Labor Rd4 Compiled

8/9/2019 Labor Rd4 Compiled

1/58

Labor Law 2 A2010 - 95- Disini

Part 6

Union Representation:Establishing Union Majority Status

6.1. PRE-CONDITION- EMPLOYER-

EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPELECTION- 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 inshipping entered into a contract for lease of services with petitionerAllied Free Workers Union (AFWU), a duly registered legitimate laborunion. In the contract, it was stipulated that AFWU will do and performall the work of stevedoring and arrastre services of all vessels or boatsof MARITIMA in Iligan City; that the contract is good and valid for 1month starting Aug.12, 1952, but may be renewed by agreement of the

parties with the reservation that MARITIMA has the right to revoke saidcontract even before the expiration of the term, if and when AFWU failsto render good service.- Towards the end of 1953, MARITIMA complained to AFWU ofunsatisfactory and inefficient service. To remedy the situation,MARITIMA was forced to hire extra laborers from among stand-byworkers 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 theCIR praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining unitcomposed of all the laborers doing arrastre and stevedoring work forMARITIMA, to which action MARITIMA answered, alleging lack of ER-EE relationship. On Aug.1954, MARITIMA informed AFWU of thetermination of the contract because of the inefficient service rendered bythe latter which had adversely affected its business. The termination wasto take effect as of Sept.1, 1954. MARITIMA then contracted with theIligan Stevedoring Union for the arrastre and stevedoring work. The

latter agreed to perform the work subject to the same terms andconditions of the contract with AFWU. The new agreement was to becarried 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-EErelationship between the parties. On Sept.9, 1954, MARITIMA filed anaction to rescind the contract, enjoin AFWU members from doingarrastre and stevedoring work in connection with its vessels, and forrecovery of damages against AFWU and its officers. The CFI orderedthe rescission of the contract and permanently enjoined AFWUmembers from performing work in connection with MARITIMA's vessels.AFWU was later able to secure a writ of preliminary injunction orderingthe maintenance of the status quo prior to Jan.6, 1961. Thus, after

Jan.18, 1961, AFWU laborers were again back doing the samework as before.- On Nov.4, 1963, after almost 10 years, the CFI finally renderedits decision: In pursuance of the provisions of Sec.12 of R.A.875 and the Rules of this court on certification election, theHonorable Secretary of Labor or any of his authorizedrepresentative is hereby requested to conduct certificationelection among all the workers and/or stevedores working in thewharf of Iligan City who are performing stevedoring and arrastreservice aboard Compania Maritima vessels docking at Iligan Cityport in order to determine their representative for collectivebargaining with the employer, whether these desire to berepresented by the petitioner Allied Free Workers Union orneither; and upon termination of the said election, the resultthereof shall forthwith be submitted to this court for furtherconsideration. From this ruling, both parties appealed, AFWUclaiming that it should be declared outright as the majority unionwhile MARITIMA contends that said court could not even havecorrectly ordered a certification election considering that therewas an absence of ER-EE relationship between it and saidlaborers.

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 existan ER-EE relationship between the ER and the petitioner union.Ratio The duty to bargain collectively exists only between theemployer and its employees. Where there is no duty tobargain collectively, it is not proper to hold certification electionsin connection therewith.Reasoning In its findings, the CIR observed that after therescission, the AFWU laborers continued working in accordancewith the cabo system, which was the prevailing custom in theplace. Under this system, the union was an independentcontractor. The CIR also made a finding that prior to the contractbetween MARITIMA and AFWU, the former had an oral arrastreand stevedoring agreement with another union, the IliganLaborers Union (ILU), which agreement was also based on the

cabo system. After unsatisfactory service, MARITIMA cancelledthis oral contract and entered into a new contract with AFWU,the terms and conditions of which were similar to the oralcontract with ILU. The written contract between AFWU andMARITIMA was signed under the assurance by AFWU that thesame arrangement previously had with the former unionregarding performance and execution of arrastre andstevedoring contract be followed in accordance with the customof such kind of work in Iligan. Thus, petitioner union operated asa labor contractor under the so-called cabo system.- From these findings, Insofar as the working agreement wasconcerned, there was no real difference between the contractand the prior oral agreement. Both were based on the cabosystem. Hence, since the parties observed the "cabo" systemafter the rescission of the contract, and since the characteristicsof said system show that the contracting union was an

independent contractor, it is reasonable to assume that AFWUcontinued 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 tothe laborers. Moreover, there is no evidence at all regarding thecharacteristics of the working arrangement between AFWU andMARITIMA after the termination of the CONTRACT. All we haveto go on is the court a quo's finding that the cabo system wasobserved-a system that negatives employment relationship.- Since the only function of a certification election is todetermine, with judicial sanction, which union shall be the officialrepresentative or spokesman of the employees will be, therebeing no ER-EE relationship between the parties disputants, it

Why is an employer-employee relationship a PRE-CONDITIONbefore a petition for certification election can be entertained?An employer employee relationship is a precondition since withoutsuch relationship, there will be no duty to bargain on the part ofeither the employer or employee.Thus it will be senseless to go on with a certification election tochoose their bargaining representative when there is no duty tocollectively bargain anyway. (Allied Free Workers Union v. CiaMaritima, 19 SCRA 258, 1967)


2/58


follows that there is neither a duty to bargain collectively. Thus, the orderfor certification election in question cannot be sustained.

Disposition appealed decision of the CIR is AFFIRMED insofar as itdismissed the charge of ULP, but REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofaras it ordered the holding of a certification election. The petition forcertification 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 Electionamong the supervisory, office and technical employees of thepetitioner company before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III.- Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) thatthe respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for theproposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be

conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-fileemployees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legalstanding since it failed to submit its books of accounts.- Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisoryemployees and that it has no obligation to attach its books ofaccounts since it is a legitimate labor organization.- The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It saidthat the contention of the respondent that the petitioning unionis composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees isnot sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thruthe exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employeeswho are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded fromthe list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed.

6.2. METHODS OF ESTABLISHINGMAJORITY 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 ContainerTerminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) with private respondents Associate PortCheckers and Workers Union (APCWU), the incumbent union, was dueto expire on April 14, 1990. Other unions were seeking to represent thelaborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plottingtheir moves.

