Disini Labor Rd4 Partially Updated

Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus] Disini

6. Union Representation: Establishing Union Majority Status

6.1. PRE-CONDITION-EMPLOYER- EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

ELECTION- Pre-requisite

ALLIED FREE WORKERS’ UNION V C. MARITIMA et al.

19 SCRA 258BENGZON; JAN.31, 1967

NATUREPetitions for review by certiorari of CIR decision

FACTS- This is a consolidation of 3 cases involving both parties- Respondent Compania Maritima (MARITIMA), a local corp. engaged in shipping entered into a contract for lease of services with petitioner Allied Free Workers’ Union (AFWU), a duly registered legitimate labor union. In the contract, it was stipulated that AFWU will do and perform all the work of stevedoring and arrastre services of all vessels or boats of MARITIMA in Iligan City; that the contract is good and valid for 1 month starting Aug.12, 1952, but may be renewed by agreement of the parties with the reservation that MARITIMA has the right to revoke said contract even before the expiration of the term, if and when AFWU fails to render good service. - Towards the end of 1953, MARITIMA complained to AFWU of unsatisfactory and inefficient service. To remedy the situation, MARITIMA was forced to hire extra laborers from among “stand-by” workers not affiliated to any union. - On July 1954, AFWU sent a written proposal to MARITIMA for a CBA, but the latter did not reply. Thereafter, AFWU instituted an action in the CIR praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining unit composed of all the laborers doing arrastre and stevedoring work for MARITIMA, to which action MARITIMA answered, alleging lack of ER-EE relationship. On Aug.1954, MARITIMA informed AFWU of the termination of the contract because of the inefficient service rendered by the latter which had adversely affected its business. The termination was to take effect as of Sept.1, 1954. MARITIMA then contracted with the Iligan Stevedoring Union for the arrastre and stevedoring work. The latter agreed to perform the work subject to the same terms and conditions of the contract with AFWU. The new agreement was to be carried out on Sept.1, 1954.- On Aug.26, 1954, AFWU charged MARITIMA of unfair labor practices (ULPs) before the CIR. MARITIMA answered, again denying the ER-EE relationship between the parties. On Sept.9, 1954, MARITIMA filed an action to rescind the contract, enjoin AFWU members from doing arrastre and stevedoring work in connection with its vessels, and for recovery of damages against AFWU and its officers. The CFI ordered the rescission of the contract and permanently enjoined AFWU

members from performing work in connection with MARITIMA's vessels. AFWU was later able to secure a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the maintenance of the status quo prior to Jan.6, 1961. Thus, after Jan.18, 1961, AFWU laborers were again back doing the same work as before.- On Nov.4, 1963, after almost 10 years, the CFI finally rendered its decision: In pursuance of the provisions of Sec.12 of R.A. 875 and the Rules of this court on certification election, the Honorable Secretary of Labor or any of his authorized representative is hereby requested to conduct certification election among all the workers and/or stevedores working in the wharf of Iligan City who are performing stevedoring and arrastre service aboard Compania Maritima vessels docking at Iligan City port in order to determine their representative for collective bargaining with the employer, whether these desire to be represented by the petitioner Allied Free Workers Union or neither; and upon termination of the said election, the result thereof shall forthwith be submitted to this court for further consideration. From this ruling, both parties appealed, AFWU claiming that it should be declared outright as the majority union while MARITIMA contends that said court could not even have correctly ordered a certification election considering that there was an absence of ER-EE relationship between it and said laborers.

ISSUEWON the order of a certification election by the CIR was proper. (WON there was an ER-EE relationship between AFWU and MARITIMA)

HELDNO. Before a certification election can be held, there must exist an ER-EE relationship between the ER and the petitioner union. Ratio The duty to bargain collectively exists only between the “employer” and its “employees.” Where there is no duty to bargain collectively, it is not proper to hold certification elections in connection therewith. Reasoning In its findings, the CIR observed that after the rescission, the AFWU laborers continued working in accordance with the “cabo system,” which was the prevailing custom in the place. Under this system, the union was an independent contractor. The CIR also made a finding that prior to the contract between MARITIMA and AFWU, the former had an oral arrastre and stevedoring agreement with another union, the Iligan Laborers Union (ILU), which agreement was also based on the “cabo” system. After unsatisfactory service, MARITIMA cancelled this oral contract and entered into a new contract with AFWU, the terms and conditions of which were similar to the oral contract with ILU. The written contract between AFWU and MARITIMA was signed under the assurance by AFWU that the same arrangement previously had with the former union regarding performance and execution of arrastre and stevedoring contract be followed in accordance with the custom of such kind of work in Iligan. Thus, petitioner union operated as a labor contractor under the so-called “cabo” system. - From these findings, Insofar as the working agreement was concerned, there was no real difference between the contract and the prior oral agreement. Both were based on the “cabo” system. Hence, since the parties observed the "cabo" system after the rescission of the contract, and since the characteristics of said system show that the contracting union was an independent contractor, it is reasonable to assume that AFWU continued being an independent contractor of MARITIMA. And, being an independent contractor, it could not qualify as an "employee". With more reason would this be true with respect to the laborers. Moreover, there is no evidence at all regarding the characteristics of the working arrangement between AFWU and MARITIMA after the termination of the CONTRACT. All we have

Why is an employer-employee relationship a PRE-CONDITION before a petition for certification election can be entertained?An employer employee relationship is a precondition since without such relationship, there will be no duty to bargain on the part of either the employer or employee.Thus it will be senseless to go on with a certification election to choose their bargaining representative when there is no duty to collectively bargain anyway. (Allied Free Workers Union v. Cia Maritima, 19 SCRA 258, 1967)


to go on is the court a quo's finding that the “cabo” system was observed-a system that negatives employment relationship.- Since the only function of a certification election is to determine, with judicial sanction, which union shall be the official representative or spokesman of the “employees” will be, there being no ER-EE relationship between the parties disputants, it follows that there is neither a duty to bargain collectively. Thus, the order for certification election in question cannot be sustained.

Disposition appealed decision of the CIR is AFFIRMED insofar as it dismissed the charge of ULP, but REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as it ordered the holding of a certification election. The petition for certification election should be DISMISSED.

DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ)300 SCRA 120

PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998

NATUREPetition for certiorari

FACTS- Respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election among the supervisory, office and technical employees of the petitioner company before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III.- Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-file employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts.- Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization.- The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said that the contention of the respondent that the petitioning union is composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru the exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from the list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed.HELD:The petition is meritorious. We agree with the public respondent that supervisors can be an appropriate bargaining unit. This is in accord with our repeated ruling that "[a]n appropriate bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given employer, composed of all or less than the entire body of employees, which the collective interests of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of law. Otherwise stated, it is a legal collectivity for collective bargaining purposes whose members have substantially mutual bargaining interests in terms and conditions of employment as will assure to all employees their collective bargaining rights. A unit to be appropriate must effect a grouping of employees who have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions and other subjects of collective bargaining."The critical issue, however, is whether or not the respondent union can file a petition for certification election to represent the

supervisory employees of the petitioner company. The resolution of this issue depends on whether the respondent union is composed solely of supervisory employees or of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees. Article 245 of the Labor Code clearly provides that "supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees . . . ."

To determine who are supervisory and rank-and-file employees reference has to be made to Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code, as amended, as well as Section 1 (t), Rule I, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended, viz:

Managerial employee is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book [these Rules].

Determining the status of supervisory and rank-and-file employees is not a hard row to hoe in labor law. The test of supervisory status as we have repeatedly ruled is whether an employee possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer, which authority should not be merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. Corrollarily, what determines the nature of employment is not the employee's title, but his job description.

In the instant case, the list of monthly paid employees submitted by the petitioner company contains the names of about twenty seven (27) supervisory employees, six (6) managerial employees, one (1) confidential employee and twenty six (26) office and technical employees holding various positions. The list reveals that the positions occupied by the twenty six (26) office and technical employees are in fact rank-and-file positions.We also do not agree with the ruling of the respondent Secretary of Labor that the infirmity in the membership of the respondent union can be remedied in "the pre-election conference thru the exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who are occupying rank-and-file positions will be excluded from the list of eligible voters." Public respondent gravely misappreciates the basic antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest of rank-and-file employees. Due to the irreconcilability of their interests we held in Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motors


Philippines Corporation Labor Union viz:

xxx xxx xxx

Clearly, based on this provision [Article 245, Labor Code], a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file apetition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code.

Needless to stress, the respondent union has no legal right to file a certification election to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for so long as it counts rank-and-file employees among its members.

6.2. METHODS OF ESTABLISHING MAJORITY STATUS

1. PurposePORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v

LAGUESMAG.R. No. 94929-30

CRUZ, Mar 18, 1992

NATURE:

FACTS:- The collective bargaining agreement of the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) with private respondents Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU), the incumbent union, was due to expire on April 14, 1990. Other unions were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting their moves.- on March 14, 1990, when the Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were submitted on March 26, 1990, or eleven days after the petition.- On April 2, 1990, herein petitioner Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention.- another petition for certification election was filed by the Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted on May 11, 1990, or thirty-five days after the filing of the petition.- On April 26, 1990, APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted in part as follows:

In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise where the majority status of the incumbent collective bargaining union is questioned through a verified petition by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the

certification election by secret ballot if the petition is filed during the last sixty (60) days of the collective bargaining agreement and supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Any petition filed before or after the sixty-day freedom period shall be dismissed outright. The twenty-five percent (25%) requirement shall be satisfied upon the filing of the petition, otherwise the petition shall be dismissed. (Emphasis supplied.)

- the Med-Arbiter dismissed the consolidated petitions. PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification election. DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal.- ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, which was concluded on September 28, 1990. This was ratified by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit.- PWUP claims grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent in the application of Article 256 of the Labor Code. The article provides in part as follows:

Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. ? In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five (25%) percent of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. . . .

- The petitioner argues that under this article, the Med-Arbiter should automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the law when they submitted the required consent signatures several days after filing the petition. The petitioner complains that the dismissal of the petitions for certification election, including its own petition for intervention, had the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.- Private respondent ICTSI maintains that the dismissal was based on Article 256 of the Labor Code as implemented by Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted above. Moreover, under Section 10, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, decisions of the Secretary in certification election cases shall be final and unappealable.- For its part, APCWU questions PWUP's personality in these proceedings in view of the lack of consent signatures in its petition, and argues as well that the petitioner has no authority to represent SAMADA or PEALU, which had not appealed. The private respondent also invokes Tupas and maintains that the ratification of the new CBA by the majority of the workers was an affirmation of their membership in the union that negotiated that agreement.

ISSUE:WON there was indeed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents when they dismissed the petitions for certification election because the consent signatures had not been submitted simultaneously with the petition

HELD:YES


- pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing workers the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, "the constant and unwavering policy of the Court" has been "to require a certification election as the best means of ascertaining which labor organization should be the collective bargaining representative."- The certification election is the most democratic and expeditious method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall act as their representative in their dealings with the establishment where they are working. The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented.- the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at best be given only a directory effect.- It is not denied that the petition to intervene filed by PWUP did not carry the 25% consent signatures, but that the requirement is in fact not applicable to a petition in intervention. - the certification election is not litigation but a mere investigation of a non-adversary character where the rules of procedure are not strictly applied. Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct ascertainment of the labor union that has the support of confidence of the majority of the workers and is thus entitled to represent them in their dealings with management.- Deviation from the contract-bar rule is justified only where the need for industrial stability is clearly shown to be imperative. Subject to this singular exception, contracts where the identity of the authorized representative of the workers is in doubt must be rejected in favor of a more certain indication of the will of the workers. The certification election is the best method of determining the will of the workers on the crucial question of who shall represent them in their negotiations with the management for a collective bargaining agreement that will best protect and promote their interests. It is essential that there be no collusion against this objective between an unscrupulous management and a union covertly supporting it while professing its loyalty to labor, or at least that the hopes of labor be not frustrated because of its representation by a union that does not enjoy its approval and support. It is therefore sound policy that any doubt regarding the real representation of the workers be resolved in favor of the holding of the certification election. This is preferable to the suppression of the voice of the workers through the prissy observance of technical rules that will exalt procedure over substantial justice.

DISPOSITION Petition GRANTED.

REYES V TRAJANO209 SCRA 484

NARVASA; June 2, 1992

NATURESpecial civil action of certiorari

FACTS -The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.-The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and

Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, conducted under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240 employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK.The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for votes to be cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and, conformably with established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third choice: "NO UNION." The final tally of the votes showed the following results:

TUPAS 1TUEU-OLALIA 95NO UNION 1SPOILED 1

CHALLENGED 141

METHOD OF ESTABLISHING MAJORITY STATUS, PURPOSE. The purpose of a certification election is precisely the ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not to be represented by a labor organization, and in the affirmative case, by which particular labor organization.

Disposition Petition GRANTED

2. Elections-Certification Election; Consent Election; and Run-Off Election- Voluntary Recognition, Rule VIII, D.O. 40-03

Distinctions- Certification and Consent Elections

Distinguish Consent Election and CertificationElectionA consent election: Is an agreed one, Its purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collectivebargaining unit

While a certification election Is aimed at determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

From the very nature of consent election, It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effect of a certification election. Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle the participants thereof to immediately renegotiate an existing CBA although it does not preclude the workers from exercising their right to choose their sole and exclusive bargaining representative after the expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom period. (Warren Manufacturing v. BLR)


CERTIFICATION ELECTIONWhat is the PURPOSE of a certification election?It is a means of determining the worker’s choice of:1) Whether the want a union to represent them for collective bargaining OR they want NO union to represent them at all.2) And if they choose to have a union represent them, they will choose WHICH among the contending union will be the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.

1st Level of Choice: Yes Union or No Union2nd Level of Choice: If “Yes Union” wins, WHICH union.

WARREN MFG WORKERS UNION V BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, PACIWU, SMWMC-ANGLO

G.R. No. L-76185PARAS; MARCH 30, 1988

NATUREPetition for review on certiorari w/ prayer for a preliminary injunction and/or the issuance of a restraining order seeking to set aside the Order of the Med-Arbiter (ordering cert election); and of the resolution of the Bureau of Labor

FACTS-June 13, 1985. Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU) filed a petition for certification election

-July 7, 1985. Warren Mfg Corp1 filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that there exists a C.B.A. between the Warren Mfg Corp2 and the Warren Mfg. Union (WMWU) w/c took effect on July 16, 1985 and to expire on July 31, 1986.

