and documentary necessities for unions to legally collect such fees, safeguarding employee rights against unauthorized deductions.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: ARTICLE 241 OF THE LABOR CODE AND CHECK-OFFS

    The legal framework governing union dues and assessments in the Philippines is primarily found in Article 241 of the Labor Code, titled “Rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization.” This article meticulously outlines the rules unions must follow when managing their finances and collecting contributions from members. A ‘check-off,’ in labor law terms, is a mechanism where an employer, based on an agreement with the union or individual employee authorization, deducts union dues or other fees directly from an employee’s salary and remits them to the union. This system, while convenient for unions, is carefully regulated to protect employees from unwarranted deductions.

    Article 241 sets forth specific conditions for the collection of fees and special assessments. Crucially, paragraph (g) mandates that union officers must be “duly authorized pursuant to its constitution and by-laws” to collect fees. Paragraph (n) addresses “special assessments or other extraordinary fees,” requiring “a written resolution of a majority of all the members of a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose.” This resolution must be meticulously documented, including minutes, attendance lists, and voting records. Most importantly for this case, paragraph (o) states:

    “Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessments, attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee with an individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deductions.”

    This provision is the cornerstone of employee protection against unauthorized deductions. It necessitates not only union-level approval but also explicit, individual consent from each employee for special assessments like attorney’s fees to be deducted via check-off. Furthermore, Article 222(b) of the Labor Code adds another layer of protection, stating that negotiation-related attorney’s fees should not be imposed on individual union members, but can be charged against union funds. These legal provisions collectively ensure that union financial practices are transparent, democratic, and respect individual employee rights, particularly concerning deductions from their hard-earned wages.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEE UNION VS. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP.

    The dispute began when the ABS-CBN Supervisors Employee Union and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in 1989. A key provision in this CBA, Article XII, allowed the company to advance the union 10% of all salary increases and signing bonuses for “incidental expenses, including attorney’s fees and representation expenses.” This amount was to be deducted from the supervisors’ benefits. Subsequently, a group of union members, the Petitioners, filed a complaint with the Bureau of Labor Relations, arguing that this 10% special assessment was illegal. They claimed it violated Article 241 of the Labor Code and the union’s own constitution and by-laws, seeking to halt further deductions and demand refunds.

    Initially, the Med-Arbiter ruled in favor of the Petitioners, declaring the 10% assessment illegal and ordering refunds. This decision was affirmed by the DOLE Undersecretary. However, on a Motion for Reconsideration by the Union and ABS-CBN, citing the Bank of the Philippine Islands Employee Union – ALU vs. NLRC case, the Undersecretary reversed his decision, dismissing the complaint. This reversal prompted the Petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari, questioning whether the Undersecretary committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing his initial ruling.

    The Supreme Court meticulously examined the records and the arguments presented. The Court focused on whether the three key requirements for a valid special assessment under Article 241 were met:

    • Authorization by written resolution of the majority in a general membership meeting.
    • Secretary’s record of the meeting minutes.
    • Individual written authorization for check-off from each employee.

    The Court found that the Union had indeed conducted a general membership meeting on July 14, 1989, where the 10% special assessment was agreed upon. Minutes of this meeting, recorded by the Union Secretary and noted by the President, were presented. Furthermore, eighty-five (85) union members had signed individual written authorizations for the check-off, stating:

    “…authorize the Management and/or Cashier of ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION to deduct…a sum equivalent to 10% of all and whatever benefits that will become due to me under the COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA)…and to apply the said sum to the advance that Management will make to our Union for incidental expenses such as attorney’s fees, representations and other miscellaneous expenses…”

    Crucially, the Supreme Court emphasized the precedent set in Bank of Philippine Islands Employees Union – Association Labor Union (BPIEU-ALU) vs. National Labor Relations Commission, which clarified that Article 222(b) prohibits attorney’s fees only when forcibly collected from workers’ individual funds, not when taken from union funds with proper authorization. The Court stated:

    “The Court reads the aforecited provision (Article 222 [b] of the Labor Code) as prohibiting the payment of attorney’s fees only when it is effected through forced contributions from the workers from their own funds a distinguished from the union funds….”

    Based on the evidence of the general meeting resolution, recorded minutes, and individual written authorizations, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 10% special assessment. However, the Court clarified a critical point in its final ruling:

    “WHEREFORE, the assailed Order, dated July 31, 1992, of DOLE Undersecretary B.E. Laguesma is AFFIRMED except that no deductions shall be taken from the workers who did not give their individual written check-off authorization.”