- on March 14, 1990, when the Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan(SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consentsignatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit weresubmitted on March 26, 1990, or eleven days after the petition.- On April 2, 1990, herein petitioner Port Workers Union of thePhilippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention.- another petition for certification election was filed by the PortEmployees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. Theconsent signatures were submitted on May 11, 1990, or thirty-five daysafter the filing of the petition.- On April 26, 1990, APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on theground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted in part as follows:

In a petition involving an organized establishment orenterprise where the majority status of the incumbentcollective bargaining union is questioned through a verifiedpetition by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbitershall immediately order the certification election by secretballot if the petition is filed during the last sixty (60) days ofthe collective bargaining agreement and supported by thewritten consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of allthe employees in the bargaining unit. Any petition filedbefore or after the sixty-day freedom period shall bedismissed outright. The twenty-five percent (25%)requirement shall be satisfied upon the filing of the petition,otherwise the petition shall be dismissed. (Emphasissupplied.)

- the Med-Arbiter dismissed the consolidated petitions. PWUPappealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 ofthe Labor Code did not require the written consent to besubmitted simultaneously with the petition for certificationelection. DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma affirmed the order ofthe Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal.- ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collectivebargaining agreement, which was concluded on September 28,1990. This was ratified by a majority of the workers in thebargaining unit.- PWUP claims grave abuse of discretion on the part of the

public respondent in the application of Article 256 of the LaborCode. The article provides in part as follows:Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments.? In organized establishments, when a verified petitionquestioning the majority status of the incumbent bargainingagent is filed before the Department of Labor andEmployment within the sixty-day period before theexpiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballotwhen the verified petition is supported by the writtenconsent of at least twenty-five (25%) percent of all theemployees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of theemployees in the appropriate bargaining unit. . . .

- The petitioner argues that under this article, the Med-Arbitershould automatically order election by secret ballot when thepetition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in thebargaining unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied

with the law when they submitted the required consentsignatures several days after filing the petition. The petitionercomplains that the dismissal of the petitions for certificationelection, including its own petition for intervention, had the effectof indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusivebargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.- Private respondent ICTSI maintains that the dismissal wasbased on Article 256 of the Labor Code as implemented bySection 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quotedabove. Moreover, under Section 10, Rule V, Book V of theImplementing Rules, decisions of the Secretary in certificationelection cases shall be final and unappealable.- For its part, APCWU questions PWUP's personality in theseproceedings in view of the lack of consent signatures in itspetition, and argues as well that the petitioner has no authority torepresent SAMADA or PEALU, which had not appealed. The

private respondent also invokes Tupas and maintains that theratification of the new CBA by the majority of the workers was anaffirmation of their membership in the union that negotiated thatagreement.

ISSUE:WON there was indeed grave abuse of discretion amounting tolack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondentswhen they dismissed the petitions for certification electionbecause the consent signatures had not been submittedsimultaneously with the petition

HELD:YES


3/58


- pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing workers the rightto self-organization and collective bargaining, "the constant andunwavering policy of the Court" has been "to require a certificationelection as the best means of ascertaining which labor organizationshould be the collective bargaining representative."- The certification election is the most democratic and expeditiousmethod by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shallact as their representative in their dealings with the establishment wherethey are working. The holding of a certification election is a statutorypolicy that should not be circumvented.- the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certificationelection should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination ofthe legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, therequirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks toimplement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at bestbe given only a directory effect.- It is not denied that the petition to intervene filed by PWUP did notcarry the 25% consent signatures, but that the requirement is in fact notapplicable to a petition in intervention.- the certification election is not litigation but a mere investigation of anon-adversary character where the rules of procedure are not strictlyapplied. Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correctascertainment of the labor union that has the support of confidence ofthe 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 forindustrial stability is clearly shown to be imperative. Subject to thissingular exception, contracts where the identity of the authorizedrepresentative of the workers is in doubt must be rejected in favor of amore certain indication of the will of the workers.The certification election is the best method of determining the will of theworkers on the crucial question of who shall represent them in theirnegotiations with the management for a collective bargaining agreementthat will best protect and promote their interests. It is essential that therebe no collusion against this objective between an unscrupulousmanagement and a union covertly supporting it while professing itsloyalty to labor, or at least that the hopes of labor be not frustratedbecause of its representation by a union that does not enjoy its approvaland support. It is therefore sound policy that any doubt regarding thereal representation of the workers be resolved in favor of the holding ofthe certification election. This is preferable to the suppression of the

voice of the workers through the prissy observance of technical rulesthat will exalt procedure over substantial justice.

DISPOSITION Petition GRANTED.

REYES V TRAJANO209 SCRA 484

NARVASA; June 2, 1992

NATURESpecial civil action ofcertiorari

FACTS-The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon.

Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of theright to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia niKristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certificationelection at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right tobe the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.-The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureauof Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union IndustriesCorporation on October 20, 1987. The competing unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industriesand Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines andAllied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to bequalified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, conductedunder the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK.

The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided forvotes to be cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contendinglabor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and,conformably with established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a thirdchoice: "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 preciselythe ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the employeesin the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not to be representedby a labor organization, and in the affirmative case, by whichparticular 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 ConsentElections

Distinguish Consent Election and CertificationElectionA consent election:

Is an agreed one,Its purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority repres

bargaining unit

While a certification electionIs aimed at determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent o

collective bargaining.

From the very nature of consent election,It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with thNeither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle th

although it does not preclude the workers from exercising their right expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom period. (Warren Manufactu

CERTIFICATION What is the PURPOSE of a certification election?It is a means of determining the workers choice of:1) Whether the want a union to represent them for collective bargain2) And if they choose to have a union represent them, they will chooEXCLUSIVE bargaining representative of the employees in the appr

1st Level of Choice: Yes Union or No Union

2nd Level of Choice: If Yes Union wins, WHICH union.

WARREN MFG WORKERS UNION V BUREAUOF LABOR RELATIONS, PACIWU, SMWMC-

ANGLOG.R. No. L-76185

PARAS; MARCH 30, 1988

NATUREPetition for review on certiorari w/ prayer for a preliminaryinjunction and/or the issuance of a restraining order seeking to


4/58


set aside the Order of the Med-Arbiter (ordering cert election); and of theresolution of the Bureau of Labor

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

-July 7, 1985. Warren Mfg Corp1filed a motion to dismiss the petition onthe ground that there exists a C.B.A. between the Warren Mfg Corp2andthe Warren Mfg. Union (WMWU) w/c took effect on July 16, 1985 and toexpire 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 unionrepresentation at Warren Mfg. Corp. parties have agreed to the holding of aconsent election among the rank and file on August 25, 1985 at the premises ofthe company to be supervised by MOLE . . .

-August 25, 1985. Consent election was held. WMWU won. PACIWUfiled 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) alsofiled.

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

- August 18, 1986. Med-Arbiter ordered certification election conductedto determine the exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank andfile 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 LaborRelations dismissed lack of merit. MMWU filed petition for review oncertiorari saying: The holding of a certification election at the bargainingunit is patently premature and illegal bec of the one-year no certificationelection rule3 and the principle of the Contract Bar Rule.