-PACIWU filed a Notice of Strike and on conciliation meeting, a Return-to-Work Agreement was signed stipulating: “To resolve the issue of union representation at Warren Mfg. Corp. parties have agreed to the holding of a consent election among the rank and file on August 25, 1985 at the premises of the company to be supervised by MOLE . . .”

-August 25, 1985. Consent election was held. WMWU won. PACIWU filed an Election Protest. Election Protest was dismissed.

-June 5, 1986. PACIWU filed a petition for certification election. Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Warren Manufacturing Corporation-Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organizations (ANGLOt) also filed.

-Warren Mfg Corp opposed on the grounds that neither petition has 30% support; that both are barred by the one-year no certification election law and the existence of a duly ratified CBA.

- August 18, 1986. Med-Arbiter ordered certification election conducted to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of Warren Mfg Corp w/ the ff choices: 1.PACIWU 2. WMWU 3. SMWMC-ANGLO 4. No Union.

-Warren Mfg Corp and WMWU filed separate motions. Bureau of Labor Relations dismissed lack of merit. MMWU filed petition for review on

1 Note: the case said ‘respondent’ pero di ko gets sino ang respondent sa kwento. So I think lang ang company yun. 2 same

certiorari saying: The holding of a certification election at the bargaining unit is patently premature and illegal bec of the one-year no certification election rule 3 and the principle of the Contract Bar Rule.

ISSUE/SWON one-year no certification election rule and the principle of the Contract Bar Rule applies

HELDNO-The records show that petitioner admitted that what was held on August 25, 1985 at the Company's premises and which became the root of this controversy, was a consent election and not a certification election.

-As correctly distinguished by private respondent, a consent election is an agreed one, its purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit, while a certification election is aimed at determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

- From the very nature of consent election, it is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effect of a certification election. Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle the participants thereof to immediately renegotiate an existing CBA although it does not preclude the workers from exercising their right to choose their sole and exclusive bargaining representative after the expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom period.

- It is clearly understood that the certified union in the said projected election shall respect and administer the existing CBA at the company until its expiry date on July 31, 1986. It is, therefore, unmistakable that the election thus held on August 25, 1985 was not for the purpose of determining which labor union should be the bargaining representative in the negotiation for a collective contract, there being an existing collective bargaining agreement yet to expire on July 31, 1986; but only to determine which labor union shall administer the said existing contract.

Disposition Petition dismissed.

ALGIRE V DE MESA237 SCRA 647

ROMERO; October 19, 1994

NATUREPetition for certiorari to nullify and set aside a decision of the Secretary of Labor

FACTS- Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees Union (URTMSEU) filed on September 4, 1990 a petition for the holding of an election of union officers with the Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). This was done through De Mesa.- DOLE's med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz issued an Order dated October 19, 1990 directing that such an election be held.

3 Section 3, Rule V, Implementing Rules and Regulations, Labor Code


- In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that the election by secret ballot be conducted on November 16, 1990 between Catalino Algire, et al. (petitioner) and Regalado de Mesa, et al. (respondents) under the supervision of DOLE through its duly appointed representation officer. - In filling out the ballots, instructions were given to mark choices with either a check mark or an ‘X’ mark. There should also be no other markings on the ballot.- De Mesa and Algire both got 133 votes each. Total votes cast were 272. 6 were declared as spoiled ballots.- Algire filed a petition, alleging that one of the ballots which had two check marks was erroneously declared to be a spoiled ballot. The checks supposedly made it clear as to the choice made by the voter.- The med-arbiter (De la Cruz) issued an order in Algire’s favor and certified the latter’s group to be the unions validly elected officers.- De Mesa appealed to the DOLE secretary which was granted. Another order for a new election of officers was made by the Med-Arbiter and another pre-election conference was scheduled.- Algire’s group filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied for lack of merit. - Algire, et. al. contend that a representation officer (referring to a person duly authorized to conduct and supervise certification elections in accordance with Rule VI of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code) can validly rule only on on-the-spot questions arising from the conduct of the elections, but the determination of the validity of the questioned ballot is not within his competence.

ISSUEWON the act of the DOLE secretary in denying Algire’s motion was in excess of its authority since the case is an intra-union activity

HELDNORatio The certification election was an agreed one, the purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effort of a certification election.Reasoning - What is at question in this case was a consent election, not a certification election.- If indeed petitioner's group had any opposition to the representation officer's ruling that the questioned ballot was spoiled, it should have done so seasonably during the canvass of votes. Its failure or inaction to assail such ballot's validity shall be deemed a waiver of any defect or irregularity arising from said election.Disposition Petition is DENIED and the challenged decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

3. Policy

No Direct Certification

COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc. V OPLE163 SCRA 323

PARAS; June 30, 1988

NATURE Petition for certiorari

FACTS - The respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged

refusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers/members; and coercing employees to retract their membership with the union and restraining non-union members from joining the union.- After efforts at amicable settlement proved unavailing, the Office of the MOLE, upon petition of petitioner assumed jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code.- Respondent Minister rendered a decision finding no merit in the Union's Complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly committed by petitioner as regards the alleged refusal of petitioner to negotiate with the Union, and the secret distribution of survey sheets allegedly intended to discourage unionism and at the same time respondent Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the collective bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and ordered the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the ground that the employees were first offenders. - Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by respondent

ISSUE WON respondent Minister exceeded his power when he certified respondent Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the company's salesmen since the case is not a representation proceeding as described under the Labor Code and the Union did not pray for certification but merely for a finding of unfair labor practice imputed to petitioner-company.

HELD YES. - The procedure for a representation case is outlined in Arts. 257-260 of the Labor Code, in relation to the provisions on cancellation of a Union registration under Arts. 239-240 thereof, the main purpose of which is to aid in ascertaining majority representation. - The requirements under the law, specifically Secs. 2, 5, and 6 of Rule V, Book V, of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code are all calculated to ensure that the certified bargaining representative is the true choice of the employees against all contenders. The Constitutional mandate that the State shall "assure the rights of the workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work," should be achieved under a system of law such as the aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statutes. - When an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretext of retaining a laudable objective, the intendment or purpose of the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded. - When respondent Minister directly certified the Union, he in fact disregarded this procedure and its legal requirements. There was therefore failure to determine with legal certainty whether the Union indeed enjoyed majority representation. - Contrary to the respondent Minister's observation, the holding of a certification election at the proper time is not necessarily a mere formality as there was a compelling legal reason not to directly and unilaterally certify a union whose legitimacy is precisely the object of litigation in a pending cancellation case filed by certain "concerned salesmen," who also claim majority status. - Even in a case where a union has filed a petition for certification elections, the mere fact that no opposition is made does not warrant a direct certification. - More so, when the records of the suit show that the required proof was not presented in an appropriate proceeding and that the basis of the direct certification was the Union's mere allegation in its position paper that it has 87 out of 117 regular salesmen. - Respondent Minister merely relied on the self-serving assertion of the respondent Union that it enjoyed the support of the


majority of the salesmen, without subjecting such assertion to the test of competing claims. As pointed out by petitioner in its petition, what the respondent Minister achieved in rendering the assailed orders was to make a mockery of the procedure provided under the law for representation cases.Disposition Order REVERSED and SET ASIDE

Employer Certification- Voluntary RecognitionRule VIII, D.O. 40-03

RULE VIIVOLUNTARY RECOGNITION

Section 1. When and where to file. – In unorganized establishments with only one legitimate labor organization, the employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of such a union. Within thirty (30) days from such recognition, the employer and union shall submit a notice of voluntary recognition with the Regional Office which issued the recognized labor union's certificate of registration or certificate of creation of a chartered local.

Section 2. Requirements for voluntary recognition. - The notice of voluntary recognition shall be accompanied by the original copy and two (2) duplicate copies of the following documents:

(a) a joint statement under oath of voluntary recognition attesting to the fact of voluntary recognition;

(b) certificate of posting of the joint statement of voluntary recognition for fifteen (15) consecutive days in at least two (2) conspicuous places in the establishment or bargaining unit where the union seeks to operate;

RULE VIIVOLUNTARY RECOGNITION

(continued)

(c) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit, accompanied by the names of those who support the voluntary recognition comprising at least a majority of the members of the bargaining unit; and

(d) a statement that the labor union is the only legitimate labor organization operating within the bargaining unit.All accompanying documents of the notice for voluntary recognition shall be certified under oath by the employer representative and president of the recognized labor union.

Section 3. Action on the Notice. - Where the notice of voluntary recognition is sufficient in form, number and substance and where there is no other registered labor union operating within the bargaining unit concerned, the Regional Office, through the Labor Relations Division shall, within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice, record the fact of voluntary recognition in its roster of legitimate labor unions and notify the labor union concerned.

Where the notice of voluntary recognition is insufficient in form, number and substance, the Regional Office shall, within the same period, notify the labor union of its findings and advise it to comply with the necessary requirements.

Where neither the employer nor the labor union failed to complete the requirements for voluntary recognition under Section 2 of this Rule within thirty (30) days from receipt of the advisory, the Regional Office shall return the notice for voluntary recognition together with all its accompanyingdocuments without prejudice to its re-submission.

Section 4. Effect of recording of fact of voluntary recognition. - From the time of recording of voluntary recognition, the recognized labor union shall enjoy the rights, privileges and obligations of an existing bargaining agent of all the employees in the bargaining unit.

Entry of voluntary recognition shall bar the filing of a petition for certification election by any labor organization for a period of one (1) year from the date of entry of voluntary recognition. Upon expiration of this one-year period, any legitimate labor organization may file a petition for certification election in the same bargaining unit represented by the voluntarily recognized union,unless a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and voluntarily recognized labor union was executed and registered with the Regional Office in accordance with Rule XVII of these Rules.

SAMAHANG MAN GGAGAWA SA PERMEX VS SECRETARY OF LABOR

G.R. No. 107792 March 2, 1998 A certification election was conducted among employees of respondent Permex Producer and Exporter Corporation with 'No Union' winning [NFL lost]. Later however, some employees of Permex Producer formed a labor organization known as the Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex (SMP) which they registered with the Department of Labor and Employment and then affiliated


with the Philippine Integrated Industries Labor Union (PIILU). (SMP-PIILU) wrote the respondent company requesting recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of employees at the Permex Producer and was granted. They then entered into a CBA. A year later, NFL filed gain for a petition for certification election but was dismissed.Two arguments are put forth in support of the petition. First, it is contended that petitioner has been recognized by the majority of the employees at Permex Producer as their sole collective bargaining agent. Petitioner argues that when a group of employees constituting themselves into an organization and claiming to represent a majority of the work force requests the employer to bargain collectively, the employer may do one of two things. First, if the employer is satisfied with the employees' claim the employer may voluntarily recognize the union by merely bargaining collectively with it. The formal written confirmation is ordinarily stated in the collective bargaining agreement. Second, if on the other hand, the employer refuses to recognize the union voluntarily, it may petition the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a certification election. If the employer does not submit a petition for certification election, the union claiming to represent the employees may submit the petition so that it may be directly certified as the employees' representative or a certification election may be held. HELD: Challenged decision AFFIRMED.The case of Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. Ferrer-Calleja is particularly apropos: “. . . Ordinarily, in an unorganized establishment like the Calasiao Beer Region, it is the union that files a petition for a certification election if there is no certified bargaining agent for the workers in the establishment. If a union asks the employer to voluntarily recognize it as the bargaining agent of the employees, as the petitioner did, it in effect asks the employer to certify it as the bargaining representative of the employees — A CERTIFICATION WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAS NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE, for it is the employees' prerogative (not the employer's) to determine whether they want a union to represent them, and, if so, which one it should be.” In accordance with this ruling, Permex Producer should not have given its voluntary recognition to SMP-PIILU-TUCP when the latter asked for recognition as exclusive collective bargaining agent of the employees of the company. The company did not have the power to declare the union the exclusive representative of the workers for the purpose of collective bargaining. It is not enough that a union has the support of the majority of the employees. It is equally important that everyone in the bargaining unit be given the opportunity to express himself.

Effect One Union Only

GEORGE AND PETER LINES, INC. v. ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION134 SCRA 82

MELENCIO-HERRERA; January 17, 1985

NATUREPetition for certiorari to review the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations.

FACTS

- George and Peter Lines, Inc. (petitioner) is involved in shipping, while Associated Labor Unions (ALU, respondent) is a legitimate labor organization.- July 16, 1878: a Petition for Direct Certification was filed by ALU praying that it be certified as the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of petitioner corporation, there being no labor union.- Petitioner opposed the petition stating that the Union does not represent the majority of the employees concerned, and that more than 80% of the licensed/ unlicensed crew of its vessels claim they are not members of any union. - August 25, 1978: Med-Arbiter issued an Order directly certifying ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. Petitioner moved for reconsideration alleging that 80% of the employees denied their membership. Corporation moved that a certification election should be called.- Bureau of Labor Relations Director, upon examination of the documents, opined that there existed a doubt regarding the majority of status of respondent ALU because of the withdrawal of the members, and directed a certification election.- Upon a motion for reconsideration by ALU, the BLR Director reconsidered its Resolution and directly certified ALU as sole bargaining agent.

ISSUE1. WON employees of the corporation are entitled to choose

their sole and exclusive bargaining representative with petitioner thru a certification election;

2. WON petitioner is entitled to file petition for certification election.

HELD1. YESRatio Employees have the constitutional right to choose the labor organization which it desires to join. The exercise of such right would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if they would be denied the opportunity to choose in a certification election.Reasoning The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented.- The best forum to determine if there was indeed undue pressure exerted upon the employees to retract their membership is in the certification election itself (in secret ballot where they can freely express their choice).- The fact that there are no competing Unions should not affect the freedom of choice (they can always choose ALU or ‘No Union’).

DISPOSITIONThe Regional Office concerned of MoLE is directed to cause the holding of a certification election.

4. Purpose

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, ETC. VS SECRETARY OF DOLE

G.R. No. 181531 July 31, 2009

ISSUE: Whether employees on probationary status at the time of the certification elections should be allowed to voteHELD: YES. The inclusion of Gatbonton’s vote was proper not because it was not questioned but because probationary employees have the right to vote in a certification election. In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, whether probationary or permanent are entitled to vote.


