Fortich v. Court of Industrial Relations
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Vicente Fortich was employed as chief mechanical engineer and plant superintendent by respondent Artex Development Co., Inc. His employment lasted for five months. Petitioner alleged that his employment was terminated due to his active participation in the formation of the Artex Technical Union and his active union membership. Procedural History: The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) concluded that petitioner was employed on a temporary or trial basis without a fixed tenure, and thus his employment could be terminated at the pleasure of the employer. The CIR also found the charge of dismissal due to union membership and activities to be unfounded. The Petition: Petitioner sought review of the CIR decision, contending that his dismissal was an arbitrary or improvident act, infringing upon his security of tenure, and that it was a form of unfair labor practice by the employer.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Vicente Fortich had a fixed tenure of employment. Whether petitioner's dismissal constituted unfair labor practice due to his union membership and activities.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed, and the appealed decision of the Court of Industrial Relations is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of fixed tenure of employment: The Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Industrial Relations that petitioner Fortich was employed on a trial or temporary basis. The extension of his probationary period did not alter the temporary nature of his employment. The Court emphasized that findings of fact by the CIR, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to full respect and will not be disturbed in the absence of abuse of discretion, citing established jurisprudence. On the issue of unfair labor practice: The Court upheld the CIR's conclusion that the charge of dismissal due to union membership and activities was unfounded. The evidence showed that the Artex Technical Union (AFTO) had mixed membership of supervisors and ordinary workers. As a supervisor and a key man in the company, petitioner Fortich could not lawfully organize a labor union composed of men under his supervision, as explicitly prohibited by Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act. This prohibition allows for dismissal without subjecting the employer to prosecution for unfair labor practice, a rule consistent with US labor law.
Main Doctrine
An employer may terminate the employment of a supervisor who organizes a labor union composed of employees under his supervision, as this is a lawful ground for dismissal and does not constitute unfair labor practice under the Industrial Peace Act.