Scribd
Upload
344 views1 page

UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU) vs. Dir. BITONIO JR - Digest

The USTFU officers claimed their election was valid, but the Director held that it violated the union's constitution and bylaws. The facts state that the election was held at a general faculty assembly organized by the university, not the union, and the officers were elected by clapping rather than secret ballot as required. The issue is whether this election process violated the union's rules. The Director held that it did violate the constitution and bylaws because the election was not convened or authorized by the union itself and did not follow the mandated secret ballot process. Therefore, the purported election of the officers was void.

Uploaded by

Roxanne Peña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
344 views1 page

UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU) vs. Dir. BITONIO JR - Digest

The USTFU officers claimed their election was valid, but the Director held that it violated the union's constitution and bylaws. The facts state that the election was held at a general faculty assembly organized by the university, not the union, and the officers were elected by clapping rather than secret ballot as required. The issue is whether this election process violated the union's rules. The Director held that it did violate the constitution and bylaws because the election was not convened or authorized by the union itself and did not follow the mandated secret ballot process. Therefore, the purported election of the officers was void.

Uploaded by

Roxanne Peña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU) vs. Dir.

BITONIO JR

F A C T S:

Marino, et. al. are duly elected officers of the USTFU. The Secretary General of USTFU, posted a notice
addressed to all USTFU members announcing a general assembly to elect the next set of officers. Through the notice,
the members were also informed of the constitution of COMELEC to oversee the elections. Some of the appellants
filed a petition with the Med-Arbiter against herein appellees and the members of the COMELEC alleging that the
COMELEC was not constituted in accordance with USTFUs constitution and by-laws (CBL) and that no rules had been
issued to govern the conduct of the election. The secretary general of UST issued notices allowing all faculty members
to hold a general faculty assembly, to discuss the state of the unratified UST-USTFU CBA and status and election of
USTFU officers. The general assembly was attended by members of the USTFU and also by 'non-USTFU members.
On this occasion, appellants were elected as USTFUs new set of officers by acclamation and clapping of hands.

I S S U E:

W/N the USTFU officers purported election was void for having been conducted in violation of the unions
Constitution and Bylaws (CBL)

H E L D:

YES. As correctly held by Public Respondent Bitonio, the CBL, which constituted the covenant between the
union and its members, could not be suspended during the general assembly of all faculty members, since that
assembly had not been convened or authorized by the USTFU. That the election could not be legitimized by the
recognition of the newly elected set of officers by UST or by the alleged ratification of the new CBA by the general
membership of the USTFU. To accept appellants' claim to legitimacy is to invest in their position, duties, responsibilities,
rights and privileges of USTFU officers without the benefit of a lawful electoral exercise as defined in USTFU's CBL
and Article 241(c) of the Labor Code. The CBL constitutes the fundamental law governing the members rights and
obligations. As such, the unions constitution and bylaws should be upheld, as long as they are not contrary to law, good
morals or public policy. There was no commission on elections to oversee the election and it was not done by secret
balloting as mandated by USTFUs CBL as well as Article 241 (c) of the Labor Code. The Petition is hereby DISMISSED.

You might also like