This principle is clearly stated in Art. 255 of the Labor Code which states that the "labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining." Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank and file employees, probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election. The law refers to "all" the employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible to support the petition is to belong to the "bargaining unit." The significance of an employee’s right to vote in a certification election cannot thus be overemphasized. For he has considerable interest in the determination of who shall represent him in negotiating the terms and conditions of his employment. But while the Court rules that the votes of all the probationary employees should be included, under the particular circumstances of this case and the period of time which it took for the appeal to be decided, the votes of the six supervisory employees must be excluded because at the time the certification elections was conducted, they had ceased to be part of the rank and file, their promotion having taken effect two months before the election.

Compare Policy on Certification Election, 256, 257, 258 sand Voluntary Recognition – BV, RI (bbb); BV, IR, R VII; BV; IR, RVIII, Sec. 23

Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.

At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)

Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the

Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. (As amended by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)

Art. 258. When an employer may file petition. When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election.

All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days.

The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.

BV, RI(bb) "Organized Establishment" refers to a firm or company where there is a recognized or certified exclusive bargaining agent.

RULE VII Challenges and Run-Offs

SECTION 1. Challenging of votes. — (a) Any vote may be challenged for a valid cause by any observer before the voter has deposited his vote in the ballot box. (b) If a ballot is challenged on valid grounds, the Representation Officer shall segregate it from the unchallenged ballots and seal it in an envelope. The Representation Officer shall indicate on the envelope the name of the challenger and the ground of the challenge.

SECTION 2. Run-off election. — When an election which provides for three (3) or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, and no objections or challenges have been presented which if sustained might change the results, the representation officer shall motu proprio conduct a run-off election within five (5) calendar days from the close of the election between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes; Provided, that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty (50%) percent of the number of votes cast.

The ballots in the run-off election shall provide for two choices receiving the

highest and the second highest number of the votes cast.

RULE VIII Internal Union-Disputes

SECTION 1. Complaint. — A complaint for any violation of the constitution and by-laws and the rights and conditions of membership under Article 242 may filed in the Regional Office where the union is domiciled.

SECTION 2. Who may file. — If the issue involves the entire membership of the union, the complaint shall be signed by at least 30 percent of the membership of the union.


In addition to the above requirement, the petition must show on its face that the administrative remedies provided for in the constitution and by-laws have been exhausted or such remedies are not readily available to the complaining members through no fault of their own. However, if the issue affects a single member only, such member may alone file his complaint.

SECTION 3. Contents of complaint. — The complaint must, among other things, contain the following:

(a) The person or persons charged;

(b) The specific violation/s committed;

(c) The relief/s prayed for; and

(d) Other relevant matters.

Such complaint must be in writing and under oath, and a copy thereof served on the respondent.

SECTION 4. Procedure. — Upon receipt of the complaint, the Regional Director shall immediately assign the case to a Med-Arbiter. The Med-Arbiter shall have twenty (20) working days within which to settle or decide the case. The decision of the Med-Arbiter shall state the facts and the reliefs granted, if any. If the conflicts involve a violation of the rights and conditions of the membership enumerated under Article 242 of the Code, the Med-Arbiter shall order the cancellation of the registration certificate of the erring union or the expulsion of the guilty party from the union, whichever is appropriate.

SECTION 5. Appeal. — The aggrieved party may, within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision of the Med-Arbiter, appeal the same to the Secretary on any of the following grounds:

(a) Grave abuse of discretion; and

(b) Gross incompetence.

The appeal shall consist of a position paper specifically stating the grounds relied upon by the appellant and supporting arguments under oath.

SECTION 6. Where to file appeal. — The appellant shall file his appeal, which shall be under oath and copy furnished the appellee in the Regional Office where the case originated.

SECTION 7. Period to answer. — The appellee shall file his answer thereto within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the appeal. The Regional Director shall, within five (5) calendar days, forward the entire records of the case to the Office of the Secretary.

SECTION 8. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable. — The Secretary shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide the appeal from receipt of the records of the case. The decision of the Secretary shall be final and inappealable.

SECTION 9. Execution pending appeal. — The execution of the order of the Med-Arbiter shall be stayed pending appeal.

RULE VIII-A Visitorial Power

SECTION 1. Exercise of visitorial power. — The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representative shall inquire into the financial activities of any legitimate labor organization and examine their books of accounts and other records to determine compliance with the law and the organization, constitution and by-laws, upon filing of a complaint under oath and duly supported by the written consent of at least twenty (20%) percent of the total membership of the labor organization concerned.

SECTION 2. Period of inquiry or examination. — No inquiry or examination of the financial activities and books of accounts as well as other records of any legitimate labor organization mentioned in the preceding section shall be conducted during the sixty (60) days freedom period nor within thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of election of union officials.

5. Religion/ Past Non- Participation

REYES v. TRAJANO209 SCRA 484

NARVASA; June 2, 1992

NATURESpecial civil action of certiorari

FACTS -The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.-The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, conducted under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240 employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK.The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for votes to be cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and, conformably with established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third choice: "NO UNION."The final tally of the votes showed the following results:

TUPAS 1TUEU-OLALIA 95NO UNION 1SPOILED 1

CHALLENGED 141ISSUE/S1. WON the members of the INC should not be allowed to vote “because they refused to participate in the previous certification elections."


2. WON the NLRC was correct in saying that "if the workers who are members of the Iglesia ni Kristo in the exercise of their religious belief opted not to join any labor organization as a consequence of which they themselves can not have a bargaining representative, then right to be represented by a bargaining agent should not be denied to other members of the bargaining unit."

HELD1. NO. Ratio EFFECT NON-PARTICIPIATION PREVIOUS ELECTION. No law, administrative rule or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in past certification elections.

2. NO. Ratio RELIGION/PAST NON-PARTICIPATION. Neither law, administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a certification election. On the contrary, the plainly discernible intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the bargaining unit, whether they are members of a labor organization or not.

6.3. CERTIFICATION ELECTION- PROCESS1. The Union as Initiating Party

ART. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. - A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: (a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining; (b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining; (c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its annual audited financial statements, including the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request, after the union has been duly recognized by the employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining negotiation; (d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of the labor organization and its members; (e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and (f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the organization and its members, including cooperative, housing, welfare and other projects not contrary to law. Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the contrary, the income and the properties of legitimate labor organizations, including grants, endowments, gifts, donations and contributions they may receive from fraternal and similar organizations, local or foreign, which are actually, directly and exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be free from taxes, duties and other assessments. The exemptions provided herein may be withdrawn only by a special law expressly repealing this provision. (As amended by Section 17, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

San Miguel Corp. v. Mandaue467 SCRA 107

Tinga ; Aug. 16, 2005Facts-CA affirmes DOLE Undersecretary for Labor Relations, Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, ordering the immediate conduct of a certification election among the petitioner’s rank-and-file employees. - Federation of Free Workers (FFW/ respondent) filed a petition for certification election with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. It sought to be certified and to represent the permanent rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the petitioner. The following documents were attached to the petition: (1) a Charter Certificate certifying that respondent as of that date was duly certified as a local or chapter of FFW; (2) a copy of the constitution of respondent prepared by its Secretary, Noel T. Bathan and attested by its President, Wilfred V. Sagun; (3) a list of respondent’s officers and their respective addresses, again prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun; (4) a certification signifying that respondent had just been organized and no amount had yet been collected from its members, signed by respondent’s treasurer Chita D. Rodriguez and attested by Sagun; and (5) a list of all the rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the Mandaue Packaging Products Plants and Mandaue Glass Plant prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun. -SMC (Petitioner) filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certification election on the sole ground that herein respondent is

not listed or included in the roster of legitimate labor

ART. 212. Definitions. - (h) "Legitimate labor organization" means any labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof.


organizations based on the certification issued by the Officer-In-Charge, Regional Director of the DOLE Regional Office No. VII, Atty. Jesus B. Gabor.-Respondent submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations the same documents earlier attached to its petition for certification. The accompanying letter, signed by respondent’s president Sagun, stated that such documents were submitted in compliance with the requirements for the creation of a local/chapter pursuant to the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules; and it was hoped that the submissions would facilitate the listing of respondent under the roster of

legitimate labor organizations.The Chief of Labor Relations Division of DOLE Regional Office No. VII issued a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter No. ITD. I-ARFBT-058/98, certifying that from 30 July 1998, respondent has acquired legal personality as a labor organization/worker’s association, it having submitted all the required documents.

LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION v. Sec. of Labor [NACUSIP and CAILO]

247 SCRA 1 Vitug ; August 1995

Facts-The Med-Arbiter, sustained by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, has ruled that Art. 257 is mandatory and give him no other choice than to conduct a certification election upon the receipt of the corresponding petition.

"Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. - In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization."-National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines-TUCP ("NACUSIP-TUCP") filed with the Department of Labor and Employment ("DOLE") a petition for direct certification or for certification election to determine the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of the supervisory employees of herein petitioner, Lopez Sugar Corporation ("LSC"). NACUSIP-TUCP averred that it was a legitimate national labor organization; that LSC was employing 55 supervisory employees, the majority of whom were members of the union; that no other labor organization was claiming membership over the supervisory employees; that there was no existing collective bargaining agreement covering said employees; and that there was no legal impediment either to a direct certification of NACUSIP-TUCP or to the holding of a certification election.-LSC contended it. NACUSIP-TUCP submitted Charter Certificate No. 003-89, dated 20 July 1989, of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter. -LSC appealed to the DOLE and asseverated that the order was a patent nullity and that the Med-Arbiter acted with grave abuse of discretion, Sec. of Labor denied it. Petition for certiorari was filed.

Issue WON the certification election should push through

Held No, because the labor organization is not legitimate.It was held in Progressive Development Corporation vs. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment:"But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic conduct of a certification election in an unorganized establishment, it also requires that the petition for certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization. Article 212(h) defines a legitimate labor organization as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes any branch or local thereof.' Rule 1, Section 1(j), Book V of the Implementing Rules likewise defines a legitimate labor organization as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes any branch, local or affiliate thereof .' "

Indeed, the law did not reduce the Med-Arbiter to an automaton which can instantly be set to impulse by the mere filing of a petition for certification election. He is still tasked to satisfy himself that all the conditions of the law are met, and among the legal requirements is that the petitioning union must be a legitimate labor organization in good standing.The petition for certification election, in the case at bench, was filed by the NACUSIP-TUCP, a national labor organization duly registered with the DOLE. The legitimate status of NACUSIP-TUCP might be conceded; being merely, however, an agent for the local organization (the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter), the federation's bona fide status alone would not suffice. The local chapter, as its principal, should also be a legitimate labor organization in good standing. Accordingly, in Progressive Development, we elucidated:"In the case of union affiliation with a federation, the documentary requirements are found in Rule II, Section 3(e), Book V of the Implementing Rules, which we again quote as follows:"'(c ) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a constitution and by laws, set of officers and books of accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations or national unions shall be observed.' "Since the 'procedure governing the reporting independently registered unions' refers to the certification and attestation requirements contained in Article 235, paragraph 2, it follows that the constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of accounts submitted by the local and chapter must likewise comply with these requirements. The same rationale for requiring the submission of duly subscribed documents upon union registration exists in the case of union affiliation. Moreover, there is greater reason to exact compliance with the certification and attestation requirements because, as previously mentioned, several requirements applicable to independent union registration are no longer required in the case of the formation a local or chapter. The policy of the law in conferring greater bargaining power upon labor unions must be balanced with the policy of providing preventive measures against the commission of fraud."A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon submission of the following to the BLR:"1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor federation or national union, and"2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its president."Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local or chapter does not become legitimate labor organization."

The only document extant on record to establish the legitimacy of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter is a charter certificate and nothing else. Disposition WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Secretary of Labor, dated 06 March 1990, affirming that of the Med-Arbiter, is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petition for certification election is dismissed. No costs.

DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ)300 SCRA 120

PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998



FACTS- Respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election among the supervisory, office and technical employees of the petitioner company before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III.- Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-file employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts.- Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization.- The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said that the contention of the respondent that the petitioning union is composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru the exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from the list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed.

ISSUE/SWON the union can be composed of supervisory and rank and file employees

HELDNO. Ratio Article 245 of the Labor Code clearly provides that "supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees.”Reasoning Public respondent gravely misappreciates the basic antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest of rank-and-file employees. There is a irreconcilability of their interests which cannot be cured even in the exclusion-inclusion proceedings.Disposition Petition is granted.

SAMAHAN v SEC OF LABOR (FILSYSTEMS)290 SCRA 680

PUNO, J.; June 5, 1998

NATURESpecial civil action for certiorari assailing the resolution and order of respondent Secretary dismissing petitioner's petition for certification election

FACTS- petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems (SAMAFIL-NAFLU-KMU) is a registered labor union. It filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of private respondent Filsystems, Inc. Filsystems opposed the petition, questioning petitioner's status as a legitimate labor organization on the ground of lack of proof that its contract of affiliation with NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations within 30 days from its execution.- the Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition, ruling that petitioner has no legal personality for failure to submit its contract of affiliation on time. Petitioner appealed to respondent Secretary, contending that, as an independently registered union, it has the right to file a petition for certification election regardless of its failure to prove its affiliation.- another union, the Filsystems Workers Union, filed a petition for certification election. It was granted, and FWU won. Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss appeal as it has become moot & academic. Petitioner opposes the motion to dismiss on the ground that the certification election was void for having been held during the pendency

of the appeal.

ISSUE/S1. WON petitioner had legal personality to file the petition2. WON the appeal was rendered moot and academic

HELD1. YESRatio Petitioner is an independently registered labor union. As a legitimate labor organization, its right to file a petition for certification election cannot be questioned.Reasoning Petitioner's failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU will, at most, result in an ineffective affiliation. Despite affiliation, the local union remains the basic unit free to serve the interests of its members independently of the federation.2. NORatio The certification election and the CBA are void for having occured during the pendency of an unresolved representation case with the Secretary.Reasoning Petitioner seasonably appealed the dismissal of its petition. The appeal stopped the holding of any certification election.Disposition Petition is granted.

A. Organized Establishment

ART. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. - In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.virtual law libraryAt the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).


