case set 4-5

7/24/2019 case set 4-5

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-set-4-5 1/24

31. G.R. No. L-62306 January 21, 1985

KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP KMP!, ISAGANI

G"#I$RR$%, &L'R$N(IA (ARR$'N, J'S$ &L'R$S, )$NNIS ALIN$A,

$LA)I' )$ L"NA an* (RISAN#' )$ +ILLA, //onr,

.

#$ 'N'RAL$ (R$S$N(IAN' #RAJAN', )IR$(#'R '& #$ "R$A" '&

LA'R R$LA#I'NS, (A#ALIN' SIL+$S#R$, an* ($SAR AL&AR',

ron*n.

&A(#S4

Private respondents fled with the Regional Oce or the expulsion o the unionocers on the ground that they committed gross violation o the Labor Code asbased on the revelations o Union ccount !xaminer o the "inister o Labor and

!mployment ater their wriiten re#uest or accounts examination o the fnancialstatus o the $apisanan ng "anggagawang Pinagya%ap &$"P' Labor Union(

)n their nswer* the union ocers denied the imputation and argued that thedisallowed expenditures were made in good aith+ that the same conduced to thebeneft o the members+ and* that they are willing to reimburse the same romtheir own personal unds(

On pril ,-* ./-,* "ed0rbiter ntonio 1( Cabibihan ordered the holding o areerendum* to be conducted under the supervision o the 2ureau o Labor

Relations* to decide on the issue o whether to expel or suspend the unionocers rom their respective positions(

Petitioners appealed the said order o "ed0rbiter Cabibihan to herein publicrespondent 1irector 3ra4ano o the 2ureau o Labor Relations* "inistry o Labor*"anila* claiming that the same is not in accordance with the acts contained inthe records and is contrary to law(

Private respondents* on the other hand* claimed that the "ed0rbiter erred incalling a reerendum to decide the issue( 3hey reiterated that the appropriate

action should be the expulsion o the herein union ocers(

2oth appeals are dismissed by 3ra4ano and armed in toto the order the "ed0rbiter(

ISS"$4

5hether a call or reerendum to decide the issue is applicable in this case(

R"LING4

.

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


6o( ) herein union ocers &also petitioners' were guilty o the alleged actsimputed against them* said public respondent pursuant to rticle ,7, o the 6ewLabor Code and in the light o Our ruling in 1uyag vs( )nciong* /- 8CR 9,,*should have meted out the appropriate penalty on them* i(e(* to expel them romthe Union* as prayed or* and not call or a reerendum to decide the issue(

3he holding o the reerendum in #uestion has become moot and academic( 3hisis in line with Our ruling in Pascual vs( Provincial 2oard o 6ueva !ci4a* .:; Phil(7<.* which 5e #uote=

3he Court should never remove a public ocer or acts done prior to his presentterm o oce( 3o do otherwise would be to deprive the people o their right toelect their ocers( 5hen the people have elected a man to oce* it must beassumed that they did this with %nowledge o his lie and character* and thatthey disregarded or orgave "s aults or misconduct* i he had been guilty o any(

)t is not or the court* by reason o such aults or misconduct to practicallyoverrule the will o the people(

32. G.R. No. 81852-53Mar 5, 1993

ILAW A# "KL') NG MANGGAGAWA IM!, //onr, .NA#I'NAL

LA'R R$LA#I'NS ('MMISSI'N, LA'R ARI#$R MAN"$L P. AS"N(I'N,

A"N)I' IAS(', AN#'NI' MAGSIP'(, (ARL'S +ILLARAN#$ an*

I$N+$NI)' RAMIR$%, ron*n.

&A(#S4

Respondents fled a complaint beore the rbitration 2ranch* 6ational CapitalRegion* 6ational Labor Relations Commission or illegal and exorbitant deductionand illegal expulsion rom the union(

Petitioner fled a motion to dismiss on the ground o lac% o 4urisdiction o 6LRC(Labor rbiter denied the motion to dismiss( )n ./-< the 6LRC issued a resolutionarming the decision o respondent Labor rbiter and dismissing the appeal(Petitioner fled a motion or reconsideration but the same was denied(

ISS"$4

5hether the 6LRC has 4usrisdiction in this case(

R"LING4

6o( Clearly this is an intra0union dispute > a dispute between a labor union andits members( ?)nternal Union 1ispute? includes all disputes or grievances arisingrom any violation o or disagreement over any provision o the constitution andby0laws o a union* including any violation o the rights and conditions o union

membership provided or in the Code &2oo% @* Rule )* 8ection l&a'* Omnibus Rules)mplementing 3he Labor Code'(

,

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


rticle ,,; o the Labor Code o the Philippines vests on the 2ureau o LaborRelations and the Labor Relations 1ivisions 4urisdiction to act on all inter0union orintra0union conAicts( 8aid rticle thus provides=

rt( ,,;( 2ureau o Labor Relations > 3he 2ureau o Labor Relations and theLabor Relations 1ivision in the regional oces o the 1epartment o Labor shallhave original and exclusive authority to act* at their own initiative or uponre#uest o either or both parties* on allinter0union and intra0union conAicts* and all disputes* grievances or problemsarising rom or aBecting labor0management relations in all wor% places whetheragricultural or non0agricultural* except those arising rom the implementation orinterpretation o collective bargaining agreements which shall be sub4ect ogrievance procedure andor voluntary arbitration(

3he sub4ect o which is an intra0union dispute* all under the original andexclusive 4urisdiction o the 2ureau o Labor Relations* and respondent Laborrbiter and 6LRC have no 4urisdiction over said cases(

33. G.R. No. L-77282 May 5, 1989

ASS'(IA#$) LA'R "NI'NS AL"! //onr, .

'N. P"RA &$RR$R-(ALL$JA, a )/ror o urau o Laor

R:a/on, M/n/ry o Laor an* $;:oy;n< PILIPPIN$ S'(IAL

S$("RI#Y LA'R "NI'N PSSL"!< S'"#$RN PILIPPIN$S &$)$RA#I'N

'& LA'R SP&L! an* GAW #RA)ING, IN(., ron*n.