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

HELDNO-The records show that petitioner admitted that what was held on August25, 1985 at the Company's premises and which became the root of thiscontroversy, was a consent election and not a certification election.

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

- From the very nature of consent election, it is a separate and distinctprocess and has nothing to do with the import and effect of a certificationelection. Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitlethe participants thereof to immediately renegotiate an existing CBAalthough it does not preclude the workers from exercising their right to

1Note: the case said respondent pero di ko gets sino ang respondent

sa kwento. So I think lang ang company yun. 2

same3 Section 3, Rule V, Implementing Rules and Regulations, Labor Code

choose their sole and exclusive bargaining representative afterthe expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom period.

- It is clearly understood that the certified union in the saidprojected election shall respect and administer the existing CBAat 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 unionshould be the bargaining representative in the negotiation for acollective contract, there being an existing collective bargainingagreement yet to expire on July 31, 1986; but only to determinewhich 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 theSecretary of Labor

FACTS

- Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried EmployeesUnion (URTMSEU) filed on September 4, 1990 a petitionfor the holding of an election of union officers with theArbitration Branch of the Department of Labor andEmployment (DOLE). This was done through De Mesa.- DOLE's med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz issued anOrder dated October 19, 1990 directing that such anelection be held.- In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that theelection by secret ballot be conducted on November 16,1990 between Catalino Algire, et al. (petitioner) andRegalado de Mesa, et al. (respondents) under thesupervision of DOLE through its duly appointedrepresentation officer.- In filling out the ballots, instructions were given to markchoices with either a check mark or an X mark. Thereshould also be no other markings on the ballot.

- De Mesa and Algire both got 133 votes each. Totalvotes cast were 272. 6 were declared as spoiled ballots.- Algire filed a petition, alleging that one of the ballotswhich had two check marks was erroneously declared tobe a spoiled ballot. The checks supposedly made it clearas to the choice made by the voter.- The med-arbiter (De la Cruz) issued an order in Algiresfavor and certified the latters group to be the unionsvalidly elected officers.- De Mesa appealed to the DOLE secretary which wasgranted. Another order for a new election of officers wasmade by the Med-Arbiter and another pre-electionconference was scheduled.- Algires group filed a motion for reconsideration whichwas denied for lack of merit.- Algire, et. al. contend that a representation officer

(referring to a person duly authorized to conduct andsupervise certification elections in accordance with Rule VIof the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the LaborCode) can validly rule only on on-the-spot questionsarising from the conduct of the elections, but thedetermination of the validity of the questioned ballot is notwithin his competence.

ISSUEWON the act of the DOLE secretary in denying Algires motionwas in excess of its authority since the case is an intra-unionactivity

HELD


5/58


NORatio The certification election was an agreed one, the purpose beingmerely to determine the issue of majority representation of all theworkers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit. It is a separate anddistinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effort of acertification election.Reasoning- What is at question in this case was a consent election, not acertification election.- If indeed petitioner's group had any opposition to the representationofficer's ruling that the questioned ballot was spoiled, it should havedone so seasonably during the canvass of votes. Its failure or inaction toassail such ballot's validity shall be deemed a waiver of any defect orirregularity arising from said election.Disposition Petition is DENIED and the challenged decision is herebyAFFIRMED.

3. Policy

No Direct Certification

COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc. V OPLE163 SCRA 323

PARAS; June 30, 1988NATUREPetition for certiorari

FACTS- The respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of LaborRelations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of allegedrefusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers/members; and coercingemployees to retract their membership with the union and restrainingnon-union members from joining the union.- After efforts at amicable settlement proved unavailing, the Office of theMOLE, upon petition of petitioner assumed jurisdiction over the disputepursuant to Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code.- Respondent Minister rendered a decision finding no merit in theUnion's Complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly committed bypetitioner as regards the alleged refusal of petitioner to negotiate with

the Union, and the secret distribution of survey sheets allegedlyintended to discourage unionism and at the same time respondentMinister directly certified the respondent Union as the collectivebargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and orderedthe reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the groundthat the employees were first offenders.- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied byrespondent

ISSUEWON respondent Minister exceeded his power when he certifiedrespondent Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the company'ssalesmen since the case is not a representation proceeding asdescribed under the Labor Code and the Union did not pray forcertification but merely for a finding of unfair labor practice imputed topetitioner-company.

HELDYES.- The procedure for a representation case is outlined in Arts. 257-260 ofthe Labor Code, in relation to the provisions on cancellation of a Unionregistration under Arts. 239-240 thereof, the main purpose of which is toaid in ascertaining majority representation.- The requirements under the law, specifically Secs. 2, 5, and 6 of RuleV, Book V, of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code are all calculatedto ensure that the certified bargaining representative is the true choice ofthe employees against all contenders. The Constitutional mandate thatthe 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 theaforementioned provisions of the pertinent statutes.- When an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretextof retaining a laudable objective, the intendment or purpose ofthe law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded.- When respondent Minister directly certified the Union, he in factdisregarded this procedure and its legal requirements. Therewas therefore failure to determine with legal certainty whetherthe Union indeed enjoyed majority representation.- Contrary to the respondent Minister's observation, the holdingof a certification election at the proper time is not necessarily amere formality as there was a compelling legal reason not todirectly and unilaterally certify a union whose legitimacy isprecisely the object of litigation in a pending cancellation casefiled by certain "concerned salesmen," who also claim majoritystatus.- Even in a case where a union has filed a petition forcertification elections, the mere fact that no opposition is madedoes not warrant a direct certification.- More so, when the records of the suit show that the requiredproof was not presented in an appropriate proceeding and thatthe basis of the direct certification was the Union's mereallegation in its position paper that it has 87 out of 117 regularsalesmen.- Respondent Minister merely relied on the self-serving assertion

of the respondent Union that it enjoyed the support of themajority of the salesmen, without subjecting such assertion tothe test of competing claims. As pointed out by petitioner in itspetition, what the respondent Minister achieved in rendering theassailed orders was to make a mockery of the procedureprovided 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 representationstatus of such a union. Within thirty (30) days from suchrecognition, the employer and union shall submit a notice ofvoluntary recognition with the Regional Office which issuedthe recognized labor union's certificate of registration orcertificate of creation of a chartered local.