Definition

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP V LAGUESMA209 SCRA 606

PARAS; June 8, 1992

NATUREPetition for review on certiorari

FACTS- A petition for certification election among the supervisors of California

Manufacturing Corp (CMC) was filed by the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO), alleging inter alia, that it is a duly registered federation while FFW-CALMASUCO Chapter is a duly registered chapter.- CMC alleged that the petition should be denied since it does not contain the requisite number of signatures and that a big number of the supposed signatories to the petition are not actually supervisors as they have no subordinates to supervise, nor do they have the powers and functions which under the law would classify them as supervisors.- FFW-CALMASUCO filed its reply maintaining that under the law, when there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit at the time a petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatories does not apply.- Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of FFW. DOLE affirmed.

ISSUE/S1. WON the 25% subscription requirement applies

HELD1. No. Ratio Article 257 of the Labor code is applicable to unorganized labor organizations and not to establishments where there exists a certified bargaining agent which had previously entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the managementReasoning In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that the supervisors of CMC which constitute a bargaining unit separate and distinct from that of the rank-and-file, have no such agent. Thus they correctly filed a petition for certification election thru union FFW-CALMASUCO, likewise indubitably a legitimate labor organization. CMC's insistence on the 25% subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been expressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is presently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those with existing bargaining agents.

Freedom Period

Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Manila v. Laguesma

212 SCRA 281Nocon ; Aug. 6, 1992

Nature Petition for CertiorariFacts-Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. is engaged in the construction and fabrication business and conducts its construction business in different construction sites here and abroad while its fabrication operations are conducted by its Steel and Marine Structures Group at its Batangas Marine and Fabrication Yard.-Atlantic has adopted the practice of hiring project employees when existing fabrication capacity cannot absorb increases in job orders for steel structures and other heavy construction works. Said project employees are covered by the Project Worker/Reliever Employment Agreements which indicate the specific projects to which they are assigned and the duration of their employment. Upon the expiration of their contracts/agreements, the employment of these employees is automatically terminated unless the projects to which they are assigned have not yet been completed, in which case, they are rehired for the remainder of the project. The positions occupied by the regular rank-and-file employees and the project employees are basically similar in nature and are directly related to the main line of petitioner's business.

RA 9481 Sec. 10. Article 256 of the Labor Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“ART. 256. Representation Issue in Organized Establishments. - In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization including a national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its local chapter participating in the certification election or a local chapter which has been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty (60)-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.

(RA 9481 continued)To have a valid election, at least a majority

of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. In cases where the petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to disclose the names of the local chapter’s officers and members.

At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed


-Atlantic executed a CBA with the AG&P United Rank & File Association ("URFA", for brevity) which is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. -Lakas ng Manggagawa sa AG&P-SMSG-National Federation of Labor ("LAKAS-NFL", for brevity) filed a Petition for Certification Election with the Med-Arbitration Unit. Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin of the Department of Labor and Employment issued an Order for certification election. -Atlantic filed an appeal with the Department of Labor and Employment. Alleged project employees sought to be represented by private respondent LAKAS-NFL were formally issued regular employment appointments by the Atlantic. Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment Bienvenido E. Laguesma denied Atlantic's appeal for lack of merit. Atlantic's project employees at its SMSG site who were not given regular employment appointment went on strike and completely paralyzed Atlantic's operations in Bauan, Batangas. Strike was settled in a conciliation conference, an Agreement was reached by the petitioner and private respondent LAKAS-NFL wherein petitioner agreed to formally regularize all the remaining alleged project employees with at least one year of service pending the final outcome of the certification election case. Thereafter, 686 additional regular project employees were regularized effective December 1, 1990 in pursuance to said Agreement.-On December 6, 1990, Atlantic received a letter from URFA informing the former about the admission into URFA of the membership of 410 regular project employees who were formally regularized by the petitioner effective November 1, 1990. Atlantic filed MFR alleging that the employees sought to be represented by the private respondent LAKAS-NFL are regular employees of the petitioner and are deemed included in the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement of the regular rank-and-file employees of Atlantic. Undersecretary Laguesma denied it.

IssueWON Laguesma was wrong in applying the CONTRACT-BAR rule and failing to consider that the bargaining unit of the alleged regular workers has ceased to exist by virtue of the regularization of all said workers

HeldYes, he committed grave abuse of discretion.Section 1 of Article II of petitioner's Collective Bargaining Agreement with URFA defined appropriate bargaining unit as follows:ARTICLE II :Sec. 1. Appropriate Bargaining Unit The appropriate bargaining unit covered by this Agreement consists of those regular rank-and-file employees of the COMPANY who have remained as such up to the date of execution of this Agreement, as well as those who may hereafter acquire the same status. It is hereby understood and agreed that the following are not within the appropriate bargaining unit and, therefore, this Agreement is not applicable to them, to wit:a. Executives, division department and section heads, staff members, managerial employees, and executive secretaries;b. Workers hired by the COMPANY as project employees as contemplated by existing laws including relievers of regular employees who are sent abroad are not covered by this Contract. Provided, however, that regular employees who are assigned as relievers shall continue to be covered by this Contract, and provided further that relievers who are assigned to regular positions which may become vacant shall be duly considered for such regular positions after attaining the six months probationary period.c. Security personnel."Although the aforementioned definition does not include petitioner's regular project employees in the coverage of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and the URFA, the regularization of all the regular project employees with at least one year of service and the subsequent membership of said employees with the URFA mean that the alleged regular project employees whom respondent LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent are, in fact, regular employees by contemplation of law and included in the appropriate

bargaining unit of said Collective Bargaining Agreement consequently, the bargaining unit which respondent LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent has already ceased to exist. The Labor Code provides:"Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which may disturb the administration of duty registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code."Paragraph 2 of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules end Regulations likewise provides:"If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement."-Consequently, the existence of a duly registered Collective Bargaining Agreement between the petitioner and URFA, which is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner including the regular project employees with more than one year of service, bars any other labor organization from filing a petition for certification election except within the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.-To rule otherwise would negate the legislative intent in the enactment of Article 232 of the Labor Code which was designed to ensure industrial peace between the employer and its employees during the existence of the collective bargaining agreement.Disposition Petition Granted

When Applied

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION V CALLEJA179 SCRA 127

REGALADO; May 5, 1989

NATURESpecial civil action for certiorari and prohibition

FACTS- The associated Labor Unions (ALU) informed GAW Trading, Inc. (GAWTI) that majority of the latter's employees have authorized ALU to be their sole and exclusive bargaining representative, and requested GAW Trading Inc., for a conference for the execution of an initial CBA. GAWTI recognized ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the majority of its employees and for which it set the time for conference and/or negotiation at 4PM on May 12, 1986 at the Pillsbury Office, Aboitiz Building Juan Luna Street, Cebu City. On May 15, 1986, ALU in behalf of the majority of the employees of GAW Trading Inc. and GAWTI signed and executed the CBA. - In the meantime, the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) together with Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW (NAMGAW) undertook a Strike after it failed to get the management of GAWTI to sit for a conference respecting its demands in an effort to pressure GAWTI to make a turnabout of its standing recognition of ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, as to which strike GAWTI filed a petition for Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction, and which strike Labor Arbiter Tumamak held as illegal.- On May 19, 1986, GAW Lumad Labor Union (GALLU-PSSLU) Federation filed a Certification Election petition but as found by Med-Arbiter Cumba, without having complied with the subscription requirement for which it was merely considered an


intervenor until compliance thereof in the other petition for direct recognition as bargaining agent filed on MAy 28, 1986 by southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) - In the meantime, CBA executed by ALU and GAWTI was duly filed with the MOLE, Cebu city. Nevertheless, Med-Arbiter Cumba ruled for the holding of a certification election in all branches of GAWTI in Cebu City, as to which ALU filed MFR, which was treated as an appeal. So the entire record of subject certification case was forwarded for the Director, Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), MOLE, Manila.- BLR Director Trajano, granted ALU's appeal (MFR) and set aside the questioned Med-Arbiter, on the ground that the CBA has been effective and valid and the contract bar rule applicable; Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU) and Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) filed MFR, supplemented by the 'Submission of Additional Evidence.’ GAWTI and ALU opposed. Trajano’s decision was reversed by herein public respondent Calleja. ALU filed MFR but was denied. Hence this petition.- Calleja ordered the holding of a certification election ruling that the "contract bar rule" relied upon by her predecessor Trajano does not apply in the present case. Calleja ruled that CBA is defective because it "was not duly submitted in accordance with Sec. I, Rule IX, Book V of the Implementing Rules of BP 130." There’s no proof that CBA has been posted in at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment at least 5 days before its ratification and that it has been ratified by the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit."

ISSUEWON Calleja erred in reversing Trajano’s ruling and ordering the holding of a certification election.

HELDNOThe CBA in question is defective. - The mechanics of collective bargaining are set in motion only when the following jurisdictional preconditions are present: (1) possession of the status of majority representation by the employees' representative in accordance with any of the means of selection and/or designation provided for by the Labor Code; (2) proof of majority representation; and (3) a demand to bargain under Art.256, par. (a) of the Labor Code4

- The standing of ALU as an exclusive bargaining representative is dubious. The recognition by GAWTI appears to have been based on the self-serving claim of ALU that it had the support of the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit.- In cases where the then Minister of Labor directly certified the union as the bargaining representative, SC voided such certification where there was a failure to properly determine with legal certainty whether the union enjoyed a majority representation. In such a case, the holding of a certification election at a proper time would not necessarily be a mere formality as there was a compelling reason not to directly and unilaterally certify a union- CBA was defective also because of: [a] the failure of GAWTI to post the CBA in at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment at least 5 days before its ratification, [b] the finding of Calleja that 181 of the 281 workers who "ratified" the same now " strongly and vehemently deny and/or repudiate the alleged negotiations and ratification of the CBA.

4 Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the DOLE within the 60-day period before the expiration of a CBA, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least 25% of all the EEs in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least 50% of the number of votes cast.

- Finally, the inapplicability of the contract bar rule is further underscored by the fact that when the disputed agreement was filed before the Labor Regional Office on May 27, 1986, a petition for certification election had already been filed on May 19, 1986. Although the petition was not supported by the signatures of 30% of the workers in the bargaining unit, it was enough to initiate certification election.Disposition Public respondent’s order for the conduct of a certification election among the rank-and-file workers of respondent GAW Trading Inc. is AFFIRMED

GENERAL MILLING CORP. V CA422 SCRA 514

QUISUMBING; February 11, 2004


FACTS- Petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC) concluded a CBA with General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union (union) on April 28, 1989, which included the issue of representation effective for a term of three years. The CBA was effective for three years retroactive to December 1, 1988. Hence, it would expire on November 30, 1991.- On November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration of the CBA, the union sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a request that a counter-proposal be submitted within ten days.- As early as October 1991, however, GMC had received collective and individual letters from workers who stated that they had withdrawn from their union membership, on grounds of religious affiliation and personal differences. Believing that the union no longer had standing to negotiate a CBA, GMC did not send any counter-proposal.- The union filed, on July 2, 1992, a complaint against GMC with the NLRC, Arbitration Division alleging unfair labor practice on the part of GMC for: (1) refusal to bargain collectively; (2) interference with the right to self-organization; and (3) discrimination. The labor arbiter dismissed the case with the recommendation that a petition for certification election be held to determine if the union still enjoyed the support of the workers. The union appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC set aside the labor arbiter’s decision. In its decision, the NLRC pointed out that upon the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6715, the duration of a CBA, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, is five years which, in the case of GMC-Independent Labor Union was from December 1, 1988 to November 30, 1993. All other provisions of the CBA are to be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. Thus, the NLRC held that respondent union remained as the exclusive bargaining agent with the right to renegotiate the economic provisions of the CBA. Consequently, it was unfair labor practice for GMC not to enter into negotiation with the union. The NLRC likewise held that the individual letters of withdrawal from the union submitted by 13 of its members from February to June 1993 confirmed the pressure exerted by GMC on its employees to resign from the union. Thus, the NLRC also found GMC guilty of unfair labor practice for interfering with the right of its employees to self-organization. With respect to the union’s claim of discrimination, the NLRC found the claim unsupported by substantial evidence.- On GMC’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC set aside its decision of January 30, 1998, through a resolution dated October 6, 1998. It found GMC’s doubts as to the status of the union justified and the allegation of coercion exerted by GMC on the union’s members to resign unfounded. Hence, the union filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA reinstated the January 30, 1998 NLRC decision. A motion for


reconsideration was seasonably filed by GMC, but in a resolution dated October 26, 2000, the CA denied it for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE(1) WON GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the duty to bargain collectively and/or interfering with the right of its employees to self-organization(2) WON the draft CBA proposed by the union for two years to begin from the expiration of the original CBA should be imposed on GMC

HELD1. YES- Article 253-A of the Labor Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6715, states:

ART. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. – Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution....

- The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA should last for five years. The relation between labor and management should be undisturbed until the last 60 days of the fifth year. Hence, it is indisputable that when the union requested for a renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA on November 29, 1991, it was still the certified collective bargaining agent of the workers, because it was seeking said renegotiation within five years from the date of effectivity of the CBA on December 1, 1988. The union’s proposal was also submitted within the prescribed 3-year period from the date of effectivity of the CBA, albeit just before the last day of said period. It was obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to negotiate in good faith with the union. For refusing to send a counter-proposal to the union and to bargain anew on the economic terms of the CBA, the company committed an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code, which provides that:

ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:. . .(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;. . .

- Article 252 of the Labor Code elucidates the meaning of the phrase “duty to bargain collectively,” thus:

ART. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. – The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement....

We have held that the crucial question whether or not a party has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns on the facts of the individual case. There is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts.[ The effect of an employer’s or a union’s actions individually is not the test of good-faith bargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions, considered as a whole. Under Article 252 abovecited, both parties are required to perform their mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. The union lived up to this obligation when it presented

proposals for a new CBA to GMC within three years from the effectivity of the original CBA. But GMC failed in its duty under Article 252. What it did was to devise a flimsy excuse, by questioning the existence of the union and the status of its membership to prevent any negotiation. GMC’s refusal to make a counter-proposal to the union’s proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its bad faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively.- GMC also interfered with the employees’ right to self-organization. The CA found that the letters 13 union members signifying their resignation from the union clearly indicated that GMC exerted pressure on its employees. The records show that GMC presented these letters to prove that the union no longer enjoyed the support of the workers. The fact that the resignations of the union members occurred during the pendency of the case before the labor arbiter shows GMC’s desperate attempts to cast doubt on the legitimate status of the union. 2. NO- The Code provides:

ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. – ....It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period [prior to its expiration date] and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.