&A(#S4

D5 3rading* )nc( recogniEed LU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent orthe ma4ority o itsemployees( C2 was executed()n the meantime* 8outhernPhilippines Federationo Labor &8PFL' together with 6ag%aisang "amumuosaD5 &6"D5' undertoo% a 8tri%e ater it ailed toget D5 3rading )nc( to sit ora conerence respecting its demands in an eBort to pressure D5 3rading )nc(toma%e a turnabout o its standing recognition o LUas the sole and exclusivebargaining representative o its employees

D5 3rading )nc( fled a 3RO( Labor rbiter held the stri%e as illegal( D5 LumadLabor Union &DLLU0P88LU'Federation fled a Certifcation !lection petition( "ed0rbiter ruled or the holding o a certifcationelection in all branches o D5

3rading )nc( 2LR granted LUGs appeal &"R' and reversed the "ed0rbiter on theground that the C2 has been eBective and valid and the contract bar rule isapplicable(8PFL fled a "R to the 2LR( 2LR reversed its previous decision andordered theholding o a certifcation election among the ran%0and0flewor%ers oD5 3rading* )nc( and ruled that the Hcontract0bar ruleI does not apply in thiscase because the C2 involved is deective as it was not duly submitted inaccordance with the )mplementing Rules( xxx H3here is no proo tending to show

that the C2 has been postedin at least , conspicuous places in the

J

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


establishment atleast 9 days beore its ratifcation and that it has beenratifed bythe ma4ority o the employees in thebargaining unit(

Iu4

5hether the contract0bar rule is applicable in this caseK

R"LING4

6o( 3he collective bargaining agreement in #uestion is indeed deective henceunproductive o the legal eBects attributed to it by the ormer director in hisdecision which was subse#uently and properly reversed(

3he mechanics o collective bargaining are set in motion only when the ollowing 4urisdictional preconditions are present* namely* &.' possession o the status oma4ority representation by the employees representative in accordance with anyo the means o selection andor designation provided or by the Labor Code+ &,'proo o ma4ority representation+ and &J' a demand to bargain under rticle ,9.*

paragraph &a'* o the 6ew Labor Code( )n the present case* the standing opetitioner as an exclusive bargaining representative is dubious* to say the least()t may be recalled that respondent company* in a letter dated "ay .,* ./-; andaddressed to petitioner* merely indicated that it was ?not against the desire o&its' wor%ers? and re#uired petitioner to present proo that it was supported bythe ma4ority thereo in a meeting to be held on the same date( 3he only expressrecognition o petitioner as said employees bargaining representative that 5esee in the records is in the collective bargaining agreement entered into twodays thereater( !vidently* there was precipitate haste on the part o respondentcompany in recogniEing petitioner union* which recognition appears to have been

based on the sel0serving claim o the latter that it had the support o thema4ority o the employees in the bargaining unit( Furthermore* at the time o thesupposed recognition* the employer was obviously aware that there were otherunions existing in the unit( s earlier stated* respondent companys letter isdated "ay .,* ./-; while the two other unions* 8outhern Philippine Federation o Labor &hereater* 8PFL and Philippine 8ocial 8ecurity Labor Union &P88LU* orshort'* went on stri%e earlier on "ay /* ./-;( 3he unusual promptitude in therecognition o petitioner union by respondent company as the exclusivebargaining representative o the wor%ers in D5 3rading* )nc( under the Auid andamorphous circumstances then obtaining* was decidedly unwarranted and

improvident(n additional infrmity o the collective bargaining agreement involved was theailure to post the same in at least two &,' conspicuous places in theestablishment at least fve days beore its ratifcation(nother potent reason or annulling the disputed collective bargaining is thefnding o respondent director that one hundred eighty0one& .-.' o the twohundred eighty0one &,-.' wor%ers who ?ratifed? the same now ? strongly andvehemently deny andor repudiate the alleged negotiations and ratifcation othe C2(((( 2asic to the contract bar rule is the proposition that the delay o the right to

select represen tatives can be 4ustifed only where stability is deemedparamount( !xcepted rom the contract which do not oster industrial stability*

7

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


such as contracts where the identity o the representative is in doubt( nystability derived rom such contracts must be subordinated to the employeesreedom o choice because it does nto establish the type o industrial peacecontemplated by the law(

3echnical rules o procedure do not strictly apply in the ad4udication o labor

disputes( ., Conse#uently* its ob4ection that the evidence with respect to theaoresaid repudiiation o the supposed collective bargaining agreement cannotbe considered or the frst time on appeal on the 2ureau o Labor Relationsshould be disregarded* especially considering the weighty signifcance thereo(dditionally* the inapplicability o the contract bar rule is urther underscored bythe act that when the disputed agreement was fled beore the Labor RegionalOce on "ay ,<* ./-;* a petition or certifcation election had already been fledon "ay ./* ./-;( lthough the petition was not supported by the signatures othirty percent &J:M' o the wor%ers in the bargaining unit* the same was enoughto initiate said certifcation election(

3=. "KL') NG SA"L'G #RANSI# . MAR(IAN' (ASALLA, $# ALS.,

G.R. No. L-80=9, May 9, 1956

&A(#S4

8aulog 3ransit* )nc( is engaged in the transportation business in "anila andsurrounding cities and employs 9-J wor%ers including supervisorypersonnel+ that there exists in the company two unions* namely* the 2u%lod Ng8aulog 3ransit* the intervenor in this case* and the 8aulog !mployeesUnion &PFL'+ that the petitioners numbering ;9 are all employees o thecompany+ that there exists a collective bargaining contract dated uly .9*./9J* between the 8aulog 3ransit* )nc( and the 2u%lod Ng 8aulog 3ransit with asupplementary agreement &!xhibit H.:0.I' entered into on anuary .:*./97* a month ater the petition or certifcation election was fled andalready being investigated by this Court(

)88U! .=5hether the C)R has 4urisdiction over the petition or certifcation o election fledby ;9 employees o the company(RUL)6D .=

es( 3he petition fled by ;9 laborers or employees o the 8aulog 3ransit* )nc(* wassucient to coner 4urisdiction upon the Court o )ndustrial Relations* or theirnumber was more than .: percent o the laborers and employees o the8aulog 3ransit* )nc()88U! ,=5hether the Collective 2argaining greement entered into between 2u%lod and

the 8aulog 3ransit* )nc( is a bar to certifcation o election(RUL)6D ,=

9

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


6o( 3he collective bargaining agreement entered into on .9 uly ./9J is no bar toa certifcation election at the instance o at least .: per cent o theemployees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit* pursuant to 8ection.,* Paragraphs &a'* &b' and &c'* Republic ct 6o( -<9(

3he collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the 8aulog

3ransit* )nc( and the 2u%lod Qg 8aulog 3ransit on .9 uly ./9J Hdoes not touchin substantial terms the rates o pay* wages* hours o employment* andother conditions o employment o all the employees in the company butsee%s to establish merely a grievance procedure or drivers* conductors andinspectors who are members o the 2u%lod Qg 8aulog(I nd even in thesupplementary agreement * there is no clear0cut stipulation as to Hrates o pay*wages* hours o employment* or other conditions or employment(

3he trial court too%* however* into consideration both agreements andound that the frst agreement being incomplete does not bar a certifcationelection+ and as to the supplementary agreement the Court held that it having

been entered into ater the fling o the petition or a certifcation election thesame cannot and does not bar a certifcation election(

35. G.R. No. L-=8367 January 16, 1979

ASS'(IA#$) #RA)$ "NI'NS-A#" A#"-KIL"SAN!, //onr, .'N. (ARM$L' (. N'RI$L, /n / aa/y a )/ror o #$ "R$A" '&

LA'R R$LA#I'NS, )$PAR#M$N# '& LA'R, &$)$RA#I'N '& &R$$

W'RK$RS SYN#$#I( MARK$#ING AN) IN)"S#RIAL ('RP'RA#I'N

(AP#$R!, AN) SYN#$#I( MARK$#ING AN) IN)"S#RIAL ('RP'RA#I'N

&A(#S4

3he old C2 o petitioner 3U0$)LU86 with respondent 8ynthetic "ar%eting and)ndustrial Corporation was to expire on October J.* ./<<( owever* 9 months

and ,. days beore its expiry date* or on "ay .:* ./<<* 3U0$)LU86 renewedthe same with the consent and collaboration o management( 3he renewed C2was then submitted to the 2ureau o Labor Relations or certifcation on uly -*./<<* or approximately J months prior to the expiration o the outgoing C2(