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

(a) a joint statement under oath of voluntary recognitionattesting 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 bargainingunit where the union seeks to operate;


6/58


RULE VIIVOLUNTARY RECOGNITION

(continued)

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

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

Section 3. Action on the Notice. - Where the notice of voluntaryrecognition is sufficient in form, number and substance and wherethere is no other registered labor union operating within thebargaining unit concerned, the Regional Office, through the LaborRelations Division shall, within ten (10) days from receipt of thenotice, record the fact of voluntary recognition in its roster oflegitimate 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 sameperiod, notify the labor union of its findings and advise it to complywith the necessary requirements.

Where neither the employer nor the labor union failed to completethe requirements for voluntary recognition under Section 2 of thisRule within thirty (30) days from receipt of the advisory, theRegional Office shall return the notice for voluntary recognitiontogether 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, therecognized labor union shall enjoy the rights, privileges andobligations of an existing bargaining agent of all the employees inthe bargaining unit.

Entry of voluntary recognition shall bar the filing of a petition forcertification election by any labor organization for a period of one(1) year from the date of entry of voluntary recognition. Uponexpiration of this one-year period, any legitimate labororganization may file a petition for certification election in thesame bargaining unit represented by the voluntarily recognizedunion,unless a collective bargaining agreement between theemployer and voluntarily recognized labor union was executedand registered with the Regional Office in accordance with RuleXVII of these Rules.

Effect One Union Only

GEORGE AND PETER LINES, INC. v. ASSOCIATEDLABOR UNION134 SCRA 82

MELENCIO-HERRERA; January 17, 1985

NATUREPetition for certiorari to review the decision of the Bureau of LaborRelations.

FACTS- George and Peter Lines, Inc. (petitioner) is involved in shipping, whileAssociated Labor Unions (ALU, respondent) is a legitimate labororganization.

- July 16, 1878: a Petition for Direct Certification was filed byALU praying that it be certified as the SOLE and EXCLUSIVEbargaining representative of all the rank and file employees ofpetitioner corporation, there being no labor union.- Petitioner opposed the petition stating that the Union does notrepresent the majority of the employees concerned, and thatmore than 80% of the licensed/ unlicensed crew of its vesselsclaim they are not members of any union.- August 25, 1978: Med-Arbiter issued an Order directly certifyingALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. Petitionermoved for reconsideration alleging that 80% of the employeesdenied their membership. Corporation moved that a certificationelection should be called.- Bureau of Labor Relations Director, upon examination of thedocuments, opined that there existed a doubt regarding themajority of status of respondent ALU because of the withdrawalof the members, and directed a certification election.- Upon a motion for reconsideration by ALU, the BLR Directorreconsidered its Resolution and directly certified ALU as solebargaining agent.

ISSUE1. WON employees of the corporation are entitled to choose

their sole and exclusive bargaining representative withpetitioner thru a certification election;

2. WON petitioner is entitled to file petition for certificationelection.

HELD1. YESRatio Employees have the constitutional right to choose thelabor organization which it desires to join. The exercise of suchright would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if they would bedenied the opportunity to choose in a certification election.ReasoningThe holding of a certification election is a statutorypolicy that should not be circumvented.- The best forum to determine if there was indeed unduepressure exerted upon the employees to retract theirmembership is in the certification election itself (in secret ballotwhere they can freely express their choice).- The fact that there are no competing Unions should not affectthe freedom of choice (they can always choose ALU or No

Union).

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

4. Religion/ Past Non- Participation

REYES v. TRAJANO209 SCRA 484

NARVASA; June 2, 1992

NATURESpecial civil action ofcertiorari

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


7/58


and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the348 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters, only 240 actuallytook part in the election, conducted under the supervision of the Bureauof Labor Relations. Among the 240 employees who cast their votes were141 members of the INK.The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for votes to becast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending labor organizations,(a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and, conformably with establishedrule 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/S

1. WON the members of the INC should not be allowed to votebecause they refused to participate in the previouscertification elections."

2. WON the NLRC was correct in saying that "if the workers whoare members of the Iglesia ni Kristo in the exercise of theirreligious belief opted not to join any labor organization as aconsequence of which they themselves can not have abargaining representative, then right to be represented by a

bargaining agent should not be denied to other members ofthe bargaining unit."

HELD1. NO.Ratio EFFECT NON-PARTICIPIATION PREVIOUS ELECTION. Nolaw, administrative rule or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right tovote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in past certificationelections.

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

6.3. CERTIFICATION ELECTION-PROCESS

1. 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 collectivebargaining;(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its annual audited financial statements, including the balance sheet and theprofit 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 i ts members, including cooperative, housing, welfare and otherprojects 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. Theexemptions 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. Mandaue

467 SCRA 107Tinga ; Aug. 16, 2005

Facts-CA affirmes DOLE Undersecretary for Labor Relations,Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, ordering the immediate conduct of acertification election among the petitioners rank-and-fileemployees.- Federation of Free Workers (FFW/ respondent) filed a petition

for certification election with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. Itsought to be certified and to represent the permanent rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the petitioner. The followingdocuments were attached to the petition: (1) a Charter Certificatecertifying that respondent as of that date was duly certified as alocal or chapter of FFW; (2) a copy of the constitution ofrespondent prepared by its Secretary, Noel T. Bathan andattested by its President, Wilfred V. Sagun; (3) a list ofrespondents officers and their respective addresses, againprepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun; (4) a certificationsignifying that respondent had just been organized and noamount had yet been collected from its members, signed byrespondents treasurer Chita D. Rodriguez and attested bySagun; and (5) a list of all the rank-and-file monthly paidemployees of the Mandaue Packaging Products Plants andMandaue Glass Plant prepared by Bathan and attested bySagun.

-SMC (Petitioner) filed a motion to dismiss the petition forcertification election on the sole ground that herein respondent isnot listed or included in the roster of legitimate labororganizations 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 thesame documents earlier attached to its petition for certification.The accompanying letter, signed by respondents presidentSagun, stated that such documents were submitted incompliance with the requirements for the creation of alocal/chapter pursuant to the Labor Code and its ImplementingRules; and it was hoped that the submissions would facilitate thelisting of respondent under the roster of legitimate labororganizations.The Chief of Labor Relations Division of DOLERegional Office No. VII issued a Certificate of Creation of

Local/Chapter No. ITD. I-ARFBT-058/98, certifying that from 30July 1998, respondent has acquired legal personality as a labororganization/workers association, it having submitted all therequired documents.

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

247 SCRA 1Vitug ; August 1995

Facts-The Med-Arbiter, sustained by the Secretary of Labor andEmployment, has ruled that Art. 257 is mandatory and give himno other choice than to conduct a certification election upon thereceipt of the corresponding petition.

"Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. -In any establishment where there is no certified bargainingagent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted bythe Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labororganization."-National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of thePhilippines-TUCP ("NACUSIP-TUCP") filed with the Departmentof Labor and Employment ("DOLE") a petition for directcertification or for certification election to determine the sole andexclusive collective bargaining representative of the supervisoryemployees of herein petitioner, Lopez Sugar Corporation("LSC"). NACUSIP-TUCP averred that it was a legitimatenational labor organization; that LSC was employing 55

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


8/58


supervisory employees, the majority of whom were members of theunion; that no other labor organization was claiming membership overthe supervisory employees; that there was no existing collectivebargaining agreement covering said employees; and that there was nolegal impediment either to a direct certification of NACUSIP-TUCP or tothe 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 SugarCentral Supervisory Chapter.-LSC appealed to the DOLE and asseverated that the order was apatent nullity and that the Med-Arbiter acted with grave abuse ofdiscretion, 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 automaticconduct of a certification election in an unorganized establishment, italso requires that the petition for certification election must be filed by alegitimate labor organization. Article 212(h) defines a legitimate labororganization as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLEand includes any branch or local thereof.' Rule 1, Section 1(j), Book V ofthe Implementing Rules likewise defines a legitimate labor organization

as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includesany branch, local or affiliate thereof .' "

Indeed, the law did not reduce the Med-Arbiter to an automatonwhich can instantly be set to impulse by the mere filing of apetition for certification election. He is still tasked to satisfy himselfthat all the conditions of the law are met, and among the legalrequirements is that the petitioning union must be a legitimatelabor organization in good standing.The petition for certification election, in the case at bench, was filed bythe NACUSIP-TUCP, a national labor organization duly registered withthe DOLE. The legitimate status of NACUSIP-TUCP might be conceded;being merely, however, an agent for the local organization (theNACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter), thefederation's bona fide status alone would not suffice. The localchapter, as its principal, should also be a legitimate labororganization in good standing. Accordingly, in ProgressiveDevelopment, we elucidated:"In the case of union affiliation with a federation, the documentaryrequirements are found in Rule II, Section 3(e), Book V of theImplementing Rules, which we again quote as follows:"'(c ) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shallhave and maintain a constitution and by laws, set of officers and booksof accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure governing thereporting of independently registered unions, federations or nationalunions shall be observed.'"Since the 'procedure governing the reporting independently registeredunions' refers to the certification and attestation requirements containedin Article 235, paragraph 2, it follows that the constitution and by-laws,set of officers and books of accounts submitted by the local and chaptermust likewise comply with these requirements. The same rationale forrequiring the submission of duly subscribed documents upon unionregistration exists in the case of union affiliation. Moreover, there is

greater reason to exact compliance with the certification and attestationrequirements because, as previously mentioned, several requirementsapplicable to independent union registration are no longer required inthe case of the formation a local or chapter. The policy of the law inconferring greater bargaining power upon labor unions must bebalanced with the policy of providing preventive measures against thecommission of fraud."A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labororganization only upon submission of the following to the BLR:"1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the laborfederation or national union, and"2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, andthe books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the

secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local orchapter, and attested to by its president."Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, thelocal or chapter does not become legitimate labor organization."

The only document extant on record to establish the legitimacyof the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central SupervisoryChapter is a charter certificate and nothing else.

Disposition WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of theSecretary of Labor, dated 06 March 1990, affirming that of theMed-Arbiter, is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petition forcertification 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 thepetitioner company before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III.- Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) thatthe respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for theproposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot beconducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-fileemployees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legalstanding since it failed to submit its books of accounts.- Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisoryemployees and that it has no obligation to attach its books ofaccounts since it is a legitimate labor organization.- The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It saidthat the contention of the respondent that the petitioning union iscomposed of both supervisory and rank and file employees isnot sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru theexclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who

are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from thelist of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed.

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

HELDNO.Ratio Article 245 of the Labor Code clearly provides that"supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in alabor organization of the rank-and-file employees.ReasoningPublic respondent gravely misappreciates the basicantipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest ofrank-and-file employees. There is a irreconcilability of theirinterests 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 orderof respondent Secretary dismissing petitioner's petition forcertification election


9/58


FACTS- petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems (SAMAFIL-NAFLU-KMU) is a registered labor union. It filed a petition forcertification election among the rank-and-file employees of privaterespondent Filsystems, Inc. Filsystems opposed the petition, questioningpetitioner's status as a legitimate labor organization on the ground oflack of proof that its contract of affiliation with NAFLU-KMU has beensubmitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations within 30 days from itsexecution.- the Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition, ruling that petitioner has nolegal personality for failure to submit its contract of affiliation on time.Petitioner appealed to respondent Secretary, contending that, as anindependently registered union, it has the right to file a petition forcertification election regardless of its failure to prove its affiliation.- another union, the Filsystems Workers Union, filed a petition forcertification election. It was granted, and FWU won. Private respondentfiled a motion to dismiss appeal as it has become moot & academic.Petitioner opposes the motion to dismiss on the ground that thecertification election was void for having been held during the pendencyof 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 alegitimate labor organization, its right to file a petition for certificationelection cannot be questioned.Reasoning Petitioner's failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMUwill, at most, result in an ineffective affiliation. Despite affiliation, the localunion remains the basic unit free to serve the interests of its membersindependently of the federation.2. NORatio The certification election and the CBA are void for having occuredduring the pendency of an unresolved representation case with theSecretary.ReasoningPetitioner seasonably appealed the dismissal of its petition.The appeal stopped the holding of any certification election.Disposition Petition is granted.

A. Organized Establishment

(RA 9481 continued)

To have a valid election, at least a majorityunion receiving the majority of the valid votes cast sin the unit. When an election which provides for thvalid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducvotes: Provided, That the total number of votes for

votes cast. In cases where the petition was filed by names of the local chapters officers and members.

At the expiration of the freedom period, the employebargaining agent where no petition for certification e

Definition

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP VLAGUESMA

209 SCRA 606PARAS; June 8, 1992

NATUREPetition for review on certiorari

FACTS- A petition for certification election among the supervisors ofCalifornia Manufacturing Corp (CMC) was filed by the Federationof Free Workers (FFW). California Manufacturing CorporationSupervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO), alleging inter alia,that it is a duly registered federation while FFW-CALMASUCOChapter is a duly registered chapter.- CMC alleged that the petition should be denied since it doesnot contain the requisite number of signatures and that a bignumber of the supposed signatories to the petition are notactually supervisors as they have no subordinates to supervise,

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

ART. 256. Representation Issue inOrganized Establishments. - In organizedestablishments, when a verified petition questioningthe majority status of the incumbent bargainingagent is filed by any legitimate labor organizationincluding a national union or federation which hasalready issued a charter certificate to its localchapter participating in the certification election or alocal chapter which has been issued a chartercertificate by the national union or federation beforethe Department of Labor and Employment within thesixty (60)-day period before the expiration of the

collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbitershall automatically order an election by secret ballotwhen the verified petition is supported by the writtenconsent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of allthe employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain thewill of the employees in the appropriate bargainingunit.

