Pampanga Bus Company vs. Pambusco Employees Union

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

Pampanga Bus Company vs. Pambusco Employees Union
G.R. No. 46739
September 23, 1939

Right to Select Employees

Facts:

On May 31, 1939, the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order, directing the petitioner herein, Pampanga Bus Company, Inc., to recruit from the respondent, Pambusco Employees' Union, Inc., new employees or laborers it may need to replace members of the union who may be dismissed from the service of the company, with the proviso that, if the union fails to provide employees possessing the necessary qualifications, the company may employ any other persons it may desire. This order, in substance and in effect, compels the company, against its will, to employ preferentially, in its service, the members of the union.

Issue:

Whether or not the right of the employer to select its employees was violated.

Held:

Yes.We hold that the court has no authority to issue such compulsory order. The general right to make a contract in relation to one's business is an essential part of the liberty of the citizens protected by the due-process clause of the Constitution. The right of the laborer to sell his labor to such person as he may choose is, in its essence, the same as the right of an employer to purchase labor from any person whom it chooses. The employer and the employee have thus an equality of right guaranteed by the Constitution. "If the employer can compel the employee to work against the latter's will, this is servitude. If the employee can compel the employer to give him work against the employer's will, this is oppression." (Mills vs. United States Printing Co., 99 App. Div., 605; 91 N.Y.S., 185, 189-192.) chanrobles virtual law library.

Section of Commonwealth Act No. 213 confers upon labor organizations the right "to collective bargaining with employers for the purpose of seeking better working and living conditions, fair wages, and shorter working hours for laborers, and, in general, to promote the material, social and moral well-being of their members." The term "collective bargaining" denotes, in common usage as well as in legal terminology, negotiations looking toward a collective agreement. This provision in granting to labor unions merely the right of collective bargaining, impliedly recognizes the employer's liberty to enter or not into collective agreements with them. Indeed, we know of no provision of the law compelling such agreements. Such a fundamental curtailment of freedom, if ever intended by law upon grounds of public policy, should be effected in a manner that is beyond all possibility of doubt. The supreme mandates of the Constitution should not be loosely brushed aside. As held by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hitchman Coal & Co. vs. Mitchell (245 U. S., 229; 62 Law. ed., 260, 276):

. . . Whatever may be the advantages of "collective bargaining," it is not bargaining at all, in any just sense, unless it is voluntary on both sides. The same liberty which enables men to form unions, and through the union to enter into agreements with employers willing to agree, entitles other men to remain independent of the union, and other employers to agree with them to employ no man who owes any allegiance or obligation to the union. In the latter case, as in the former, the parties are entitled to be protected by the law in the enjoyment of the benefits of any unlawful agreements they make. This court repeatedly has held that the employer is as free to make non-membership in a union a condition or employment, as the working man is free to join the union, and that this is a part of the constitutional rights of personal liberty and private property, not to be taken away by legislation, unless through some proper exercise of the paramount police power.

Acknowledgement: Louie Torno