)n the meantime* on 8eptember .J* ./<< &7- days beore the expiration o theold C2 on October J.* ./<<'* a petition or certifcation election was fled byrespondent union* the Federation o Free 5or%ers( "eanwhile* the renewed C2between petitioner 3U0$)LU86 and respondent company was certifed onOctober J* ./<< or twenty0eight days beore their old C2 was to expire(

ISS"$4

;

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


5hether the renewed C2 orged between the respondent company andpetitioner union constitutes a bar to the holding o a certifcation election(

R"LING4

6o( 3he renewed C2 cannot substitute a bar to the instant petition orcertifcation election(

)n the frst place* the said C2 was certifed ater the instant petition orcertifcation had been fled by herein respondent union* and its certifcation wasconditioned upon the act that there was no pending petition or certifcationelection with the 2ureau o Labor Relations S S S(

)n the second place* the new C2 which was to expire on October J.* ./<<(

ence* said new C2 was not yet in existence when the instant petition orcertifcation election was fled on 8eptember .J* ./<<( 8aid new C2 was tobecome eBective on 6ovember .* ./<< ater the old C2 expires on October J.*./<<* and this* i no representation issue had arisen in the meantime* which isnot the case( Clearly* thereore* the contract0bar rule does not apply to the caseat bar(

Finally it is undubitably clear rom the acts heretoore unolded thatmanagement and petitioner herein proceeded with such indecent haste inrenewing their C2 way ahead o the sixty0day reedom period in their obvious

desire to rustrate the will o the ran%0and0fle employees in selecting theircollective bargaining representative( 3o countenance the actuation o thecompany and the petitioner herein would be violative o the employeesconstitutional right to sel0organiEation(

36. G.R. No. L-=5513-1= January 6, 1978

IN #$ MA##$R '& P$#I#I'N &'R )IR$(# ($R#I&I(A#I'N 'R

($R#I&I(A#I'N $L$(#I'N. &IR$S#'N$ #IR$ > R"$R ('MPANY

$MPL'Y$$S? "NI'N &$"!, //onr, .#$ 'N. &RAN(IS(' L.

$S#R$LLA, a A/n@ )/ror o urau o Laor R:a/on,

&IR$S#'N$ #IR$ > R"$R ('MPANY '& #$ PILIPPIN$S an*ASS'(IA#$) LA'R "NI'NS AL"!, ron*n.

&IR$S#'N$ #IR$ > R"$R ('MPANY $MPL'Y$$S "NI'N, rrn*

y Ro;u:o Ra;o a Pr/*n, //onr, .#$ 'N. &RAN(IS(' L.

$S#R$LLA, a A/n@ )/ror o urau o Laor R:a/on, an*

ASS'(IA#$) LA'R "NI'NS AL"!, ron*n.

&A(#S4

3he petition alleges that on une ,.* ./<J* the 6ational Labor RelationsCommission certifed a three0year collective bargaining agreement between

<

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


respondents ssociated Labor Union &LU' and Firestone 3ire T Rubber Companyo the Philippines( 8aid collective bargaining agreement was to be eBective romFebruary .* ./<J to anuary J.* ./<;(

On February .* ./<7* the aorementioned respondents entered into a

?8upplemental greement? extending the lie o the collective bargainingagreement or one year* ma%ing it eBective up to anuary J.* ./<<( 3heextension was not ratifed by the covered employees nor submitted to the1epartment o Labor or classifcation(

5ithin the sixty0day period prior to the original expiry date o the agreement*some ,JJ out o about 7:: ran%0and0fle employees o respondent Companyresigned rom respondent LU( 8ubse#uently* the number o these employeeswho resigned rom the union was increased to ,<; and* by way o letter to the1irector o the 2ureau o Labor Relations* they re#uested or the issuance o a

certifcate o registration in avor o petitioner Firestone 3ire T Rubber Company!mployees Union &F!U'(On February ,:* ./<;* respondent LU fled with the 2ureau o Labor Relations apetition or the cancellation o the registration certifcate o petitioner F!U* ,alleging that at the time o F!Us registration* respondent LU was therecogniEed and certifed collective bargaining agent in the unit* and that F!U hadnot submitted the re#uired sworn statement that there is no recogniEed orcertifed collective bargaining agent therein(

Respondent LU prayed or the dismissal o R:70"!10.7J0<;(

ISS"$4

5hether the pending petition or the cancellation o F!Us registration certifcateand that there is an existing collective bargaining agreement* due to expire on

anuary J.* ./<<* which constitutes a valid bar to the holding o a certifcationelection(

R"LIING4

6o( contract does not operate as a bar to representation proceedings* where itis shown that because o a schism in the union the contract can no longer serveto promote industrial stability* and the direction o the election is in the interesto industrial stability as well as in the interest o the employees right in theselection o their bargaining representatives( 2asic to the contract bar rule isthe proposition that the delay o the right to select representatives can be

4ustifed only where stability is deemed paramount( !xcepted rom the contractbar rule are certain types o contracts which do not oster industrial stability*

such as contracts where the )dentity o the representative is in doubt( nystability derived rom such contracts must be subordinated to the employees

-

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


reedom o choice because it does not establish the type o industrial peacecontemplated by the law

)n the case at bar* it is doubtul i any contract that may have been entered intobetween respondent LU and respondent Company will oster stability in the

bargaining unit* in view o the act that a substantial number o the employeestherein have resigned rom LU and 4oined petitioner F!U( t any rate* this is amatter that must be fnally determined by means o a certifcation election(

certifcation election or the collective bargaining process is one o the airestand most eBective way o determining which labor organiEation can trulyrepresent the wor%ing orce( )t is a undamental postulate that the will o thema4ority* i given in an honest election with reedom on the part o the voters toma%e their choice* is controlling( 6o better device can assure the institution oindustrial democracy with the two parties to a business enterprise* management

and labor* establishing a regime o sel0rule(Once the act o disaliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt* acertifcation election is the most expeditious way o determining which labororganiEation is to be the exclusive bargaining representative()t appearing that the extension o the lie o the collective bargaining agreementor a period o one year was not certifed by the 2ureau o Labor Relations* itcannot* thereore* also bar the certifcation election( Only a certifed collectivebargaining agreement would serve as a bar to such electionCorollarily* thereore* petitioners application or registration was not premature*as it need not have waited or the expiration o the one0year extension* the

agreement having expired on anuary J.* ./<;(

37. G.R. No. 96=25 &ruary =, 1992

PR'GR$SSI+$ )$+$L'PM$N# ('RP'RA#I'N P)(!, //onr, .#$

'N'RAL$ S$(R$#ARY, )$PAR#M$N# '& LA'R AN) $MPL'YM$N#,

M$)-ARI#$R $)GAR)' )$LA (R"% an* PAMANSANG KIL"SAN NG

PAGGAWA KIL"SAN!-#"(P, ron*n.