ART. 256. Representation issue in organizedestablishments. - In organized establishments, when averified petition questioning the majority status of theincumbent bargaining agent is filed before theDepartment of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collectivebargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shallautomatically order an election by secret ballot when theverified petition is supported by the written consent of atleast twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees inthe bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees

in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a validelection, at least a majority of all eligible voters in theunit must have cast their votes. The labor unionreceiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall becertified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all theworkers in the unit. When an election which provides forthree or more choices results in no choice receiving amajority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shallbe conducted between the labor unions receiving thetwo highest number of votes: Provided, that the totalnumber of votes for all contending unions is at least fiftypercent (50%) of the number of votes cast.virtual lawlibraryAt the expiration of the freedom period, the employershall continue to recognize the majority status of theincumbent bargaining agent where no petition forcertification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23,

Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).


10/58


nor do they have the powers and functions which under the law wouldclassify them as supervisors.- FFW-CALMASUCO filed its reply maintaining that under the law, whenthere is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unitat the time apetition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatoriesdoes 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 labororganizations and not to establishments where there exists a certifiedbargaining agent which had previously entered into a collectivebargaining agreement with the managementReasoningIn the instant case, it is beyond cavil that the supervisors ofCMC which constitute a bargaining unit separate and distinct from thatof the rank-and-file, have no such agent. Thus they correctly filed apetition for certification election thru union FFW-CALMASUCO, likewiseindubitably a legitimate labor organization. CMC's insistence on the 25%subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has beenexpressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and ispresently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those

with existing bargaining agents.

Freedom Period

Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Manila v. Laguesma212 SCRA 281

Nocon ; Aug. 6, 1992

Nature Petition for CertiorariFacts-Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. is engaged in theconstruction and fabrication business and conducts its constructionbusiness in different construction sites here and abroad while itsfabrication operations are conducted by its Steel and Marine StructuresGroup at its Batangas Marine and Fabrication Yard.

-Atlantic has adopted the practice of hiring project employees whenexisting fabrication capacity cannot absorb increases in job orders forsteel structures and other heavy construction works. Said projectemployees are covered by the Project Worker/Reliever EmploymentAgreements which indicate the specific projects to which they areassigned and the duration of their employment. Upon the expiration oftheir contracts/agreements, the employment of these employees isautomatically terminated unless the projects to which they are assignedhave not yet been completed, in which case, they are rehired for theremainder of the project. The positions occupied by the regular rank-and-file employees and the project employees are basically similar innature and are directly related to the main line of petitioner's business.-Atlantic executed a CBA with the AG&P United Rank & File Association("URFA", for brevity) which is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent ofall 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 withthe Med-Arbitration Unit. Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin of theDepartment of Labor and Employment issued an Order for certificationelection.-Atlantic filed an appeal with the Department of Labor and Employment.Alleged project employees sought to be represented by privaterespondent LAKAS-NFL were formally issued regular employmentappointments by the Atlantic. Undersecretary of the Department ofLabor and Employment Bienvenido E. Laguesma denied Atlantic'sappeal for lack of merit. Atlantic's project employees at its SMSG sitewho were not given regular employment appointment went on strike andcompletely paralyzed Atlantic's operations in Bauan, Batangas. Strikewas settled in a conciliation conference, an Agreement was reached bythe petitioner and private respondent LAKAS-NFL wherein petitioner

agreed to formally regularize all the remaining alleged projectemployees with at least one year of service pending the finaloutcome of the certification election case.Thereafter, 686 additional regular project employees wereregularized effective December 1, 1990 in pursuance to saidAgreement.-On December 6, 1990, Atlantic received a letter from URFAinforming the former about the admission into URFA of themembership of 410 regular project employees who were formallyregularized by the petitioner effective November 1, 1990. Atlanticfiled MFR alleging that the employees sought to be representedby the private respondent LAKAS-NFL are regular employees ofthe petitioner and are deemed included in the existing CollectiveBargaining Agreement of the regular rank-and-file employees ofAtlantic. Undersecretary Laguesma denied it.

IssueWON Laguesma was wrong in applying the CONTRACT-BARrule and failing to consider that the bargaining unit of the allegedregular workers has ceased to exist by virtue of theregularization of all said workers

HeldYes, he committed grave abuse of discretion.

Section 1 of Article II of petitioner's Collective BargainingAgreement with URFA defined appropriate bargaining unit asfollows:ARTICLE II :Sec. 1. Appropriate Bargaining Unit Theappropriate bargaining unit covered by this Agreement consistsof those regular rank-and-file employees of the COMPANY whohave remained as such up to the date of execution of thisAgreement, as well as those who may hereafter acquire thesame status. It is hereby understood and agreed that thefollowing 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, staffmembers, managerial employees, and executive secretaries;b. Workers hired by the COMPANY as project employees ascontemplated by existing laws including relievers of regularemployees who are sent abroad are not covered by thisContract. Provided, however, that regular employees who are

assigned as relievers shall continue to be covered by thisContract, and provided further that relievers who are assigned toregular positions which may become vacant shall be dulyconsidered for such regular positions after attaining the sixmonths probationary period.c. Security personnel."Although the aforementioned definition does not includepetitioner's regular project employees in the coverage of theexisting Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner andthe URFA, the regularization of all the regular project employeeswith at least one year of service and the subsequentmembership of said employees with the URFA mean that thealleged regular project employees whom respondent LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent are, in fact, regular employees bycontemplation of law and included in the appropriatebargaining unit of said Collective Bargaining Agreementconsequently, the bargaining unit which respondentLAKAS-NFL seeks to represent has already ceased to exist.The Labor Code provides:"Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. The Bureaushall not entertain any petition for certification election or anyother action which may disturb the administration of dutyregistered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting theparties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code."Paragraph 2 of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the ImplementingRules end Regulations likewise provides:"If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered inaccordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition forcertification election or a motion for intervention can only be