    This caveat reinforces the necessity of individual consent for check-offs, even when a union-level agreement exists.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: ENSURING LEGITIMATE UNION CHECK-OFFS

    The ABS-CBN Supervisors Employee Union case provides crucial guidance for both unions and employers in the Philippines regarding the implementation of legal and valid check-off systems. For unions, it underscores the importance of meticulous documentation and adherence to procedural requirements outlined in Article 241 of the Labor Code. Simply including a check-off provision in a CBA is insufficient. Unions must ensure they hold properly called general membership meetings, document resolutions authorizing special assessments, and, most importantly, secure individual written authorizations from each member for deductions beyond regular union dues.

    For employers, this case highlights the need to verify that unions have complied with all legal prerequisites before implementing check-off deductions. Employers should request and review the union’s meeting minutes, resolutions, and samples of individual authorization forms to ensure compliance. Failure to do so could lead to legal challenges and potential liabilities for both the company and the union.

    For employees, this case empowers them with knowledge of their rights. Employees should be aware that special assessments for attorney’s fees or other extraordinary expenses require their explicit written consent. They have the right to question deductions and demand proof of proper authorization. If proper procedures are not followed, employees have grounds to contest such deductions, as demonstrated by the petitioners in this case.

    Key Lessons:

    • Individual Written Authorization is Key: For special assessments and fees beyond regular union dues, individual written authorization from each employee is mandatory.
    • Documentation is Crucial: Unions must meticulously document general membership meetings, resolutions, and obtain and retain individual authorization forms.
    • Transparency and Consent: Check-offs must be transparent and based on informed consent. Employees have the right to understand and agree to any deductions from their salaries.
    • Employer Due Diligence: Employers should verify union compliance with legal requirements before implementing check-off systems.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is a check-off in the context of labor law?

    A: A check-off is a system where an employer deducts union dues or other authorized fees directly from an employee’s wages and remits these funds to the union. It simplifies dues collection for unions but must be legally compliant.

    Q2: What is a special assessment in union dues?

    A: A special assessment is an extra fee levied by a union on its members, typically for specific purposes beyond regular union operations, such as negotiation expenses or legal fees.

    Q3: Is a union allowed to deduct attorney’s fees from my salary?

    A: Yes, but only if it complies with Article 241 of the Labor Code. This generally requires a resolution from a general membership meeting and your individual written authorization, specifying the amount and purpose of the deduction.

    Q4: Can a union deduct fees simply because it’s in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?

    A: No. While a CBA may contain check-off provisions, it must still comply with the Labor Code, including the need for individual written authorization for special assessments.

    Q5: What should I do if I believe a union deduction from my salary is illegal?

    A: First, inquire with your union for documentation of the authorization (meeting minutes, resolutions, your authorization form). If unsatisfied, you can file a complaint with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) or consult with a labor law attorney.

    Q6: Can I withdraw my individual authorization for a check-off?

    A: The law is less clear on withdrawal, but principles of consent suggest you should be able to withdraw authorization. It’s best to formally notify both the union and your employer in writing if you wish to withdraw consent.

    Q7: Does this case apply to all types of unions in the Philippines?

    A: Yes, Article 241 of the Labor Code and the principles discussed in this case apply to all registered labor organizations in the Philippines.

    Q8: What if I didn’t attend the general membership meeting where the assessment was approved? Am I still bound by it?

    A: While the general meeting resolution is a requirement, your individual written authorization is still crucial for the check-off to be valid. Even if a meeting occurred, without your individual consent for special assessments, deductions might be questionable.

    ASG Law specializes in Labor Law and Employment Disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Understanding Check-Off Provisions in Philippine Labor Law: Employer Responsibilities and Union Rights

    Employer Liability for Uncollected Union Dues: A Key Lesson on Check-Off Provisions

    G.R. No. 110007, October 18, 1996

    Imagine a scenario where a company fails to deduct union dues from its employees’ salaries as agreed upon in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Is the company liable to pay the union the total amount of those uncollected dues? This case, Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. vs. Hon. Jerome Joaquin and Holy Cross of Davao College Union – KAMAPI, tackles this very issue, clarifying the extent of an employer’s responsibility under check-off provisions in Philippine labor law.

    The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of check-off provisions within a CBA and whether an employer’s failure to deduct union dues automatically translates into liability for the total uncollected amount.