&A(#S4

On une ./* .//:* respondent Pambansang $ilusan ng Paggawa &$)LU86' 03UCP

&hereinater reerred to as $ilusan' fled with the 1epartment o Labor and!mployment &1OL!' a petition or certifcation election among the ran%0and0fleemployees o the petitioner alleging that it is a legitimate labor ederation and itslocal chapter* Progressive 1evelopment !mployees Union* was issued chartercertifcate 6o( /:0;0.0.9J( $ilusan claimed that there was no existing collectivebargaining agreement and that no other legitimate labor organiEation existed inthe bargaining unit(Petitioner P1C fled its motion to dismiss dated uly ..* .//: contending that thelocal union ailed to comply with Rule )) 8ection J* 2oo% @ o the Rules)mplementing the Labor Code* as amended* which re#uires the submission o= &a'

the constitution and by0laws+ &b' names* addresses and list o ocers andormembers+ and &c' boo%s o accounts(

/

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


"ed rbiter dela CruE held that there was substantial compliance with there#uirements or the ormation o the chapter( e urther stated that mereissuance o the charter certifcate by the ederation was sucient compliancewith the rules( Considering that the establishment was unorganiEed* hemaintained that a certifcation election should be conducted to resolve the

#uestion o representation( 3he 8ecretary o Labor and !mployment deniedP1CGs appeal and motion or reconsideration(PetitionerGs petitioner or certiorari thus fled(3he petitioner maintains that thedocumentary re#uirements prescribed in 8ection J&c'* namely= the constitutionand by0laws* set o ocers and boo%s o accounts* must ollow the re#uirementso law( Petitioner P1C calls or the similar application o the re#uirement orregistration in rticle ,J9 that all re#uisite documents and papers be certifedunder oath by the secretary or the treasurer o the organiEation and attested toby the president(

ISS"$4)n the case at bar* the constitution and by0laws and list o ocers submitted inthe 2LR* while attested to by the chapters president* were not certifed underoath by the secretary( 1oes such deect warrant the withholding o the status olegitimacy to the local or chapterK

R"LING4

es( local or chapter thereore becomes a legitimate labor organiEation onlyupon submission o the ollowing to the 2LR=.' charter certifcate* within J: days rom its issuance by the labor

ederation or national union* and,' 3he constitution and by0laws* a statement on the set o ocers* and theboo%s o accounts all o which are certifed under oath by the secretary ortreasurer* as the case may be* o such local or chapter* and attested to by itspresident(bsent compliance with these mandatory re#uirements* the local or chapter doesnot become a legitimate labor organiEation()n the case at bar* the ailure o the secretary o P1!U0$ilusan to certiy there#uired documents under oath is atal to its ac#uisition o a legitimate status(

3he certifcation and attestation re#uirements are preventive measures against

the commission o raud( 3hey li%ewise aBord a measure o protection tounsuspecting employees who may be lured into 4oining unscrupulous or Ay0by0night unions whose sole purpose is to control union unds or to use the union ordubious ends(

3he mother union* acting or and in behal o its aliate* had the status o anagent while the local union remained the basic unit o the association* ree toserve the common interest o all its members sub4ect only to the restraintsimposed by the constitution and by0laws o the association( 3hus* where as inthis case the petition or certifcation election was fled by the ederation which ismerely an agent* the petition is deemed to be fled by the chapter* the principal*

which must be a legitimate labor organiEation( 3he chapter cannot merely rely onthe legitimate status o the mother union(

.:

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


3he local union must frst comply with the statutory re#uirements in order toexercise this right( 2ig ederations and national unions o wor%ers should ta%e thelead in re#uiring their locals and chapters to aithully comply with the law andthe rules instead o merely snapping union ater union into their olds in a uriousbid with rival ederations to get the most number o members(

38. G.R. No. L-=1955 );r 29, 1977

$LIS('-$LIR'L LA'R "NI'N NA&L"! an* / '&&I($RS AN) M$M$RS

'& #$ 'AR) '& )IR$(#'RS, //onr .(ARM$L' N'RI$L, /n /

aa/y a )/ror o urau o Laor R:a/on, $LI%AL)$ S#$$L

('NS'LI)A#$), IN(. an* NA#I'NAL &$)$RA#I'N '& LA'R "NI'NS

NA&L"!, ron*n.

&A(#S4

On February* ./<7 the members o the petitioner union who were then yetaliated with the 6ational ssociation o Free Labor Union negotiated andexecuted with the respondent company a collective bargaining agreement withexpiry date in 6ovember* ./<;(

On "ay ,-* ./<9* ater the same members* by valid resolution o the 2oard odirectors and approved by the general membership* have ormed themselvesinto an i t organiEation and applied or registration as a union* a certifcate oregistration was issued by the 1epartment o Labor( nd on une .:* ./<9 againby a valid resolution the same members disaliated with the 6FLU(

Respondent company without any 4ustifable reason reused and continues toreuse to recogniEe petitioner as the sole and exclusive bargaining representativeo its employees* and* now actually dismissed the petitioner unions ocers andboard members( )n this connection* a complaint or unair labor practice wasfled by petitioners against respondents or the latters reusal to bargaincollectively with petitioner(

Petitioners fled a petition beore the 2ureau o Labor Relations* 1epartment oLabor against respondents !liEalde 8teel Consolidated* )nc( and the 6ational

Federation o Labor Unions be ordered to stop rom presenting itsel as thecollective bargaining agent and pursuant thereto* a writ o preliminarymandatory and prohibitory in4unction be issued(

"ed rbiter dismissed the petition( Respondent 1irector o 2LR armed thedismissal(

ISS"$4

5hich o the two unions should be recogniEed as the sole and exclusive

bargaining representative o the employees and ultimately recogniEed to

..

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


administer and supervise the enorcement o the collective bargainingagreement(

R"LING4

Petitioner local union is declared to be the sole and exclusive bargainingrepresentative o the employees o respondent corporation entitled to administerand enorce any subsisting collective bargaining agreement with said employercorporation(

3he local union did not orm a new union but merely registered the local union aswas their right( Petitioner !lisco0!lirol Labor Union06FLU* consisting oemployees and members o the local union was the principal party to the

agreement( 6FLU as the ?mother union? in participation in the execution o thebargaining agreement with respondent company acted merely as agent o thelocal union* which remained the basic unit o the association existing principallyand reely to serve the common interest o all its members* including thereedom to disaliated when the circumstances so warranted as in the presentcase(

3he locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure andmaintain an e#uality o bargaining power between the employer and theiremployee0members in the economic struggle or the ruits o the 4oint productive

eBort o labor and capital+ and the association o the locals into the nationalunion &as PFLU' was in urtherance o the same end( 3hese associations areconsensual entities capable o entering into such legal relations with theirmembers( 3he essential purpose was the armation o the local unions into acommon enterprise to increase by collective action the common bargainingpower in respect o the terms and conditions o labor( et the locals remained thebasic units o association* ree to serve their own and the common interest o all*sub4ect to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and 2y0Laws o thessociation* and ree also to renounce the aliation or mutual welare upon theterms laid down in the agreement which brought it into existence(