The provision mandates the parties to keep the status quo while they are still in the process of working out their respective proposal and counter proposal. The general rule is that when a CBA already exists, its provision shall continue to govern the relationship between the parties, until a new one is agreed upon. The rule necessarily presupposes that all other things are equal. That is, that neither party is guilty of bad faith. However, when one of the parties abuses this grace period by purposely delaying the bargaining process, a departure from the general rule is warranted.- It would be unfair to the union and its members if the terms and conditions contained in the old CBA would continue to be imposed on GMC’s employees for the remaining two years of the CBA’s duration. We are not inclined to gratify GMC with an extended term of the old CBA after it resorted to delaying tactics to prevent negotiations. Since it was GMC which violated the duty to bargain collectively, it had lost its statutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions of the draft CBA proposed by the union.

Disposition Petition dismissed.

2. Form of Petition

Signature Verification and Verification of Pleadings

NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION V. SEC. OF LABOR

227 SCRA 821QUIASON : November 16, 1993

FACTS:- Petitioner and respondent FFW-SMQCC are local chapters of labor federations duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Petitioner is the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file workers


of respondent QCC, a domestic corporation engaged in the metal industry.- On September 27, 1991, 38 days before the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and respondent QCC, respondent FFW-SMQCC through Reynito de Pedro filed with the DOLE Industrial Relations Division, National Capital Region a petition for certification election. The petition was accompanied by a list of signatures of company employees, who signified their consent to a certification election among the rank and file employees of QCC.- Petitioner herein moved to dismiss the petition of respondent FFW-SMQCC on the grounds that: (a) the required consent to the certification election of at least 25% of the rank and file employees had not been met; (b) the petition was not verified as required by law; and (c) Reynito de Pedro, who was also the president of petitioner, had no personality to file the petition on behalf of FFW-SMQCC.- On October 30, 1991, respondent FFW-SMQCC, filed a second petition for certification election, this time signed and verified by De Pedro.- On January 24, 1992, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition for certification election of respondent FFW-SMQCC- Petitioner appealed this decision to the Secretary of Labor. On June 17, 1992, the Secretary of Labor rendered a decision, denying the appeal for lack of merit and affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter.

ISSUE:WON the petition for certification election was verified as required by law

HELD:YESReasoning- First, although Reynito de Pedro was the duly elected president of petitioner, he had disaffiliated himself therefrom and joined respondent FFW-SMQCC before the petition for certification election was filed on September 27, 1991. The eventual dismissal of De Pedro from the company is of no moment, considering that the petition for certification election was filed before his dismissal on August 22, 1992.- Second, verification of a pleading is a formal, not jurisdictional requisite. Even if verification is lacking and the pleading is formally defective, the courts may dispense with the requirement in the interest of justice and order of correction of the pleading accordingly. Generally, technical and rigid rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases; and this rule is specifically applied in certification election proceedings, which are non-litigious but merely investigative and non-adversarial in character. Nevertheless, whatever formal defects existed in the first petition were cured and corrected in the second petition for certification election.- Third, attached to the original petition for certification election was a list of 141 supporting signatures out of the 300 employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit to be represented by respondent FFW-SMQCC. Respondent QCC sought to delete from the list some 36 signatures which are allegedly forged and falsified. Petitioner, likewise, submitted a joint affidavit of 13 employees, disclaiming the validity of the signatures therein.- Granting that 36 signatures were falsified and that 13 was disowned, this leaves 92 undisputed signatures which is definitely more than 75 i.e., 25% of the total number of company employees required by law to support a petition for certification election. The disclaimer of 13 employees by their respective signatures covers only their own personal participation and cannot in any way be extended to include the rest of those who did not question the same.

DISPOSITIVE:Petition dismissed

TODAY’S KNITTING v NORIEL75 SCRA 450

FERNANDO CJ; February 28, 1977

FACTS:-Philippine National Union Council, on April 1, 1976, filing with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for the holding of a certification election. Along with this were 200 signatures of Company’s employees confirming such petition. A petition for intervention on behalf of petitioner Today's Knitting Free Workers Union. It saw no need for a certification election, asserting that it had already been voluntarily recognized by the management as the bargaining representative.-Today’s Knitting Company apparently affirmed the assertion that intervenor union, now petitioner, had been recognized by management as representing the minority of the workers. Respondent Union countered with the allegation that there was no legal bar to the petition for certification.-Med-Arbiter Eusebio M. Jimenez issued an order granting the petition for certification election. The matter was then appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations. Appeal was deniedl. It ordered a certification election to be conducted by the Bureau within twenty days from receipt of the resolution. Hence this certiorari and prohibition petition with this Court

ISSUE: WON arbiter erred in granting the petition of a certificate elections inspite of the company’s recognition that another union is the bargaining representative

HELD: NO-ART.257 of the Labor Code is applicable here. What is required is that the petition for certification election should have in its favor "the written consent of at least 30% of all the employees in the bargaining unit. The duty then cast on the Detector of Labor Relations is to ascertain whether there has been such a compliance. There is no doubt in this case there was evidence that more than a total of two-hundred signatures were obtained by respondent Union in seeking such a certification election. The respondent Director having satisfied himself that the codal requisite had been met, he had no choice but to order such certification. In the language of the above provision, "it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit."

3. Venue

CRUZVALE, INC. V LAGUESMA238 SCRA 389

QUIASON; November 25, 1994

NATURESpecial civil action of certiorari, with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, to reverse and set aside the decision of respondent Undersecretary (Laguesma) upholding the order of respondent Med-Arbiter (Tutay)

FACTS- Private respondent, Union of Filipino Workers (UFW), filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional Office No. IV, a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file workers of petitioner.- Petitioner filed its comment to the petition for certification election. It sought the denial of the petition, among the grounds enumerated is that the Regional Office No. IV of the DOLE has no jurisdiction over the petition since petitioner Company's place of business is located at Cubao, Quezon City, which is outside the jurisdiction of the said Regional Office. Consequently, it is the


National Capital Region or NCR of the DOLE which has jurisdiction over said petition.- Med-Arbiter found petitioner's claim unmeritorious and rendered a decision in favor of respondent union.

ISSUE/S1. WON petitioners correctly interpreted Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code which states:“Where to file. A petition for certification election shall be filed with the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the Employer. The petition shall be in writing and under oath.”

HELD1. NORatio The word "jurisdiction" as used in said provision refers to the venue where the petition for certification must be filed. Unlike jurisdiction, which implies the power of the court to decide a case, venue merely refers to the place where the action shall be brought. Venue touches more the convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the case.Reasoning Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code refers only to cases where the place of work of the employees and the place of the principal office of the employer are within the same territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Office where the petition for certification election is filed. The said provision does not apply to the filing of petitions for certification election where the place of work of the employees and the place of principal office of the employer are located within the territorial jurisdictions of different regional offices. We assume that in the drafting of the Omnibus Rules, the Secretary of Labor and Employment took into consideration the fact that there are many companies with factories located in places different from places where the corporate offices are located.The worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party whether as complainant, petitioner or respondent, as the case may be, the nearest governmental machinery to settle a labor dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal and the employer must in no case be allowed a choice in favor of another competent agency sitting in another place to the inconvenience of the worker. Petitioner has not shown how it will be prejudiced by the hearing on the petition for certification election before the Regional Office No. IV, which has its offices in Quezon City, the same city where the principal place of business of petitioner is located. Petitioner is, therefore, being unreasonable in demanding that the petition for certification election be filed with the National Capital Region Office, which holds offices in Manila.Unlike in the Rules governing the procedure before Regional Offices, the New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission prescribes that all cases in which labor arbiters have jurisdiction should be filed in the branch office which has territorial jurisdiction over the "workplace of the complainant/petitioner" (Rule IV, Sec. 1[a]). The NLRC Rules defines the workplace as follows:“For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly assigned when the cause of action arose. It shall include the place where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail, assignment or travel. . . “Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the temporary restraining order is LIFTED.

4. Substantial SupportRATIONALE AND COMPUTATION

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU) V FERRER-CALLEJA

169 SCRA 490GANCAYCO; November 6, 1989

NATURE Special civil action of certiorari

FACTS- Several days before the expiration of the CBA between petitioner ALU and the Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation (PASAR), private respondent National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a petition for certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations Regional Office in Tacloban city.- Petitioner sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that NAFLU failed to present the necessary signatures in support of its petition.

ISSUES1. WON the holding of certification elections in organized establishments is mandated only where a petition is filed questioning the majority status of the incumbent union, and that it is only after establishing that a union has indeed a considerable support that a certification election should be ordered

HELD1. NOReasoning in cases of organized establishments where there exists a certified bargaining agent, what is essential is whether the petition for certification election wasfiled within the sixty-day freedom period. Article 256 of the Labor Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 111, provides:

ART. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. In organized establishments, when a petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the choices receiving the two highest number of votes.

Article 256 is clear. The mere filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the respondent Director to order the holding of a certification election.

Was the petition filed by NAFLU instituted within the freedom period? The record speaks for itself. The previous CBA entered into by petitioner ALU was due to expire on April 1, 1987. The petition for certification was filed by NAFLU on March 23, 1987, well within the freedom period.

Disposition Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

ST. JAMES SCHOOL v. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA ST. JAMES SCHOOL

G.R. No. 151326 November 23, 2005

The Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon City (Samahang Manggagawa') filed a petition for certification election to determine the collective


bargaining representative of the motor pool, construction and transportation employees of St. James School of Quezon City. St. James filed a certification election protest challenging 84 votes on the ground that they were not its regular employees but construction workers of an independent contractor, Architect Bacoy. The DOLE ruled that Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent the non-academic personnel or the rank and file employees from the motor pool, construction and transportation departments, and not all the rank and file employees of St. James. According to the DOLE, Med-Arbiter Falconitin erred in including all the rank and file employees of St. James, whether teaching or non-teaching personnel, in the computation of the total number of employees. The DOLE ruled that the list submitted by St. James contained only the administrative, teaching and office personnel of the school. St. James questions the validity of the formation of the labor union and the validity of the certification election on the ground that there was no quorum.HELD: The petition has no merit. St. James may no longer question the validity of the formation of the labor union. The records show that prior to the holding of the certification election, St. James filed a petition for cancellation of Samahang Manggagawa's union registration. The Court of Appeals had already ruled that the construction workers are actually St. James' regular employees in its motor pool, construction and transportation departments. St. James has five campuses ' the Philamlife and Scout Alcaraz, Quezon City campuses which are pre-schools; the Paraaque City and Calamba, Laguna campuses which offer elementary, secondary and college education; and the Tandang Sora, Quezon City campus which offers elementary and secondary education

The members of Samahang Manggagawa are employees in the Tandang Sora campus. Under its constitution and by-laws, Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent the motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus. Thus, the computation of the quorum should be based on the rank and file motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus and not on all the employees in St. James' five campuses.

The motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the certification election. Hence, the 149 qualified voters should be used to determine the existence of a quorum. Since a majority or 84 out of the 149 qualified voters cast their votes, a quorum existed in the certification election.

St. James further alleges that the names of the 84 voters are not on the list of its rank and file employees. On this score, we sustain the factual finding of the DOLE that the list submitted by St. James consists of its administrative, teaching and office personnel. These administrative, teaching and office personnel are not members of Samahang Manggagawa. They do not belong to the bargaining unit that Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent. Hence, the list submitted by St. James may not be used as basis to determine the members of Samahang Manggagawa.

COMPLIANCE

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION V LAGUESMA

209 SCRA 609PARAS; June 8, 1992

NATURE Petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order

FACTS-On May 24, 1990, a petition for certification election among the supervisors of California Manufacturing Corporation (CMC) was filed by the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO)-In its answer, CMC alleged that the petition for the holding of a certification election should be denied as it is not supported by the required twenty-five percent (25%) of all its supervisors and that a big number of the supposed signatories to the petition are not actually supervisors -FFW-CALMASUCO in its reply maintained, among others, that under the law, when there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit at the time a petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatories does not apply-Med-Arbiter ordered that a certification election be conducted among the supervisory employees of California Manufacturing Corporation-CMC appealed to the Department of Labor and Employment which, however, affirmed the above order -CMC's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, this petition.

ISSUEWON the petition for the holding of a certification election should be denied as it is not supported by the required twenty-five percent (25%) of all its supervisors

HELDNo-CMC's insistence on the 25% subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been expressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is presently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those with existing bargaining agents. -Compliance with the said requirement need not even be established with absolute certainty-The Court has consistently ruled that "even conceding that the statutory requirement of 30% (now 25%) of the labor force asking for a certification election had not been strictly complied with, the Director (now the Med-Arbiter) is still empowered to order that it be held precisely for the purpose of ascertaining which of the contending labor organizations shall be the exclusive collective bargaining agent. -The requirement then is relevant only when it becomes mandatory to conduct a certification election. In all other instances, the discretion, according to the rulings of this Tribunal, ought to be ordinarily exercised in favor of a petition for certification

DispositionThe petition is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

MOTION INTERVENTION

PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS V LAGUESMA

207 SCRA 392CRUZ; March 18, 1992

FACTS

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/nov2005/151326.php#_ftn20


- The CBA between the workers of the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI and Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU) was about to expire. Other unions were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting their moves.- Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were submitted 11 days after the petition.- Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention.- Still another petition for certification election was filed by the Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted 35 days after the filing of the petition.The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, which requires that the signatures be submitted upon filing of petition.This contention was upheld by the Med-Arbiter.- PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification election., DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal. - Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit, and subsequently registered with the DOLE.