11/58


entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of suchagreement."-Consequently, the existence of a duly registered CollectiveBargaining Agreement between the petitioner and URFA, which isthe sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regularrank-and-file employees of the petitioner including the regularproject employees with more than one year of service, bars anyother labor organization from filing a petition for certificationelection except within the 60-day period prior to the expiration ofthe Collective Bargaining Agreement.-To rule otherwise would negate the legislative intent in the enactment ofArticle 232 of the Labor Code which was designed to ensure industrialpeace between the employer and its employees during the existence ofthe 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 tobe their sole and exclusive bargaining representative, and requestedGAW Trading Inc., for a conference for the execution of an initial CBA.GAWTI recognized ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent forthe majority of its employees and for which it set the time for conferenceand/or negotiation at 4PM on May 12, 1986 at the Pillsbury Office,Aboitiz Building Juan Luna Street, Cebu City. On May 15, 1986, ALU inbehalf of the majority of the employees of GAW Trading Inc. and GAWTIsigned and executed the CBA.- In the meantime, the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL)together with Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW (NAMGAW) undertooka Strike after it failed to get the management of GAWTI to sit for aconference respecting its demands in an effort to pressure GAWTI tomake a turnabout of its standing recognition of ALU as the sole andexclusive bargaining representative of its employees, as to which strikeGAWTI filed a petition for Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction, andwhich 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 subscriptionrequirement for which it was merely considered an intervenor untilcompliance thereof in the other petition for direct recognition asbargaining agent filed on MAy 28, 1986 by southern PhilippinesFederation of Labor (SPFL)- In the meantime, CBA executed by ALU and GAWTI was duly filed withthe MOLE, Cebu city. Nevertheless, Med-Arbiter Cumba ruled for theholding 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 theentire 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 thequestioned Med-Arbiter, on the ground that the CBA has been effectiveand valid and the contract bar rule applicable; Philippine Social SecurityLabor Union (PSSLU) and Southern Philippines Federation of Labor(SPFL) filed MFR, supplemented by the 'Submission of AdditionalEvidence. GAWTI and ALU opposed. Trajanos decision was reversedby 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 notapply 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 ofthe Implementing Rules of BP 130." Theres no proof that CBA has beenposted in at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment at least 5

days before its ratification and that it has been ratified by themajority of the employees in the bargaining unit."

ISSUEWON Calleja erred in reversing Trajanos ruling and ordering theholding of a certification election.

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

- The standing of ALU as an exclusive bargaining representativeis dubious. The recognition by GAWTI appears to have beenbased on the self-serving claim of ALU that it had the support ofthe majority of the employees in the bargaining unit.- In cases where the then Minister of Labor directly certified theunion as the bargaining representative, SC voided suchcertification where there was a failure to properly determine withlegal certainty whether the union enjoyed a majority

representation. In such a case, the holding of a certificationelection at a proper time would not necessarily be a mereformality as there was a compelling reason not to directly andunilaterally certify a union- CBA was defective also because of: [a] the failure of GAWTI topost the CBA in at least 2 conspicuous places in theestablishment at least 5 days before its ratification, [b] the findingof Calleja that 181 of the 281 workers who "ratified" the samenow " strongly and vehemently deny and/or repudiate the allegednegotiations and ratification of the CBA.- Finally, the inapplicability of the contract bar rule is furtherunderscored by the fact that when the disputed agreement wasfiled before the Labor Regional Office on May 27, 1986, apetition for certification election had already been filed on May19, 1986. Although the petition was not supported by thesignatures of 30% of the workers in the bargaining unit, it wasenough to initiate certification election.

Disposition Public respondents order for the conduct of acertification election among the rank-and-file workers ofrespondent GAW Trading Inc. is AFFIRMED

GENERAL MILLING CORP. V CA422 SCRA 514

QUISUMBING; February 11, 2004

4 Art. 256. Representation issue in organized

establishments. In organized establishments, when averified petition questioning the majority status of theincumbent bargaining agent is filed before the DOLEwithin 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 bythe written consent of at least 25% of all the EEs in theappropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, atleast a majority of all eligible voters in the unit musthave cast their votes. The labor union receiving themajority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as theexclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit.When an election which provides for three or morechoices results in no choice receiving a majority of thevalid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conductedbetween the labor unions receiving the two highestnumber of votes: Provided, That the total number ofvotes for all contending unions is at least 50% of thenumber of votes cast.


12/58



FACTS- Petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC) concluded a CBA withGeneral Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union (union) on April28, 1989, which included the issue of representation effective for a termof three years. The CBA was effective for three years retroactive toDecember 1, 1988. Hence, it would expire on November 30, 1991.- On November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration of the CBA, theunion 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 andindividual letters from workers who stated that they had withdrawn fromtheir union membership, on grounds of religious affiliation and personaldifferences. Believing that the union no longer had standing to negotiatea CBA, GMC did not send any counter-proposal.- The union filed, on July 2, 1992, a complaint against GMC with theNLRC, Arbitration Division alleging unfair labor practice on the part ofGMC for: (1) refusal to bargain collectively; (2) interference with the rightto self-organization; and (3) discrimination. The labor arbiter dismissedthe case with the recommendation that a petition for certification electionbe 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

arbiters decision. In its decision, the NLRC pointed out that upon theeffectivity of Rep. Act No. 6715, the duration of a CBA, insofar as therepresentation aspect is concerned, is five years which, in the case ofGMC-Independent Labor Union was from December 1, 1988 toNovember 30, 1993. All other provisions of the CBA are to berenegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. Thus, theNLRC held that respondent union remained as the exclusive bargainingagent with the right to renegotiate the economic provisions of the CBA.Consequently, it was unfair labor practice for GMC not to enter intonegotiation with the union. The NLRC likewise held that the individualletters of withdrawal from the union submitted by 13 of its members fromFebruary to June 1993 confirmed the pressure exerted by GMC on itsemployees to resign from the union. Thus, the NLRC also found GMCguilty of unfair labor practice for interfering with the right of its employeesto self-organization. With respect to the unions claim of discrimination,the NLRC found the claim unsupported by substantial evidence.- On GMCs motion for reconsideration, the NLRC set aside its decision

of January 30, 1998, through a resolution dated October 6, 1998. Itfound GMCs doubts as to the status of the union justified and theallegation of coercion exerted by GMC on the unions members to resignunfounded. Hence, the union filed a petition for certiorari before theCourt of Appeals. The CA reinstated the January 30, 1998 NLRCdecision. A motion for reconsideration was seasonably filed by GMC, butin 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 theduty to bargain collectively and/or interfering with the right of itsemployees to self-organization(2) WON the draft CBA proposed by the union for two years tobegin from the expiration of the original CBA should be imposedon 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. AnyCollective 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 incumbentbargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shallbe conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside ofthe sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such fiveyear term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of

the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated notlater than three (3) years after its execution....