Corollarily* the ?substitutionary? doctrine li%ewise ully supports petitionersstand( Petitioner union to whom the employees owe their allegiance has rom thebeginning expressly avowed that it ?does not intend to change andor amend theprovisions o the present collective bargaining agreement but only to be giventhe chance to enorce the same since there is a shit o allegiance in the ma4orityo the employees at respondent company(? s was stressed by the Court in2enguet Consolidated )nc( vs( 2C) !mployees T 5 Union0PFLU9 >

((( 3his principle* ormulated by the 6LR2 as its initial compromise solution to the

problem acing it when there occurs a shit in employees union allegiance aterthe execution o a bargaining contract with their employer* merely states that

.,

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


even during the eBectivity o a collective bargaining agreement executedbetween employer and employees thru their agent* the employees can changesaid agent but the contract continues to bind then up to its expiration date( 3heymay bargain however or the shortening o said expiration date(

)n ormulating the ?substitutionary? doctrine* the only consideration involved asthe employees interest in the existing bargaining agreement( 3he agentsinterest never entered the picture( )n act* the 4ustifcation or said doctrine was=

((( that the ma4ority o the employees* as an entity under the statute* is the trueparty in interest to the contract* holding rights through the agency o the unionrepresentative( 3hus* any exclusive interest claimed by the agent is deeasible atthe will o the principal(

3he actuation o 6FLU o dismissing .J individual compainants conclusively

constitute discrimination( 8ince the suspension o the complainants was eBectedat the instance o 6FLU* it should be held liable to the payment o bac% wages(

5'hat is paramount* as it is expressly and explicitly emphasiEe in an exactinglanguage under the 6ew Constitution* is the security o tenure o the wor%ers*not the security o the union(

39. G.R. No. L-=6509 No;r 16, 1978

(RYSL$R PILIPPIN$S LA'R "NI'N (PL"!, //onr, .'N.

&RAN(IS(' $S#R$LLA, A/n@ )/ror o urau o Laor R:a/on,

ASS'(IA#$) LA'R "NI'N AL"!, an* (RYSL$R PILIPPIN$S('RP'RA#I'N (P(!, ron*n.

&A(#S4

Petitioner CPLU has been duly registered as a Labor organiEation as early as./;9 with an independent certifcate o registration 6o( 7;;70)P()t retained thesame registration number when it aliated with LU sometime in ./<7 and hadits name changed accordingly to CPLU0LU(

On anuary .<* ./<<* petitioner fled a ?Petition or 1irect Certifcation with

Preliminary )n4unction? / with Regional Oce 6o( 7* 2ureau o Labor Relations*1epartment o Labor( )t alleged that ?there is another union claiming to representthe wor%ers as the bargaining unit proposed and this is the ssociated LaborUnion*SS but it represents the minority(? )t prayed* thereore* that the 2ureau*ater proper proceedings* ?directly certiy the Chrysler Philippines Labor Union*&i(e( petitioner' as the exclusive bargaining agent o the wor%ers on hourly basisemployed by the Chrysler Phil( Corporation(? ttached to the aoresaid petitionwas a general membership resolution .: signed by three hundred fty &J9:' outo the alleged total o ?fve hundred and fty &99:' more or less employees inthe bargaining unit( )n said resolution* the signatories alleged0

.J

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


.( 3hat we have no %nowledge and have not authoriEed the ssociated LaborUnion to amend and change the name o our local union with anotherregistration certifcate which was issued on the ,Jrd &should be .Jth' day o"arch* ./<7( 5e do hereby resolve and petition the 2ureau o Labor Relations torestore the original name in the registration issued on ugust ,:* ./;9(

,( 3hat we the undersigned members o the Chrysler &Phil('* Labor Union dohereby maintain the said labor union as an independent labor organiEation andwe hereby disaliate rom the ssociated Labor Union &LU' and maintain ourmembership with Chrysler &Phil(' Labor Union(

"ed0rbiter dismissed CPLUGs petition( 2LU armed the dismissal (

ISS"$ 14

5hether CPLU has the legal personality to fle a petition or certifcation election*notwithstanding its disaliation rom LU(

R"LING4

es( Petitioner has legal personality to fle a petition or certifcation election*notwithstanding its disaliation rom LU( First* there is nothing in the LaborCode nor in the implementing rules which provides that a duly registered local

union which aliates with a national union or ederation loses its legalpersonality* much less is there any provision which re#uires that upon thedisaliation o said local union* it should register anew to be entitled to all therights and privileges o a duly registered labor union( On the contrary* the LaborCode expressly allows disaliation or the purpose o operating as anindependent labor organiEation &rt( ,7.'( 3he change o name rom CPLU toCPLU0LU was only a matter o orm which did not aBect in the least the legalpersonality o both aliating unions( nd it ollows that i* upon its disaliation*petitioner was re#uired to secure a registration certifcate in its original name&without the sux LU'* the same was only or record purposes and nothing

more( 8econd* the only way by which a duly registered labor &union' can bedisenranchised is upon an order o cancellation issued by the 2ureau o LaborRelations and only ater due hearing in a proceeding instituted or said purpose(

3hus* rticle ,J/ o the Labor Code provides as ollows=

rt( ,J/( Cancellation o registration+ appeal( 3he certifcate o registration o anylegitimate labor organiEation* whether national* or local* shall be cancelled bythe 2ureau i it has reason to believe* ater due hearing* that the said labororganiEation no longer meets one or more o the re#uirements herein prescribed(

ISS"$ 24

.7

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


5hether there is merit in CPLU0LUs allegation that the petition or certifcationelection has become moot and academic because o the ratifcation by ama4ority o the hourly0paid employees o CPC o the new C2 eBective during theperiod 6ovember .* ./<< to October J.* ./-:(

R"LING 24

6o(3here is no merit in CPLU0LUs allegation that the petition or certifcationelection has become moot and academic because o the ratifcation by ama4ority o the hourly0paid employees o CPC o the new C2 eBective during theperiod 6ovember .* ./<< to October J.* ./-:(

)t was not sought or the purpose o choosing the exclusive bargainingrepresentative o the hourly0paid employees( lthough the ratifcation slipsprovide that ?the ratifcation shall constitute a bar to any petition or certifcation

election that has been or may be fled by any party or union* ? the same cannotand should not be given orce and eBect* because it will deeat petitioner CPLUsclaim o ma4ority representation(

)t should be added that the execution o a new Collective 2argaining greementdoes not necessarily oreclose the issue o representation( )t is only when theCollective 2argaining greement is certifed that no petition or certifcationelection shall be entertained* except within the so0called reedom period o sixty&;:' days prior to its expiration(

)n this case* the new Collective 2argaining greement cannot be certifedprecisely because o the restraining order issued to the public respondent cting1irector en4oining him rom certiying any Collective 2argaining greementwhich may be concluded by and between private respondents CPC and CPLU0LU( 3he Collective 2argaining greement not being certifed* there is no legalobstacle against the holding o a certifcation election(

both contending unions claim ma4ority representation* there is no better waythan the holding o a certifcation election to ascertain which union reallycommands the allegiance o the hourly0 paid employees at CPC( 3hus 5e held

that ( ( ( ?&3'he important actor is the true choice o the employees* and themost expeditious and eBective manner o determining this is by means o thecertifcation election* as it is or this very reason that such procedure has beenincorporated in the law(

3he 2ureau o Labor Relations is directed to call a certifcation election so thatthe #uestion o representation o the hourly0paid employees at ChryslerPhilippines Corporation be resolved( 3he 3RO is lited(

7:(

.9

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


7.(G.R. No. 70067 S;r 15, 1986

(ARL'S P. GAL+A)'R$S, $# AL., //onr, .(R$S$N(IAN' .