ISSUE/SWON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in application of Art 256 of the Labor Code

HELDYES- Pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing workers the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, "the constant and unwavering policy of this Court" has been "to require a certification election as the best means of ascertaining which labor organization should be the collective bargaining representative."- The certification election is the most democratic and expeditious method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall act as their representative in their dealings with the establishment where they are working. The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented.- In line with the policy, we feel that the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at best be given only a directory effect. Accordingly, we hold that the mere filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a certification election, 8 subject to the submission of the consent signatures within a reasonable period from such filing.- It is not denied that the petition to intervene filed by PWUP did not carry the 25% consent signatures, but that the requirement is in fact not applicable to a petition in intervention. As long as the motion for intervention has been properly and timely filed and the intervention would not cause any injustice to anyone, it should not be denied and this is so even if the eventual purpose of the Motion for Intervention is to participate in the Certification Election. - The petition for intervention was viable at the time it was filed because the principal petitions had complied with the requirement for the consent signatures as specified by Article 256. Hence, its intervention should not

be disallowed simply because of the withdrawal or failure to appeal of SAMADA and PEALU.- It is correct to say that as a matter of strict procedure, a petition for intervention should be deemed automatically dismissed where the principal petition itself fails. However, that technical rule should be allowed to prevent a correct determination of the real representative of the workers in line with their constitutional rights to self-organization and collective bargaining.- Deviation from the contract-bar rule is justified only where the need for industrial stability is clearly shown to be imperative. Subject to this singular exception, contracts where the identity of the authorized representative of the workers is in doubt must be rejected in favor of a more certain indication of the will of the workers. - Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code provides that the representation case shall not be adversely affected by a collective agreement submitted before or during the last 60 days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case. As the new CBA was entered into at the time when the representation case was still pending, it follows that it cannot be recognized as the final agreement between the ICTSI and its workers.- There was indeed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents when they dismissed the petitions for certification election because the consent signatures had not been submitted simultaneously with the petition. The issue of majority representation thus remains open and awaits settlement. Following the rulings above-quoted, we hereby declare that the newly-concluded CBA cannot constitute a bar to the holding of a certification election.- Any doubt regarding the real representation of the workers must be resolved in favor of the holding of the certification election. This is preferable to the suppression of the voice of the workers through the prissy observance of technical rules that will exalt procedure over substantial justice.Disposition Petition GRANTED.

SUBMISSION

ORIENTAL TIN CAN LABOR UNION V. SECRETARY OF LABOR

294 SCRA 640ROMERO; August 28, 1998

FACTS- Company entered into CBA with OTCLU (Oriental Tin Can Labor Union). - 248 rank and file workers FFW to file a petition for certification election. However, this petition was repudiated by waiver of 115 signatories who ratified the new CBA.- OTCWU-FFW filed petition for certification election, accompanied by “authentic signatures” of 25% of employees.- OTCLU filed motion for dismissal of the petition for certification election. It said the petition was not endorsed by at least 25% as some of the employees allegedly withdrew their support.- Company filed comment alleging that the new CBA was already ratified.- OTCWU-FFW filed a reply, alleging that the employer has no legal personality to oppose petition for certification election.- DOLE issued certificate of registration of the CBA. It showed that the CBA between the OTCLU and the company has the force and effect of law.- OTCWU-FFW officers walked out of their jobs. The union filed notice of strike with NCMB.grounded on alleged dismissal of union members/officers. Company directed the officers to return to work. None of them did.- Med-arbiter dismissed petition for certification election.- OTCWU-FFW appealed to Sec of Labor. Pending appeal, they


staged a strike. They prevented free ingress and egress of non-striking employees, and vehicles. NLRC issued a writ of preliminary injunction.- Labor Usec issued resolution granting the appeal and setting aside the order of Med-arbiter.- After denial of their MFR, the company and OTCLU filed petitions for certiorari before SC.

ISSUE/S1. WON the employer can challenge petitions for certification election2. WON the DOLE correctly granted the petition for certification election3. WON it is proper to dismiss a petition for certification election because a new CBA has already been ratified.4. WON the 25% support requirement has been met in this case

HELD1. NO- Certification elections are exclusively the concern of employees; hence, the employer lacks the legal personality to challenge the same.- The only instance when an employer may concern itself with employee representation activities is when it has to file the petition for certification election because there is no existing CBA in the unit and it was requested to bargain collectively, pursuant to Article 258 of Labor Code. After filing the petition, the role of the employer ceases and it becomes a mere bystander. Company’s interference in the certification election below by actively opposing the same is manifestly uncalled-for and unduly creates a suspicion that it intends to establish a company union.2. YES- Since question of right of representation as between competing labor organizations in a bargaining unit is imbued with public interest, law governs the choice of a collective bargaining representative which shall be the duly certified agent of the employees concerned. An official certification becomes necessary where the bargaining agent fails to present adequate and reasonable proof of its majority authorization and where the employer demands it, or when the employer honestly doubts the majority representation of several contending bargaining groups. IArticle 255 of the Labor Code allows the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit to designate or select the labor organization which shall be their exclusive representative for the purpose of collective bargaining. - The designation or selection of the bargaining representative without, however, going through the process set out by law for the conduct of a certification election applies only when representation is not in issue. There is no problem if a union is unanimously chosen by a majority of the employees as their bargaining representative, but a question of representation arising from the presence of more than one union in a bargaining unit aspiring to be the employees’ representative, can only be resolved by holding a certification election under the supervision of the proper government authority.3. NO- Petition for certification election was filed 28 days before expiration of existing CBA, well within 60-day period provided for. - Filing of petition for certification election during 60-day freedom period gives rise to a representation case that must be resolved even though a new CBA has been entered into within that period. This is clearly provided for in the aforequoted Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The reason behind this rule is obvious. A petition for certification election is not necessary where the employees are one in their choice of a representative in the bargaining process. Moreover, said provision manifests the intent of the legislative authority to allow, if not encourage, the contending unions in a bargaining unit to hold a certification election during the freedom period. 4. YES- The support requirement is a mere technicality which should be employed in determining the true will of the workers instead of frustrating the same.- All doubts as to the number of employees actually supporting the holding of a certification election should, therefore, be resolved by going through such procedure. It is judicially settled that a certification election

is the most effective and expeditious means of determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force in the appropriate bargaining unit.

PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS V LAGUESMA

207 SCRA 392CRUZ; March 18, 1992

FACTS - The CBA between the workers of the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI and Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU) was about to expire. Other unions were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting their moves.- Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were submitted 11 days after the petition.- Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention.- Still another petition for certification election was filed by the Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted 35 days after the filing of the petition.The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, which requires that the signatures be submitted upon filing of petition. This contention was upheld by the Med-Arbiter.- PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification election. -DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal. - Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit, and subsequently registered with the DOLE.

ISSUE/SWON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in application of Art 256 of the Labor Code

(On Submission: WON simultaneous submission is required)- PWUP argues that under A256, the Med-Arbiter should automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the law when they submitted the required consent signatures several days after filing the petition. - PWUP complains that the dismissal of the petitions for certification election, including its own petition for intervention, had the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.

HELD:- Doctrine in Western Agusan Workers Union-Local 101 of the United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines vs. Trajano: “it has long been settled that the policy of the Labor Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to said basic concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor


Relations in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement”.- SC: In line with the policy, we feel that the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at best be given only a directory effect. Accordingly, we hold that the mere filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a certification election, subject to the submission of the consent signatures within a reasonable period from such filing.

EFFECT WITHDRAWAL

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INC v. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO

395 SCRA 699CARPIO-MORALES; January 22, 2003

NATUREPetition for Certiorari under Rule 45 THIGCI assailing CA decision denying its petition to annul the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Resolutions of November 12, 1998 and December 29, 1998

FACTS- October 16, 1997 > Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU), Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate labor organization said to represent majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No. IV- November 27, 1997 > opposed petition for certification election because the list of union members submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, as well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct and separate from THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to the petition, only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. Also, some of the signatures in the list of union members were secured through fraudulent and deceitful means, and submitted copies of the handwritten denial and withdrawal of some of its employees from participating in the petition.- THEU asserted that it complied with all the requirements for valid affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. 9, series of 1997, on account of which it was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation by DOLE on October 10, 1997; and that Section 5, Rule V of said Department Order provides that the legitimacy of its registration cannot be subject to collateral attack, and for as long as there is no final order of cancellation, it continues to enjoy the rights accorded to a legitimate organization. Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code and Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. 09, automatically order the conduct of a certification election. - January 28, 1998 > DOLE Med-Arbiter Anastacio Bactin ordered the holding of a certification election - DOLE Resolution of November 12, 19981 > setting aside the June 4, 1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for certification election. MFR denied - CA - denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution dated November 12, 1998. It held that while a petition for certification election is an exception to the innocent bystander rule, hence, the employer may pray for the dismissal of such petition on the basis of lack of mutuality of interests of the members of the union as well

as lack of employer-employee relationship and petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to support its allegations.

ISSUEWON the withdrawal of some union members from the certification election will affect the result

HELD:NO- As for petitioner’ s allegation that some of the signatures in the petition for certification election were obtained through fraud, false statement and misrepresentation, the proper procedure is, as reflected above, for it to file a petition for cancellation of the certificate of registration, and not to intervene in a petition for certification election. Regarding the alleged withdrawal of union members from participating in the certification election, this Court’s following ruling is instructive:

"T]he best forum for determining whether there were indeed retractions from some of the laborers is in the certification election itself wherein the workers can freely express their choice in a secret ballot. Suffice it to say that the will of the rank-and-file employees should in every possible instance be determined by secret ballot rather than by administrative or quasi-judicial inquiry. Such representation and certification election cases are not to be taken as contentious litigations for suits but as mere investigations of a non-adversary, fact-finding character as to which of the competing unions represents the genuine choice of the workers to be their sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative with their employer."

Disposition Petition is DENIED. Let the records of the case be remanded to the office of origin, the Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No. IV, for the immediate conduct of a certification election subject to the usual pre-election conference.

DISCRETION RULE APPLICATION

AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC. V. DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS FERRER-CALLEJA

PARAS; Dec 29, 1989

NATURECertiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction

FACTSRespondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia-FFW Chapter (SAMA-ASIA, for short) filed with the National Capital Region, Ministry of Labor and Employment, two separate petitions for direct certification and/or certification election on behalf of the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioners Airtime Specialists and Absolute Sound, Inc. The other respondent Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawa sa Ataco-FFW Chapter (PMA for short) also filed with the same office, on the same day, similar separate petitions in behalf of the regular rank and file employees of petitioners Country-Wealth Development, Ad Planner and Marketing Counsellors and Atlas Resources.

All these five cases were consolidated. Petitioners filed their position paper with motion to dismiss on the following grounds — disaffiliation of the rank and file employees, ineligibility of some signatories because they had less than one (1) year of service resulting in the non-compliance with the 30% requirement. The Med-Arbiter issued an Order mandating a certification election to be conducted among the rank and file employees of the Airtime Specialists, Inc.; Absolute Sound, Inc.; Commonwealth Development Corporation; Ad Planners & Mktg. Corp.; and Atlas


Resources & Management Group, within 20 days from receipt of the Order.

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied they filed the instant petition for "Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction" with a Prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining public respondents from conducting any further proceedings in the said five cases.

ISSUEWON the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion in ordering a certification election

HELDYES. It is Our holding in the case of B.F. Goodrich Phils., Inc. vs. B.F. Goodrich Confidential & Salaried Employees Union-NATU (49 SCRA 532) that the objectives of the Industrial Peace Act would be sooner attained if at the earliest opportunity the employees, all of them, in an appropriate bargaining unit be pooled to determine which labor organization should be its exclusive representative. This Court had made it clear that We should give discretion to the Court of Industrial Relations, or in this case, the Bureau of Labor Relations in deciding whether or not to grant a petition for certification election considering the facts and circumstances of which it has intimate knowledge. Moreover, a perusal of Art. 258 of the Labor Code as amended by Presidential Decree No. 442 reveals that compliance with the 30% requirement (now 20%) makes it mandatory upon the Bureau of Labor Relations to order the holding of a certification election in order to determine the exclusive-bargaining agent of the employees. Stated otherwise, it means that with such, the Bureau is left without any discretion but to order the holding of certification election. Parenthetically, where the petition is supported by less than 30% (now 20%) the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion whether or not to order the holding of certification election depending on the circumstances of the case. Thus, it is Our holding in LVN Pictures vs. Musicians Guild, et al. (1 SCRA 132) that in connection with certification election, the Court of Industrial Relations enjoys a wide discretion in determining the procedure necessary to insure a fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by employees, and having exercised its sound discretion, this Court cannot interfere. (Arguelles v. Young, 153 SCRA 690).

Dispositive Petition denied

WESTERN AGUSAN WORKERS UNION LOCAL V. TRAJANO

G.R. No. 75724 BIDIN; May 6, 1991

NATURE Petition for certiorari

FACTS The Philippine Transport and General Workers' Organization (PTGWO) instituted a petition for certification election alleging, in substance, that thirty percent (30%) of the rank and file workers of the Nasipit Lumber Company (NALCO) and its sister companies supported its petition; that almost all of the 2,100 workers of the company belonged to bargaining agent; that the collective bargaining agreement between NALCO and WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 would expire on June 30, 1985; and that there has been no certification election in the company during the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the petition's filing. Attached to the petition were the signatures of some 612 purported employees of the company.-This was opposed by the compulsory intervenor WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 on the grounds that the petition does not meet the 30% consent requirement as the names and signatures appearing in the list submitted by PTGWO had been secured through fraud and that the purported signatures thereon were mere forgeries.

-The members of the Local KMU-WAWU adopted a resolution to disaffiliate from ULGWP invoking the law on disaffiliation which limits such actions only within the 60-day freedom period. WAWU contended that as an independently registered union, its disaffiliation from ULGWP did not extinguish its judicial personality; that it was the principal party to the CBA while ULGWP was only its agent from which it could disaffiliate at will; that while it was in favor of the certification election, the federation's name should not be attached to its own in the same ballot; that as the principal party to the CBA, it was the bargaining agent entitled to administer and enforce the agreement with the employer; that the issue of disaffiliation was not a prejudicial question to the settlement of representation proceedings; that, in fact, it could be treated in a separate proceeding. Further, WAWU enjoined NALCO from farther deducting union dues in favor of ULGWP.-On the other hand, ULGWP argued that since it lacks the requisite support from the members of the bargaining unit, the petition should not be granted; that the disaffiliation of WAWU was void as only 429 out of total union membership of 2,149 voted in its favor and since no notice of disaffiliation was given to ULGWP by WAWU as required by the federation's constitution and by-laws; that WAWU had not acquired any legal personality to participate in the representation proceedings as it had not died its intervention within the freedom period; that while it was true that majority of its officers had disaffiliated, ULGWP had reorganized its local and had a new set of officers elected, that the federation had issued a charter to WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 making it a local organization of the federation; that being the true and real compulsory intervenor, WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 should be placed on the ballot as a choice for the workers in the certification election. Moreover, ULGWP stressed to NALCO that WAWU's disaffiliation was void and, hence, it was still entitled to receive the dues checked-off from the members of the bargaining unit.