    The Legal Framework of Check-Off Provisions

    In the Philippines, a check-off is a mechanism where an employer, based on an agreement with the recognized union or with the employee’s prior authorization, deducts union dues or agency fees from the employee’s salary and remits them directly to the union. This ensures the union’s financial stability and its ability to effectively represent its members. The Labor Code and its Implementing Rules recognize this as a legitimate practice, emphasizing the employer’s duty to facilitate the collection of funds vital to the union’s role.

    Article 248(e) of the Labor Code touches upon the collection of agency fees from non-union members. It states that collection of agency fees in an amount equivalent to union dues and fees, from employees who are not union members, is legally permissible.

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that while check-off provisions are beneficial to unions, the primary obligation to pay union dues rests with the individual employee. The employer’s role is limited to deducting and remitting these dues as per the agreement. For example, consider a company with a CBA that includes a check-off provision. The company is obligated to deduct union dues from employees who have authorized such deductions and remit them to the union. However, if the company fails to do so, it doesn’t automatically become liable for the total amount of uncollected dues.

    The Holy Cross of Davao College Case: A Detailed Look

    The case began with a CBA between Holy Cross of Davao College and its union, KAMAPI. After a period of internal union disputes and a challenge to KAMAPI’s representation, the college stopped deducting union dues. This prompted KAMAPI to file a case, eventually leading to voluntary arbitration. The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of KAMAPI, ordering the college to negotiate a new CBA and pay the uncollected union dues. Holy Cross then challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of the employer’s obligation under the check-off provision. The Court emphasized that while the employer has a duty to deduct and remit union dues, it does not automatically become liable for the total amount of uncollected dues. The primary obligation to pay these dues rests with the individual employee.

    Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

    • The CBA between Holy Cross and KAMAPI expired but was extended for two months.
    • Internal union disputes arose, leading to a challenge to KAMAPI’s representation.
    • Holy Cross stopped deducting union dues.
    • KAMAPI filed a case, leading to voluntary arbitration.
    • The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of KAMAPI.
    • Holy Cross appealed to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, stated:

    “No provision of law makes the employer directly liable for the payment to the labor organization of union dues and assessments that the former fails to deduct from its employees’ salaries and wages pursuant to a check-off stipulation.”

    The Court further elaborated:

    “The only obligation of the employer under a check-off is to effect the deductions and remit the collections to the union. The principle of unjust enrichment necessarily precludes recovery of union dues — or agency fees — from the employer…”

    Practical Implications for Employers and Unions

    This ruling has significant implications for both employers and unions. It clarifies that employers are not automatically liable for uncollected union dues, emphasizing the individual employee’s responsibility. It also underscores the importance of proper documentation and communication between employers and unions regarding check-off procedures.

    For unions, the ruling highlights the need to actively manage their membership and dues collection processes. Relying solely on the employer for check-off may not be sufficient. Unions should also consider alternative methods for collecting dues and engaging with their members directly.

    Key Lessons:

    • Employers are responsible for deducting and remitting union dues as per the CBA or employee authorization.
    • Employers are not automatically liable for the total amount of uncollected dues.
    • Unions should actively manage their membership and dues collection processes.
    • Clear communication and documentation are crucial for effective check-off implementation.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is a check-off provision in a CBA?

    A: A check-off provision is an agreement where the employer deducts union dues or agency fees from employees’ salaries and remits them directly to the union.

    Q: Is an employer always liable for uncollected union dues?

    A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that the employer is not automatically liable. The primary obligation to pay union dues rests with the individual employee.

    Q: What should a union do if an employer fails to implement a check-off provision?

    A: The union should actively manage its membership and dues collection processes and can sue the employer for unfair labor practice.

    Q: What is the legal basis for collecting agency fees from non-union members?

    A: The legal basis is quasi-contractual, stemming from the principle that non-union employees should not unjustly benefit from the CBA negotiated by the union.

    Q: What are the key responsibilities of an employer under a check-off provision?

    A: The employer’s key responsibilities are to deduct the correct amount of union dues or agency fees and remit them to the union in a timely manner.

    Q: Can a union collect special assessments through check-off?

    A: Yes, if authorized by a majority of the union members at a general meeting and if the employer recognizes the right to check-off.

    Q: What happens if an employee revokes their authorization for check-off?

    A: The employer must cease deducting union dues from that employee’s salary.

    ASG Law specializes in labor law and collective bargaining agreements. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.