#RAJAN', )/ror o urau o Laor R:a/on, MANGGAGAWA NG

K'M"NIKASY'N SA PILIPINAS &IW"!, PILIPPIN$ L'NG )IS#AN($('MPANY PL)#!, an* J'S$ (. $SPINAS, ron*n(

&A(#S4

Petitioner employees o the Philippine Long 1istance 3elephone Company &PL13'and members o respondent Free 3elephone 5or%ers Union* now the"anggagawa ng $omuni%asyon sa Pilipinas &simply reerred to hereinater as theUnion'* #uestion the legality o the chec%0oB or attorneys ees amounting toP."* more or less* o respondent tty( ose C( !spinas &hereinater reerred to as?Respondent Counsel?' rom the monetary benefts awarded to PL13 employees

in a deadloc%ed collective bargaining agreement negotiations between the PL13and the Union(

ISS"$4

5hether re#uired individual authoriEations in this case are wanting(

R"LING4

!8( rticle ,,,&b' o the Labor Code provides=rticle ,,,( ppearance and Fees(xxx xxx xxx&b'6o attorneys ees* negotiation ees or similar charges o any%ind arising rom any collective bargaining negotiations or conclusion o the

collective bargaining agreement shall be imposed on any individual member othe contracting union+ Provided* however* that attorneys ees may be charged

.;

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


against union unds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties( nycontract* agreement or arrangement o any sort to the contrary shall be null andvoid(5hile rticle ,7, o the same Code reads=

rt( ,7,( Rights and conditions o membership in a labor organiEation( 3heollowing are the rights and conditions o membership in a labor organiEation=xxx xxx xxx&o' Other than or mandatory activities under the Code* no specialassessment* attorneys ees* negotiation ees or any other extraordinary eesmay be chec%ed oB ?rom any amount due an employee without individualwritten authoriEation duly signed by the employee( 3he authoriEation shouldspecifcally state the amount* purpose and benefciary o the deduction(

3he Omnibus Rules )mplementing the Labor Code also provide that deductionsrom wages o the employees may only be made by the employer in cases

authoriEed by law* including deductions or insurance premiums advanced by theemployer on behal o the employees as well as union dues where the right tochec%0oB is authoriEed in writing by the individual employee himsel( J

3he provisions are clear( 6o chec%0oBs rom any amounts due employees may beeBected without individual written authoriEations duly signed by the employeespecifcally stating the amount* purpose and benefciary o the deduction( 3here#uired individual authoriEations in this case are wanting( )n act* petitioneremployees are vigorously ob4ecting( 3he #uestion as%ed in the plebiscite* besidesnot being explicit* assumed that there was no dispute relative to attorneys ees(

Contrary to respondent Unions and Counsels stand* the benefts awarded toPL13 employees still ormed part o the collective bargaining negotiationsalthough placed already under compulsory arbitration( 3his is not the?mandatory activity? under the Code which dispenses with individual writtenauthoriEations or chec%0oBs* notwithstanding its ?compulsory? nature( )t is a

4udicial process o settling disputes laid down by law( 2esides* rticle ,,,&b' doesnot except a C2* later placed under compulsory arbitration* rom the ambit oits prohibition( 3he cardinal principle should be borne in mind that employees areprotected by law rom unwarranted practices that diminish their compensationwithout their %nowledge and consent(

=2. G.R. No. 77951 S;r 26, 1988

(''P$RA#I+$ R"RAL ANK '& )A+A' (I#Y, IN(., //onr, .P"RA

&$RR$R-(ALL$JA, )IR$(#'R, "R$A" '& LA'R R$LA#I'NS, M'L$,

MANILA< &$LI%AR)' #. S$RAPI', M$)-ARI#$R )$SIGNA#$, R$GI'NAL

'&&I($ N'. I, M'L$, )A+A' (I#Y< an* &$)$RA#I'N '& &R$$ W'RK$RS,

ron*n.

&A(#S4

Petitioner Cooperative Rural 2an% o 1avao City* )nc( is a cooperative ban%ingcorporation operating in 1avao City( )t is owned in part by the Dovernment and

.<

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


its employees are members and co0owners o the same( 3he petitioner hasaround .; ran%0and0fle employees( s o ugust* ./-;* there was no existingcollective bargaining agreement between the said employees and theestablishment( On the other hand* the herein private respondent Federation oFree 5or%ers is a labor organiEation registered with the 1epartment o Labor and

!mployment( )t is interested in representing the said employees or purposes ocollective bargaining(On ugust ,<* ./-;* the private respondent fled with the 1avao City RegionalOce o the then "inistry o Labor and !mployment a verifed Petition orcertifcation election among the ran%0and0fle employees o the petitioner(Respondent granted the petition or certifcation o election(Petitioner fled an ppeal "emorandum and sought a reversal o the Order o the"ed0rbiter( Petitioner insists that its employees are dis#ualifed rom orminglabor organiEations or purposes o collective bargaining( 2LU armed "ed0rbiterGs decision(Petition or Reconsideration was denied( Petition or Certiorari

was fled(

ISS"$4

5hether the employees o a cooperative can organiEe themselves or purposeso collective bargaining(

R"LING4

6o( n employee o a cooperative who is a member and co0owner thereo cannotinvo%e the right to collective bargaining or certainly an owner cannot bargainwith himsel or his co0owners(!mployees o cooperatives who are themselves

members o the cooperative have no right to orm or 4oin labor organiEations orpurposes o collective bargaining or being themselves co0owners o thecooperative(Under 8ection , o P(1( 6o( .<9* a cooperative is defned to mean ?organiEationscomposed primarily o small producers and o consumers who voluntarily 4ointogether to orm business enterprises which they themselves own* control* andpatroniEe(? )ts creation and growth were declared as a policy o the 8tate as ameans o increasing the income and purchasing power o the low0income sectoro the population in order to attain a more e#uitable distribution o income andwealth(

cooperative* thereore* is by its nature diBerent rom an ordinary businessconcern* being run either by persons* partnerships* or corporations( )ts ownersandor members are the ones who run and operate the business while the othersare its employees( s above stated* irrespective o the number o shares ownedby each member they are entitled to cast one vote each in deciding upon theaBairs o the cooperative( 3heir share capital earn limited interests( 3hey en4oyspecial privileges as > exemption rom income tax and sales taxes* preerentialright to supply their products to 8tate agencies and even exemption rom theminimum wages laws(

=3.G.R. No. 8==33 Jun 2, 1992

.-

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


AL$AN)$R R$Y$S, AL$R#' M. N$RA, $)GAR)' M. G$(A, an* 138

or, //onr, .