ISSUE1. WON a certification election should be held at the employer

corporations

HELD1. YES. Reasoning From the comment and supplemental comment of respondent WAWU, it appears evident that the issues in this case have become moot and academic. But even assuming such is not the case, it has long been settled that the policy of the Labor Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to said basic concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor Relations in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement. As observed by the Solicitor General, serious doubts exist whether WAWU-ULGWP-Local 101 still represents the majority of the rank-and-file employees at the employer corporations. Thus, while WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 maintains that the work force consists of 2,149 rank-and-file employees, yet PTGWO was able to muster 620 support signatures, not to mention that 429 of its members voted to disaffiliate from WAWU-ULGWP Local 101. Consequently, the sentiments/loyalties of the remaining 1,100 rank-and-file employees is yet to be determined by the best means possible which is through certification election.

Disposition Petition DISMISSED for having become moot and academic


6.4. UNORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENT

ART. 212. Definitions. - (h) "Legitimate labor organization" means any labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof.

STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORP VS SECRETARY OF DOLE

G.R. No. 162355 August 14, 2009, SUPRA

The employer may voluntarily recognize the representation

status of a union in unorganized establishments. SLECC was not an unorganized establishment when it voluntarily recognized SMSLEC as its exclusive bargaining representative on 20 July 2001. CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union filed a petition for certification election on 27 February 2001 and this petition remained pending as of 20 July 2001. Thus, SLECC’s voluntary recognition of SMSLEC on 20 July 2001, the subsequent negotiations and resulting registration of a CBA executed by SLECC and SMSLEC are void and cannot bar CLUP-SLECCWA’s present petition for certification election.

1. DEFINITION

PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION vs. LAGUESMA

G.R. No. 101730

BELLOSILLO; June 17, 1993

NATURE-petition for certiorari

FACTS -PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION, for brevity) filed a petition before the Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment praying for the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T, for brevity). -UNION amended its petition to include the allegation that PT&T was an unorganized establishment employing roughly 100 supervisory employees from whose ranks will constitute the bargaining unit sought to be established-PT&T moved to dismiss the petition for certification election on the ground that UNION members were performing managerial functions and thus were not merely supervisory employees. Moreover, PT&T alleged that a certified bargaining unit already existed among its rank-and-file employees which barred the filing of the petition. -UNION opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that under the Labor Code supervisory employees are not eligible to join the labor organization of the rank-and-file employees although they may form their own.-The Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered that "a certification election . . . (be) conducted among the supervisory personnel of the Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T)."

ISSUE2. WON there should be a certification election pushed by the

UNION

HELD2. YES. Reasoning The applicable provision of law in the case at bar is Art. 257 of the Labor Code. It reads —"Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. — In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization" (emphasis supplied)The supervisory employees of PT&T did not yet have a certified bargaining agent to represent them at the time the UNION, which is a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, filed the petition for certification election. Since no certified bargaining agent represented the supervisory employees, PT&T may be deemed an unorganized establishment within the purview of Art. 257 of the Labor Code.The fact that petitioner's rank-and-file employees were already represented by a certified bargaining agent does not make PT&T an organized establishment vis-a-vis the supervisory employees. After all, supervisory employees are "not . . . eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees." Consequently, the Med-Arbiter, as sustained by public respondent, committed no grave abuse of discretion in granting the petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner PT&T because Art. 257 of the Labor Code provides that said election should be automatically conducted upon filing of the petition. In fact, Sec. 6 of Rule V, Book V, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations makes it mandatory for the Med-Arbiter to order the holding of a certification election. It reads —

ART. 257. Petitions in Unorganized Establishments. - In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by any legitimate labor organization, including a national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its 1ocal/chapter participating in the certification election or a local/chapter which has been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation. In cases where the petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to disclose the names of the local chapter’s officers and members.

ART. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. - A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: xxx(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining; xxx


"Sec. 6. Procedure. — Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional Director shall assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate action. The Med-Arbiter, upon receipt of the assigned petition, shall have twenty (2) working days from submission of the case for resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition.In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a certification election . . ."

Disposition Petition DENIED

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP V LAGUESMA209 SCRA 606

PARAS; June 8, 1992

NATUREPetition for review on certiorari

FACTS- A petition for certification election among the supervisors of California Manufacturing Corp (CMC) was filed by the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO), alleging inter alia, that it is a duly registered federation while FFW-CALMASUCO Chapter is a duly registered chapter.- CMC alleged that the petition should be denied since it does not contain the requisite number of signatures and that a big number of the supposed signatories to the petition are not actually supervisors as they have no subordinates to supervise, nor do they have the powers and functions which under the law would classify them as supervisors.- FFW-CALMASUCO filed its reply maintaining that under the law, when there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit at the time a petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatories does not apply.- Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of FFW. DOLE affirmed.

ISSUE/S1. WON the 25% subscription requirement applies

HELD1. No. Ratio Article 257 of the Labor code is applicable to unorganized labor organizations and not to establishments where there exists a certified bargaining agent which had previously entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the managementReasoning In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that the supervisors of CMC which constitute a bargaining unit separate and distinct from that of the rank-and-file, have no such agent. Thus they correctly filed a petition for certification election thru union FFW-CALMASUCO, likewise indubitably a legitimate labor organization. CMC's insistence on the 25% subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been expressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is presently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those with existing bargaining agents.

CELINE MARKETING V CA (RUIZ)205 SCRA 849

GRINO-AQUINO; February 4, 1992

NATUREPetition for certioari

FACTS- DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma ordered the holding of a certification election among its rank-and-file employees, as prayed for in a petition filed by the Confederation of Filipino Workers. Such petition was amended to include all the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner in its

outlets at Landmark-Makati; Shoppesville-Greenhills; SM-North, etc. comprising more or less 100 employees.- Celine Mktg moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the CFW had not been authorized by a majority of the rank-and file employees, and that it failed to submit a copy of the charter certificate issued to the local union. At the hearing before the Labor Arbiter, CFW submitted a xerox copy of the charter certificate issued to its local union.- The petitioner moved to strike it from the records for non-production of the original and for lack of proof that the organizational documents of the union had been filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations.- The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on those grounds.- The union appealed the order to the DOLE Sec which was granted. - Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUEWON the private respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements in Sec 3, Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules of LC

HELDNORatio While it may be true that the petition for certification election did not carry the authorization of a majority of the rank-and file employees of the petitioner, their consent is not necessary when the bargaining unit that the union seeks to represent, is still unorganized. The petition for certification election may be filed by any union, not by the employees.Reasoning Thus, Art 257 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715, provides: “In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization .”- The law assumes that the union is the real party in interest in a petition for certification election. Anyway, the certification election itself is the appropriate forum for the employees to express their choice of a bargaining representative or none at all.Disposition Finding no grave abuse of discretion in the Undersecretary's resolution, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.

MANDATORY ELECTION

SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. VS LAGUESMA

325 SCRA 425QUISUMBING: February 2, 2000

NATURE: Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition

FACTS:- Petitioner Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., (SRBI, for brevity) is a duly-registered banking institution with principal office in Cebu City and a branch in Mandaue City. Private respondent SRBI Association of Professional, Supervisory, Office, and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU) is a legitimate labor organization affiliated with the Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines (TUCP).- On October 8, 1993, the DOLE Regional Office in Cebu City granted Certificate of Registration to APSOTEU-TUCP, hereafter referred to as the union.- On October 26, 1993, the union filed a petition for certification election of the supervisory employees of SRBI. It alleged, among


others, that: (1) APSOTEU-TUCP was a labor organization duly-registered with the Labor Department; (2) SRBI employed 5 or more supervisory employees; (3) a majority of these employees supported the petition: (4) there was no existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between any union and SRBI; and (5) no certification election had been held in SRBI during the past 12 months prior to the petition.- On November 12, 1993, SRBI filed a motion to dismiss the union's petition. It sought to prevent the holding of a certification election on two grounds. First, that the members of APSOTEU-TUCP were in fact managerial or confidential employees. Second, the Association of Labor Unions-Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines or ALU-TUCP was representing the union.- The union filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 1, 1993. It argued that its members were not managerial employees but merely supervisory employees.- On December 9, 1993, the Med-Arbiter denied petitioner's motion to dismiss.- SRBI appealed the Med-Arbiter's decision to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The appeal was denied for lack of merit. The certification election was ordered.- On June 16, 1994, the Med-Arbiter scheduled the holding of the certification election for June 29, 1994.- On June 17, 1994, SRBI filed with the Med-Arbiter an urgent motion to suspend proceedings. The Med-Arbiter denied the same. SRBI then filed a motion for reconsideration. Two days later, the Med-Arbiter cancelled the certification election scheduled for June 29, 1994 in order to address the motion for reconsideration.- The Med-Arbiter later denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration- SRBI appealed the order of denial to the DOLE Secretary- Petitioner proceeded to file a petition with the DOLE Regional Office seeking the cancellation of the respondent union's registration. It averred that the APSOTEU-TUCP members were actually managerial employees who were prohibited by law from joining or organizing unions.- DOLE Undersecretary denied SRBI's appeal for lack of merit. He ruled that APSOTEU-TUCP was a legitimate labor organization. It was fully entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election. He also held that until and unless a final order is issued cancelling APSOTEU-TUCP's registration certificate, it had the legal right to represent its members for collective bargaining purposes.- SRBI moved for reconsideration of the Undersecretary's decision

Issue:WON the Med-Arbiter may validly order the holding of a certification election

HELD: YES ReasoningOne of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article 242(b) of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Having complied with the requirements of Art. 234, it is our view that respondent union is a legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed.

2. THE EMPLOYER AS INITIATING PARTY

ART. 212 (e) "Employer" includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. The term shall not include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents except when acting as employer.

STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORP VS SECRETARY OF DOLE

G.R. No. 162355 August 14, 2009, SUPRA

We find it strange that the employer itself, SLECC, filed a motion to oppose CLUP-SLECCWA’s petition for certification election. In petitions for certification election, the employer is a mere bystander and cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter’s decision. The exception to this rule, which happens when the employer is requested to bargain collectively, is not present in the case before us.

REPUBLIC VS KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG, PHIL.

G.R. No. 160352, July 23, 2008

The Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) filed the present petition to seek closure on two issues:

First, whether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification election in view of the amendment brought about by D.O. 9, series of 1997, which deleted the phraseology in the old rule that "[t]he appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employee shall not include the supervisory employees and/or security guards;" and

Second, whether the legitimacy of a duly registered labor organization can be collaterally attacked in a petition for a certification election through a motion to dismiss filed by an employer such as Kawashima Textile Manufacturing Phils., Inc.

ART. 258-A. Employer as Bystander. - In all cases, whether the petition for certification election is filed by an employer or a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for certification election. The employer’s participation in such proceedings shall be limited to: (1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and (2) submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference should the Med-Arbiter act favorably on the petition.

ART. 258. When an employer may file petition. - When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election. All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days. The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.


The petition is imbued with merit. The key to the closure that petitioner seeks could have been Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481. XXX

[U]nder Section 12 of R.A. No. 9481, employers have no personality to interfere with or thwart a petition for certification election filed by a legitimate labor organization, to wit:

Sec. 12. A new provision, Article 258-A is hereby inserted into the Labor Code to read as follows:

"Art. 258-A. Employer as Bystander. - In all cases, whether the petition for certification election is filed by an employer or a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for certification election. The employer's participation in such proceedings shall be limited to: (1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and (2) submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference should the Med- Arbiter act favorably on the petition."

However, R.A. No. 9481 took effect only on June 14, 2007; hence, it applies only to labor representation cases filed on or after said date. As the petition for certification election subject matter of the present petition was filed by KFWU on January 24, 2000, R.A. No. 9481 cannot apply to it. There may have been curative labor legislations that were given retrospective effect, but not the aforecited provisions of R.A. No. 9481, for otherwise, substantive rights and interests already vested would be impaired in

the process.

Instead, the law and rules in force at the time of the filing by KFWU of the petition for certification election on January 24, 2000 are R.A. No. 6715.XXX

In Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO in which the core issue was whether mingling affects the legitimacy of a labor organization and its right to file a petition for certification election. This time, given the altered legal milieu, the Court abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to its pronouncement in Lopez that while there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects thereof. Thus, the Court held that after a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code. XXX

Now to the second issue of whether an employer like respondent may collaterally attack the legitimacy of a labor

organization by filing a motion to dismiss the latter's petition for certification election.

Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. The employer's only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.

Petition for certification election granted.