- The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBAshould last for five years. The relation between labor andmanagement should be undisturbed until the last 60 days of thefifth year. Hence, it is indisputable that when the union requestedfor a renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA onNovember 29, 1991, it was still the certified collective bargainingagent of the workers, because it was seeking said renegotiationwithin five years from the date of effectivity of the CBA onDecember 1, 1988. The unions proposal was also submittedwithin the prescribed 3-year period from the date of effectivity ofthe CBA, albeit just before the last day of said period. It wasobvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to negotiate ingood faith with the union. For refusing to send a counter-proposal to the union and to bargain anew on the economicterms of the CBA, the company committed an unfair laborpractice under Article 248 of the Labor Code, which providesthat:

ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall beunlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfairlabor practice:. . .

(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed bythis Code;. . .

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

ART. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. The duty tobargain collectively means the performance of a mutualobligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously ingood faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement....

We have held that the crucial question whether or not a partyhas met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turnson the facts of the individual case. There is no per se test ofgood faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference tobe drawn from the facts.[ The effect of an employers or a

unions actions individually is not the test of good-faithbargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions,considered as a whole. Under Article 252 abovecited, bothparties are required to perform their mutual obligation to meetand convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for thepurpose of negotiating an agreement. The union lived up to thisobligation when it presented proposals for a new CBA to GMCwithin three years from the effectivity of the original CBA. ButGMC failed in its duty under Article 252. What it did was todevise a flimsy excuse, by questioning the existence of the unionand the status of its membership to prevent any negotiation.GMCs refusal to make a counter-proposal to the unionsproposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its bad faith.Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer tothe bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion ofthe duty to bargain collectively.

- GMC also interfered with the employees right to self-organization. The CA found that the letters 13 union memberssignifying their resignation from the union clearly indicated thatGMC exerted pressure on its employees. The records show thatGMC presented these letters to prove that the union no longerenjoyed the support of the workers. The fact that theresignations of the union members occurred during thependency of the case before the labor arbiter shows GMCsdesperate attempts to cast doubt on the legitimate status of theunion.2. NO- The Code provides:


13/58


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

The provision mandates the parties to keep the status quo while theyare still in the process of working out their respective proposal andcounter proposal. The general rule is that when a CBA already exists, itsprovision shall continue to govern the relationship between the parties,until a new one is agreed upon. The rule necessarily presupposes thatall 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 purposelydelaying the bargaining process, a departure from the general rule iswarranted.- It would be unfair to the union and its members if the terms andconditions contained in the old CBA would continue to be imposed onGMCs employees for the remaining two years of the CBAs duration.We are not inclined to gratify GMC with an extended term of the old CBAafter it resorted to delaying tactics to prevent negotiations. Since it wasGMC which violated the duty to bargain collectively, it had lost itsstatutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions of thedraft 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 LABOR227 SCRA 821

QUIASON : November 16, 1993

FACTS:- Petitioner and respondent FFW-SMQCC are local chapters of laborfederations duly registered with the Department of Labor andEmployment (DOLE). Petitioner is the exclusive bargaining agent ofall the rank and file workers of respondent QCC, a domesticcorporation engaged in the metal industry.

- On September 27, 1991, 38 days before the expiration of theCollective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and respondentQCC, respondent FFW-SMQCC through Reynito de Pedro filed withthe DOLE Industrial Relations Division, National Capital Region apetition for certification election. The petition was accompanied by alist of signatures of company employees, who signified their consentto 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 thecertification election of at least 25% of the rank and file employeeshad 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 DePedro.- On January 24, 1992, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition forcertification election of respondent FFW-SMQCC

- Petitioner appealed this decision to the Secretary of Labor. OnJune 17, 1992, the Secretary of Labor rendered a decision, denyingthe 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:YES

Reasoning- First, although Reynito de Pedro was the duly elected

president of petitioner, he had disaffiliated himselftherefrom and joined respondent FFW-SMQCC beforethe petition for certification election was filed onSeptember 27, 1991. The eventual dismissal of DePedro from the company is of no moment, consideringthat the petition for certification election was filedbefore his dismissal on August 22, 1992.

- Second, verification of a pleading is a formal, not jurisdictional requisite. Even if verification is lackingand the pleading is formally defective, the courts maydispense with the requirement in the interest of justiceand order of correction of the pleading accordingly.Generally, technical and rigid rules of procedure arenot binding in labor cases; and this rule is specificallyapplied in certification election proceedings, which arenon-litigious but merely investigative and non-adversarial in character. Nevertheless, whateverformal defects existed in the first petition were curedand corrected in the second petition for certificationelection.

- Third, attached to the original petition for certificationelection was a list of 141 supporting signatures out ofthe 300 employees belonging to the appropriate

bargaining unit to be represented by respondent FFW-SMQCC. Respondent QCC sought to delete from thelist some 36 signatures which are allegedly forged andfalsified. Petitioner, likewise, submitted a joint affidavitof 13 employees, disclaiming the validity of thesignatures therein.

- Granting that 36 signatures were falsified and that 13was disowned, this leaves 92 undisputed signatureswhich is definitely more than 75 i.e., 25% of the totalnumber of company employees required by law tosupport a petition for certification election. Thedisclaimer of 13 employees by their respectivesignatures covers only their own personal participationand cannot in any way be extended to include the restof those who did not question the same.

DISPOSITIVE:Petition dismissed

TODAYS KNITTING v NORIEL75 SCRA 450

FERNANDO CJ; February 28, 1977

FACTS:-Philippine National Union Council, on April 1, 1976, filing withthe Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for the holding of acertification election. Along with this were 200 signatures ofCompanys employees confirming such petition. A petition forintervention on behalf of petitioner Today's Knitting Free WorkersUnion. It saw no need for a certification election, asserting that ithad already been voluntarily recognized by the management asthe bargaining representative.

-Todays Knitting Company apparently affirmed the assertion thatintervenor union, now petitioner, had been recognized bymanagement as representing the minority of the workers.Respondent Union countered with the allegation that there wasno legal bar to the petition for certification.-Med-Arbiter Eusebio M. Jimenez issued an order granting thepetition for certification election. The matter was then appealedto the Bureau of Labor Relations. Appeal was deniedl. It ordereda certification election to be conducted by the Bureau withintwenty days from receipt of the resolution. Hence this certiorariand prohibition petition with this Court


14/58


ISSUE: WON arbiter erred in granting the petition of a certificateelections inspite of the companys recognition that another union is thebargaining representative

HELD: NO-ART.257 of the Labor Code is applicable here. What is required is thatthe petition for certification election should have in its favor "the writtenconsent of at least 30% of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Theduty then cast on the Detector

Documents

Labor Rd4 Compiled