(R$S$N(IAN' . #RAJAN', a 'Br-/n-(ar@, urau o Laor

R:a/on, M*. Ar/r PA#$RN' A)AP, an* #RI-"NI'N $MPL'Y$$S

"NI'N, a:., ron*n.

&A(#S4

3he ocer0in0charge o the 2ureau o Labor Relations &on( Cresenciano 3ra4ano'sustained the denial by the "ed rbiter o the right to vote o one hundred orty0one &.7.' members o the ?)glesia ni $risto? &)6$'* all employed in the samecompany* at a certifcation election at which two &,' labor organiEations werecontesting the right to be the exclusive representative o the employees in thebargaining unit( 3hat denial is assailed as having been done with grave abuse odiscretion in the special civil action o certiorari at bar* commenced by the )6$

members adversely aBected thereby(

3he certifcation election was authoriEed to be conducted by the 2ureau o LaborRelations among the employees o 3ri0Union )ndustries Corporation on October,:* ./-<( 3he competing unions were 3ri0Union !mployees Union0OrganiEedLabor ssociation in Line )ndustries and griculture &3U!U0OLL)'* and 3radeUnion o the Philippines and llied 8ervices &3UP8'( O the J7- wor%ers initiallydeemed to be #ualifed voters* only ,7: actually too% part in the election*conducted under the provision o the 2ureau o Labor Relations( mong the ,7:employees who cast their votes were .7. members o the )6$(

3he ballots provided or three &J' choices( 3hey provided or votes to be cast* ocourse* or either o the two &,' contending labor organiEations* &a' 3UP8 and&b' 3U!U0OLL)+ and* conormably with established rule and practice* . or &c' athird choice= ?6O U6)O6(?

3he fnal tally o the votes showed the ollowing results=3UP8 .+3U!U0OLL)/9+6O U6)O60.+8PO)L!10.+CLL!6D!10.7.(3he challenged votes were

those cast by the .7. )6$ members( 3hey were segregated and excluded romthe fnal count in virtue o an agreement between the competing unions* reached

at the pre0election conerence* that the )6$ members should not be allowed tovote ?because they are not members o any union and reused to participate inthe previous certifcation elections(

ISS"$ 4

5hether the members o the )6C should not be allowed to vote Hbecause theyreused to participate in the previous certifcation elections(I

R"LING 4

./

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


6o( 3he plainly discernible intendment o the law is to grant the right to vote toall bona fde employees in the bargaining unit* whether they are members o alabor organiEation or not(6o law* administrative rule or precedent prescribesoreiture o the right to vote by reason o neglect to exercise the right in pastcertifcation elections(

3he right o sel0organiEation includes the right to organiEe or aliate with alabor union or determine which o two or more unions in an establishment to 4oin*and to engage in concerted activities with co0wor%ers or purposes o collectivebargaining through representatives o their own choosing* or or their mutual aidand protection* i(e(* the protection* promotion* or enhancement o their rightsand interests(Logically* the right 6O3 to 4oin* aliate with* or assist any union* and todisaliate or resign rom a labor organiEation* is subsumed in the right to 4oin*aliate with* or assist any union* and to maintain membership therein( 3he rightto orm or 4oin a labor organiEation necessarily includes the right to reuse or

rerain rom exercising said right( )t is sel0evident that 4ust as no one should bedenied the exercise o a right granted by law* so also* no one should becompelled to exercise such a conerred right( 3he act that a person has opted toac#uire membership in a labor union does not preclude his subse#uently optingto renounce such membership(

3he right o sel0organiEation embraces not only the right to orm* 4oin or assistlabor organiEations* but the concomitant* converse right 6O3 to orm* 4oin orassist any labor union(

3hat the )6$ employees* as employees in the same bargaining unit in the truesense o the term* do have the right o sel0organiEation* is also in truth beyond

#uestion* as well as the act that when they voted that the employees in theirbargaining unit should be represented by ?6O U6)O6*? they were simplyexercising that right o sel0organiEation* albeit in its negative aspect(

==. G.R. No. 91902 May 20, 1991

MANILA $L$(#RI( ('MPANY, //onr, .#$ 'N. S$(R$#ARY '&

LA'R AN) $MPL'YM$N#, S#A&& AN) #$(NI(AL $MPL'Y$$S

ASS'(IA#I'N '& M$RAL(', an* &IRS# LIN$ ASS'(IA#I'N '& M$RAL('

S"P$R+IS'RY $MPL'Y$$S, ron*n.

&A(#S4 3he 8taB and 3echnical !mployees ssociation o "!RLCO &hereater ?83!"0PC5F?' a labor organiEation o staB and technical employees o "!RLCO* fled apetition or certifcation election* see%ing to represent regular employees o"!RLCO who are= &a' non0managerial employees with Pay Drades @)) andabove+ &b' non0managerial employees in the Patrol 1ivision* 3reasury 8ecurity8ervices 8ection* 8ecretaries who are automatically removed rom the bargainingunit+ and &c' employees within the ran% and fle unit who are automaticallydis#ualifed rom becoming union members o any organiEation within the samebargaining unit(

,:

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


"eralco moved the dismissal o the petition( "ed0rbter ordered the certifcationo election( "!RLCO appealed but the 8ecretary o Labor armed the "ed0rbiterGs decision with modifcation(Petitioner see%s to review the Resolution o respondent 8ecretary o Labor and!mployment Fran%lin "( 1rilon dated 6ovember J* ./-/ which armed an Order

o "ed0rbiter Renato P( Parungo &Case 6o( 6CR0O010"0.0<:'* directing theholding o a certifcation election among certain employees o petitioner "anila!lectric Company &hereater ?"!RLCO?' as well as the Order dated anuary .;*.//: which denied the "otion or Reconsideration o "!RLCO(

ISS"$ 14

5hether employees rom pay grades @)) and above are ran%0and0fle employees(

R"LING 14

6o( "!RLCO has admitted that the employees belonging to Pay Drades @)) and

up are supervisory()t must be emphasiEed that private respondent First Line ssociation o "eralco8upervisory !mployees see%s to represent only the 8upervisory !mployees withPay Drades @)) to )@(

3he 8ecretary o Labors Resolution was obviously premised on the provisions ort( ,.,* then par( &%'* o the ./-- Labor Code defning ?managerial? and ?ran%and fle? employees* the law then in orce when the complaint was fled( t thetime* only two groups o employees were recogniEed* the managerial and ran%and fle( 3his explains the absence o evidence on 4ob descriptions on who wouldbe classifed managerial employees( )t is perhaps also or this reason why the

8ecretary o Labor limited his classifcation o the "eralco employees belongingto Pay Drades @)) and up* to only two groups* the managerial and ran% and fle(owever* pursuant to the 1epartment o Labors goal o strenghthening theconstitutional right o wor%ers to sel0organiEation* R ;<.9 was subse#uentlypassed which reorganiEed the employee0ran%s by including a third group* or thesupervisory employees* and laying down the distinction between supervisoryemployees and those o managerial ran%s in rt( ,.,* renumbered par( VmW*depending on whether the employee concerned has the power to lay down andexecute management policies* in the case o managerial employees* or merely torecommend them* in case o supervisory employees(

nent the instant petition thereore* 83!"0PC5F* and FL"!8 would thereorerepresent supervisory employees only( )n this regard* the authority given by the8ecretary o Labor or the establishment o two labor organiEations or the ran%and fle will have to be disregarded since 5e hereby uphold certifcationelections only or supervisory employees rom Pay Drade @)) and up* with 83!"0PC5F and FL"!8 as choices(

ISS"$ 24

5hether it is legal or security guards to 4oin either the ran% and fle or thesupervisory union(

R"LING 24

,.