NOTRE DAME of GREATER MANILA (NDGM) V LAGUESMA

433 SCRA 244PANGANIBAN, June 28, 2004

NATURE Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

FACTS-Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers and Employees Union (NDGMTEU) a legitimate labor organization duly accredited and registered with DOLE filed with Med-Arbitration Branch a petition for direct certification as sole and exclusive bargaining agent or certification election among the rank and file employees of NDGM. Med Arbiter issued an order granting the certification election (in accordance with A257 of LC, considering that NDGM was an unorganized establishment, to give each employee a fair chance to choose their bargaining agent) and ordering Representation officer Francisco to undertake a pre-election conference. -during the pre-election conference, the parties agreed that the certification election shall be conducted and that the eligible voters shall be those employees appearing in the list submitted by management (who were regular employees). NDGM registered a motion to include probationary and substitute employees in the list of qualified voters, but was denied by Med-Arbiter through a notation. NDGM filed an appeal to Labor Secretary, pending appeal, public respondents conducted a certification election where NDGMTEU won (56 vs 23 who did not want a union). NDGM filed a written notice of protest against the conduct and results of the certification of election, which was opposed by NDGMTEU. NDGMTEU filed a motion to certify their union as the exclusive bargaining agent of NDGM, which was granted and certified by the Med-Arbiter. NDGM’s protest was dismissed so NDGM appealed, which was again dismissed for lack of merit. NDGM filed MFR – rejected.CA: staying the holding of the certification election unnecessary, certification election complaints should have been raised before the pre-election conference, where the qualification of voters was already determined. NDGM had no standing to question the qualification of the workers because in the process of choosing the collective bargaining representative, the employer was definitely an intruder


Petitioner’s contention: (1)A259, LC5 would allow the staying (suspension) of the holding of certification election, with its appeal of the denial of its Motion. (2) It has the support of all the excluded employees so they could represent these employees and question the validity of the election

ISSUE/S1. WON the holding of certification elections was stayed by the NDGM’s appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation to the DOLE Secretary on the Motion to Include the probationary and Substitute Employees in the list of Qualified Voters 2. WON the employer has legal personality to question the election

HELD1. NO. The appeal of the med-arbiter’s January 13, 1992 handwritten notation -- pertaining to the incidental matter of the list of voters -- should not stay the holding of the certification election.Ratio. Not all the orders issued by a med-arbiter are appealable. In fact, "[i]nterlocutory orders issued by the med-arbiter prior to the grant or denial of the petition, including orders granting motions for intervention issued after an order calling for a certification election, shall not be appealable. However, any issue arising therefrom may be raised in the appeal on the decision granting or denying the petition."-The intention of the law is to limit the grounds for appeal that may stay the holding of a certification election. This intent is manifested by the issuance of Department Order No. 40. Under the new rules, an appeal of a med-arbiter’s order to hold a certification election will not stay the holding thereof where the employer company is an unorganized establishment, and where no union has yet been duly recognized or certified as a bargaining representative. -This new rule, therefore, decreases or limits the appeals that may impede the selection by employees of their bargaining representative. Expediting such selection process advances the primacy of free collective bargaining, in accordance with the State’s policy to "promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining x x x"; and "to ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare."Reasoning. INTERPRETATION OF A259 OF LC: A259 is supplemented by Section 10 of Rule V of Book Five of the 1992 Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Stating that such appeal stays the holding of a certification election, the later provision reads:Sec. 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable." The Secretary shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide the appeal from receipt of the records of the case. The filing of the appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any certification election. The decision of the Secretary shall be final and inappealable."-A259 clearly speaks of the "order x x x of the election." Hence, the Article pertains, not just to any of the med-arbiter’s orders like the subject notation, but to the order granting the petition for certification election. This is an unmistakable inference from a reading of Sections 6 and 7 of the implementing rules6.

5 “Art 259. Appeal from certification election orders.– Any party to an

election may appeal the order or results of the election as determined by the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the grounds that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary of Labor and Employment for the conduct of the election have been violated. Such appeal shall be decided within fifteen (15) calendar days.”6

"SEC. 6. Procedure." Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional Director shall assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate action. The Med-Arbiter, upon receipt of the assigned petition, shall have twenty (20) working days from submission of the case for resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition. In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a certification election.

In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise where the majority status of the incumbent collective bargaining union is questioned through a verified petition by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the certification election by secret ballot if the petition is filed x x

2. NO.Ratio. Unless it filed a petition for a certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code, the employer has no standing to question the election, which is the sole concern of the workers. The Labor Code states that any party to an election may appeal the decision of the med-arbiter. Petitioner was not such a party to the proceedings, but a stranger which had no right to interfere therein. Reasoning. JOYA V. PCGG (DEFINITION OF LEGAL STANDING): Legal standing means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the x x x act that is being challenged. The term ‘interest’ is material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party. NDGM did not and will not sustain direct injury as a result of the non-inclusion of some of its employees in the certification election. Hence, it does not have any material interest in this case. Only the employees themselves, being the real parties-in-interest, may question their removal from the voters’ list.-On Claim that NDGM has the support of all the excluded employees, as made known in a letter stating the employees’ desire to participate in the certification election, and citing cases7

wherein allegedly management was allowed to interfere in certification elections: All these cases state precisely the opposite. All employees should be given an opportunity to make known their choice of who shall be their bargaining representative. Such provision, however, does not clothe the employer with the personality to question the certification election. -MONARCH INTERNATIONAL CASE : It [petition] was filed by the employer, the adversary in the collective bargaining process. Precisely, the institution of collective bargaining is designed to assure that the other party, labor, is free to choose its representative. To resolve any doubt on the matter, certification election, to repeat, is the most appropriate means of ascertaining its will. It is true that there may be circumstances where the interest of the employer calls for its being heard on the matter. An obvious instance is where it invokes the obstacle interposed by the contract-bar rule. This case certainly does not fall within the exception. Sound policy dictates that as much as possible, management is to maintain a strictly hands-off policy. For [if] it does not, it may lend itself to the legitimate suspicion that it is partial to one of the contending [choices in the election].-The provisions of the Labor Code relating to the conduct of certification elections were enacted precisely for the protection of the right of the employees to determine their own bargaining representative. Employers are strangers to these proceedings. They are forbidden from influencing or hampering the employees’ rights under the law. They should not in any way affect, much less stay, the holding of a certification election by the mere convenience of filing an appeal with the labor secretary. To allow them to do so would do violence to the letter and spirit of welfare legislations intended to protect labor and to promote social justice.

x."SEC. 7 . Appeal." Any aggrieved party may appeal the order

of the Med-Arbiter to the Secretary on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary for the conduct of election have been violated.7

Monark International v. Noriel, Eastland Manufacturing Company v. Noriel and Confederation of Citizens Labor Union v. Noriel.


Disposition. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS UNION – FSM v TITAN MEGABAGS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

428 SCRA 524SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; May 19, 2004

FACTS- Petitioner filed a petition for certification election with the Med-Arbitration Section OF DOLE. Respondent opposed the petition, contending that members of petitioner union are not its employees but of Stitchers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (SMC), an independent contractor. Respondent claimed that it engaged SMC to manufacture and sew its multi-purpose industrial bags. - The Med-Arbiter held that respondent is the employer of the members of petitioner union and directed that a certification election be conducted by its regular rank and file workers. On appeal, the DOLE Sec affirmed the decision.- Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the DOLE Sec. for being late by 7 days. Upon appeal, the CA set aside the resolutions of the DOLE and disallowed the conduct of a certification election. ISSUEWON the CA erred in setting aside the Resolutions of the DOLE Sec.

HELD YESUnder Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, any party to a certification election may appeal the order of the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor who shall decide the same within 15 calendar days.

Along this line, Section 15, Rule XI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides that the Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of the DOLE on appeal shall be final and executory. Upon finality of the Decision of the Secretary, the entire records of the case shall be remanded to the office of origin for implementation of the Decision, unless restrained by the appropriate court.

In National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, it was ruled that the remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of the DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. And without a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed within the 10-day reglementary period, the questioned Decision or Resolution of the Secretary becomes final and executory. Consequently, the merits of the case can no longer be reviewed to determine if the Secretary could be faulted for grave abuse of discretion.Respondents failure to file its motion for reconsideration seasonably is jurisdictional and fatal to its cause and has, in effect, rendered final and executory resolutions of the Secretary of the DOLE.Even if there was no procedural flaw on the part of respondent, still the CA should have denied respondents petition for certiorari. It has been held that "in certification elections, the employer is a bystander, it has no right or material interest to assail the certification election."

Thus, when a petition for certification election is filed by a legitimate labor organization, it is good policy of the employer not to have any participation or partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining representative. While employers may rightfully be notified or informed of petitions of such nature, they should not, however, be considered parties thereto with an inalienable right to oppose it.

3. NATURE OF PROCEEDING

Nature

YOUNG MEN LABOR UNION STEVEDORES v CIR13 SCRA 285

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.; Feb. 26, 1965

NATURE

FACTS- Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. (NALCO) entered into a contract with Young Men Labor Union Stevedores (YMLUS) and Victory Stevedoring and Labor Union (VISLU) whereby the 2 unions bound themselves to undertake loading jobs of NALCO’s exports at 50-50. YMLUS later sent NALCO a letter demanding the withdrawal of the job from VISLU on the ground that its registration permit granted by DOLE had been cancelled; VISLU refused as the order of cancellation had not become final. YMLUS sent a notice of picketing if their demand was not carried out.- NALCO filed a petition with the CIR praying that pending final determination of the issue, the unions observe status quo; and, after due hearing, decide which union gets the job, or comply with the 50-50 arrangement.- After a series of bloody incidents resulting from the picketing by YMLUS and retaliation from VISLU, NALCO filed a petition with the CIR praying (1) to issue a TRO against YMLUS to refrain from preventing VISLU’s operations in any manner (2) issue a similar TRO to VISLU, ordering them to desist from retaliating (3) after hearing, to issue and order making such injunctions permanent.- both unions filed separate motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the CIR but later submitted to the CIR’s jurisdiction. Judge Martinez rendered a decision enjoining parties to continue observing the 50-50 arrangement until it is decided by certification election, which party was to become the bargaining unit. YMLUS and NALCO each filed MFRs as to the holding of certification elections which were denied, hence this petition.

ISSUE/S1. WON CIR had jurisdiction to act on the controversy2. WON CIR erred in ordering a certification election

HELD1. YES.Reasoning Sec. 12b of RA 875 provides that matters pertaining to certification election involving 2 or more unions fall under the jurisdiction of the CIR. Also, petitioner is estopped from questioning the same since it withdrew its MFR and voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction to present evidence.2. NO.Reasoning Again, it is sanctioned by Sec. 12(b) of RA 875 and is the only expedient way to resolve the friction between the 2 unions. The object of certification proceedings is not a decision of any alleged commission of a wrong or asserted deprivation of rights but is merely the determination of the proper bargaining unit. As such, said proceedings are investigatory in nature and this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the CIR, unless grave abuse of discretion is shown.Disposition Order appealed from is affirmed.

4. CERTIFICATION ELECTION- PROCESS AND PROCEDURE

ART. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. - In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.virtual law libraryAt the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).


a. Effect of Private Agreement

ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM) vs. DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS

91 SCRA 482AQUINO; Jul 16, 1979

NATUREAppeal from an order of the Director of Labor Relations

FACTS- This is a certification election case. The Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa, a duly registered labor union and a member of Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), filed with the Ministry of Labor a petition for certification election.- Instead of deciding the appeal promptly, the Director turned over the record of the case to the TUCP, a federation of labor unions, allegedly by virtue of an arrangement between the Ministry of Labor and the said federation that cases involving its member-unions must first be referred to it for possible settlement in accordance with its Code of Ethics. - The TUCP has not decided the controversy. Thus the IBM filed in this Court the instant petition for mandamus to compel the Director of Labor Relations to decide the case, or, in the alternative, to require the TUCP to return to the Director the record of the case.

ISSUEWON it was legal and proper for the Director of Labor Relations to refer to the TUCP the appeal of the Associated Labor Unions in a certification election case.

HELDNO.Ratio The Labor Code never intended that the Director of Labor Relations should abdicate, delegate and relinquish his arbitrational prerogatives in favor of a private person or entity or to a federation of trade unions. Such a surrender of official functions is an anomalous, deplorable and censurable renunciation of the Director's adjudicatory jurisdiction in representation cases.Reasoninga. Article 226 of the Labor Code provides in peremptory terms that the Bureau of Labor Relations and the labor relations divisions in the regional offices of the Ministry of Labor "shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or non-agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration." b. Article 259 of the Labor Code provides that "all certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days. " Article 260 of the same Code provides that the Bureau of Labor Relations should decide appeals in representation cases "within fifteen (15) working days", or twenty working days, according to section 10, Rule V, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. Section 10 further provides that "the decision of the Bureau in all cases shall be final and unappealable."

DISPOSITIONThe president, secretary, or any responsible officer of the TUCP is ordered to return to the Director of Labor Relations the original record of the case. The Director is directed to decide the appeal within ten days from the receipt of the record.

PLUM V NORIEL119 SCRA 299

DE CASTRO; December 15, 1982

NATUREPetitioner seeks to set aside the Order and Resolutions of the Bureau of Labor Relations for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. It, likewise, prays

ART. 258. When an employer may file petition. - When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election. All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days. The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.

ART. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. - In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. (As amended by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).


for an order directing respondent director to hold a certification election so that the employees in the company can elect a union representative to negotiate an improved collective bargaining agreement to replace the agreement which has expired on February 1, 1976

FACTS- Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers filed a petition, praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of Manila Jockey Club, Inc.The Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor Union-PTGWO filed a motion to intervene and opposition to said petition and alleged among other things, that it is the recognized collective bargaining representative of all the employees of the company and that it is in the process of negotiating a modification of the collective bargaining agreement.- Another supplemental MTD was filed by intervenor PTGWO, this time invoking the "No Union Raiding Clause" of the "Code of Ethics" adopted by the members of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (T.U.C.P.) wherein both petitioner and intervenor are members, and claiming that the petition failed to satisfy the 30% requirement of the law. The entire record of the case was forwarded to the Office of the President of the T.U.C.P. for the purpose of submitting the matter to the Congress for decision.The entire record of the case was re turned by the T.U.C.P. President to the Office of then Secretary of Labor which in turn transmitted the same to the Bureau of Labor Relations Office with a forwarding letter signed by the late Roberto S. Oca in his capacity as President of the Congress, stating, among other things, the following: 1 "In a National Executive Board meeting of the Katipunang Manggagawang Pilipino (TUCP) held last March 7, 1977 at the Army & Navy Club, it was duly approved that the above-captioned case be referred back to the BLR and that MJCR-OELU-PTGWO be declared as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, thus dismissing the petition of PLUM."The BLR endorsed the case to Officer-in-Charge Vicente Leodegardo, Jr., of Region IV for appropriate action.On May 5, 1977, Atty. Luna C. Piezas, Chief, Med-Arbiter Section of Region IV, Department of Labor, promulgated an order 2 dismissing the case pursuant to the letter of the President of the T.U.C.P.Petitioner PLUM filed an appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations predicated on the ground that TUCP has no authority in law to grant or deny election under the Labor Code which mandated the secret ballot to elect the true union representative.On September 17, 1977, the Bureau Director issued a resolution 3 dismissing the appeal.

HELDEmployees are deprived of the benefits of a CBA because management refused to bargain with the union. A certification of election is warranted. Workers' welfare can be promoted through the bargaining process. Certification of election is the fairest and most effective way f determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force. The will of the majority is controlling. The director is still empowered to call for a certification election. Instead of ordering an election, Director dismissed the appleal of PLUM based on the decision of TUCP. This is frowned upon by the Court.

Disposition Accordingly, the questioned order and resolutions are nullified and set aside. Respondent Director is hereby ordered to hold a certification election forthwith. This decision is immediately executory. No costs.

Documents

Disini Labor Rd4 Partially Updated