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


6o( On 1ecember ,7* ./-;* Pres( CoraEon C( #uino issued !(O( 6o( ... whicheliminated the provision on the dis#ualifcation o security guards as providedunder the old rules X rt( ,79 o the Labor Code( 5hat was retained was thedis#ualifcation o managerial employees* renumbered as rt( ,79 &previouslyrt( ,7;'* as ollows=

rt( ,79( )neligibility o managerial employees to 4oint any labor organiEation(>"anagerial employees are not eligible to 4oin* assist or orm any labororganiEation(5ith the elimination* security guards were thus ree to 4oin a ran% and fleorganiEation(On "arch ,* ./-/* the present Congress passed R ;<.9( , 8ection .- thereoamended rt( ,79* to read as ollows=rt( ,79( )neligibility o managerial employees to 4oin any labor organiEation+right o supervisory employees(>"anagerial employees are not eligible to 4oin*assist or orm any labor organiEation( 8upervisory employees shall not be eligible

or membership in a labor organiEation o the ran%0and0fle employees but may 4oin* assist* or orm separate labor organiEations o their own(Under the old rules* security guards were barred rom 4oining a labor organiEationo the ran% and fle* under R ;<.9* they may now reely 4oin a labor organiEationo the ran% and fle or that o the supervisory union* depending on their ran%( 2yaccommodating supervisory employees* the 8ecretary o Labor must li%ewiseapply the provisions o R ;<.9 to security guards by avorably allowing themree access to a labor organiEation* whether ran% and fle or supervisory* inrecognition o their constitutional right to sel0organiEation(

=5. G.R. No. 110399 Au@u 15, 1997SAN MIG"$L ('RP'RA#I'N S"P$R+IS'RS AN) $$MP# "NI'N AN)

$RN$S#' L. P'N($, Pr/*n, //onr, . 'N'RAL$ I$N+$NI)'

$. LAG"$SMA IN IS (APA(I#Y AS "N)$RS$(R$#ARY '& LA'R AN)

$MPL'YM$N#, 'N'RAL$ )ANIL' L. R$YNAN#$ IN IS (APA(I#Y AS

M$)-ARI#$R AN) SAN MIG"$L ('RP'RA#I'N, ron*n.

&A(#S4

Petitioner union fled beore the 1epartment o Labor and !mployment &1OL!' aPetition or 1irect Certifcation or Certifcation !lection among the supervisors

and exempt employees o the 8"C "agnolia Poultry Products Plants o Cabuyao*8an Fernando and Otis("ed0rbiter granted the petition( Respondent 8an "iguel Corporation fled a6otice o ppeal with "emorandum on ppeal* pointing out* among others* the"ed0rbiters error in grouping together all three &J' separate plants* Otis*Cabuyao and 8an Fernando* into one bargaining unit* and in includingsupervisory levels J and above whose positions are confdential in nature(Undersecretary granted the companyGs appeal but later on granted thereconsideration and directed the conduct o separate certifcation electionsamong the supervisors ran%ed as supervisory levels . to 7 &8. to 87' and the

exempt employees in each o the three plants at Cabuyao* 8an Fernando andOtis(

,,

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


3he company fled a motion to suspend a "otion or Reconsideration with "otionto suspend proceedings which was granted by the Undersecretary( Petition orCertiorari with Prayer or the )ssuance o Preliminary )n4unction was fled(

ISS"$ 14

5hether 8upervisory employees J and 7 and the exempt employees o thecompany are considered confdential employees* hence ineligible rom 4oining aunion(

R"LING 14

3he Court rules that said employees do not all within the term ?confdentialemployees? who may be prohibited rom 4oining a union(Confdential employees are those who &.' assist or act in a confdential capacity*&,' to persons who ormulate* determine* and eBectuate management policies inthe feld o labor relations( 3he two criteria are cumulative* and both must be

met i an employee is to be considered a confdential employee > that is* theconfdential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor*and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to laborrelations(

3he exclusion rom bargaining units o employees who* in the normal course otheir duties* become aware o management policies relating to labor relations isa principal ob4ective sought to be accomplished by the confdential employeerule(? 3he broad rationale behind this rule is that employees should not beplaced in a position involving a potential conAict o interests(n employee o a labor union* or o a management association* must have

access to confdential labor relations inormation with respect to his employer*the union* or the association* to be regarded a confdential employee* and%nowledge o labor relations inormation pertaining to the companies with whichthe union deals* or which the association represents* will not cause an employeeto be excluded rom the bargaining unit representing employees o the union orassociation(? ?ccess to inormation which is regarded by the employer to beconfdential rom the business standpoint* such as fnancial inormation .- ortechnical trade secrets* will not render an employee a confdential employee()n the case at bar* supervisors J and above may not be considered confdentialemployees merely because they handle ?confdential data? as such must frst be

strictly classifed as pertaining to labor relations or them to all under saidrestrictions( 3he inormation they handle are properly classifable as technicaland internal business operations data which* to our mind* has no relevance tonegotiations and settlement o grievances wherein the interests o a union andthe management are invariably adversarial( 8ince the employees are notclassifable under the confdential type* this Court rules that they mayappropriately orm a bargaining unit or purposes o collective bargaining(Furthermore* even assuming that they are confdential employees* 4urisprudencehas established that there is no legal prohibition against confdential employeeswho are not perorming managerial unctions to orm and 4oin a union(

ISS"$ 24

,J

7/24/2019 case set 4-5


) they are not confdential employees* do the employees o the three plantsconstitute an appropriate single bargaining unit(

R"LING 24

3he act that the three plants are located in three diBerent places* namely* in

Cabuyao* Laguna* in Otis* Pandacan* "etro "anila* and in 8an Fernando*Pampanga is immaterial( Deographical location can be completely disregarded ithe communal or mutual interests o the employees are not sacrifced(

3he distance among the three plants is not productive o insurmountablediculties in the administration o union aBairs( 6either are there regionaldiBerences that are li%ely to impede the operations o a single bargainingrepresentative(2argaining unit may be defned as ?a group o employees o a given employer*comprised o all or less than all o the entire body o employees* which thecollective interest o all the employees* consistent with e#uity to the employer*

indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties o the partiesunder the collective bargaining provisions o thelaw( unit to be appropriate must eBect a grouping o employees who havesubstantial* mutual interests in wages* hours* wor%ing conditions and othersub4ects o collective bargaining(lthough they belong to three diBerent plants* they perorm wor% o the samenature* receive the same wages and compensation* and most importantly* sharea common sta%e in concerted activities(

case set 4-5

Documents

Transcript of case set 4-5