Compilation of Labor Law Cases

8/12/2019 Compilation of Labor Law Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compilation-of-labor-law-cases 1/8

Labor Law

Review

Compilation of Cases

Camille Lorraine E.Camenforte



Labor Law ReviewCompilation of Cases

SY 2013-2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BELYCA CORPORATION vs. DIR. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

(G.R. No. 77395 Novembe !9" #9$$%

[2]




SY 2013-2014

Re&'b)* o+ ,-e P-))&&)es

SUPREME COURT

/0)0

SECOND DI1ISION

G.R. No. 77395 November 29, 1988

BELYCA CORPORATION, petitioner,vs.

DIR. PURA ERRER CALLE!A, LABOR RELATION", #ANILA, #INI"TRY O LABOR ANDE#PLOY#ENT$ #ED%ARBITER, RODOLO ". #ILADO, #INI"TRY O LABOR AND

E#PLOY#ENT, REGIONAL OICE NO. 1& AND A""OCIATED LABOR UNION 'ALU%TUCP(, #INDANAO REGIONAL OICE, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, respondents.

Soriano and Arana Law Offices for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for public respondent.

Francisco D. Alas for respondent Associated Labor Unions-TUCP.

PARA", J.:

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking to annul or toset aside the resolution of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated November !, "#$% and denyingthe appeal, and the Bureau&s resolution dated 'anuary "(, "#$) denying petitioner&s motion for

reconsideration.

The dispositive portion of the *uestioned resolution dated November !, "#$% +Rollo, p. !reads as follows-

/0R012R0, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the 2rder is affirmedand the appeal therefrom denied.

Let, therefore, the pertinent records of the case be remanded to the office oforigin for the immediate conduct of the certification election.

The dispositive portion of the resolution dated 'anuary "(, "#$) +Rollo, p. # reads, as follows-

/0R012R0, the 3otion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Belyca4orporation +Livestock 5gro67ivision is hereby dismissed for lack of merit andthe Bureau&s Resolution dated ! November "#$% is affirmed. 5ccordingly, letthe records of this case be immediately forwarded to the 2ffice of origin for theholding of the certification elections.

No further motion shall hereafter be entertained.

The antecedents of the case are as follows-

2n 'une (, "#$%, private respondent 5ssociated Labor 8nion +5L86T849, a legitimate labororgani:ation duly registered with the 3inistry of Labor and 0mployment under Registration4ertificate No. )$(6;9, filed with the Regional 2ffice No. "<, 3inistry of Labor and 0mploymentat 4agayan de 2ro 4ity, a petition for direct certification as the sole and e=clusive bargainingagent of all the rank and file employees>workers of Belyca 4orporation +Livestock and 5gro67ivision, a duly organi:ed, registered and e=isting corporation engaged in the business ofpoultry raising, piggery and planting of agricultural crops such as corn, coffee and variousvegetables, employing appro=imately <? rank and file employees>workers, the collectivebargaining unit sought in the petition, or in case of doubt of the union&s majority representation,

[3]




SY 2013-2014

for the issuance of an order authori:ing the immediate holding of a certification election +Rollo,p. "$. 5lthough the case was scheduled for hearing at least three times, no amicablesettlement was reached by the parties. 7uring the scheduled hearing of 'uly (", "#$% they,however, agreed to submit simultaneously their respective position papers on or before 5ugust"", "#$% +rollo. p. %.

9etitioner 5L86T849, private respondent herein, in its petition and position paper alleged,among others, +" that there is no e=isting collective bargaining agreement between therespondent employer, petitioner herein, and any other e=isting legitimate labor unions@ + thatthere had neither been a certification election conducted in the proposed bargaining unit withinthe last twelve +" months prior to the filing of the petition nor a contending union re*uesting forcertification as the. sole and e=clusive bargaining representative in the proposed bargainingunit@ +( that more than a majority of respondent employer&s rank6and6file employees>workers inthe proposed bargaining unit or one hundred thirty6eight +"($ as of the date of the filing of thepetition, have signed membership with the 5L86T849 and have e=pressed their written consentand authori:ation to the filing of the petition@ +! that in response to petitioner union&s two lettersto the proprietor> Aeneral 3anager of respondent employer, dated 5pril ", "#$% and 3ay $, "

#$%, re*uesting for direct recognition as the sole and e=clusive bargaining agent of the rank6and6file workers, respondent employer has locked out ""# of its rank6and6file employees in thesaid bargaining unit and had dismissed earlier the local union president, vice6president andthree other active members of the local unions for which an unfair labor practice case was filedby petitioner union against respondent employer last 'uly , "#$% before the NLR4 in 4agayande 2ro 4ity +Rollo, pp. "$@ %(.!re""an#$%&w'

Respondent employer, on the other hand, alleged in its position paper, among others, +" thatdue to the nature of its business, very few of its employees are permanent, the overwhelmingmajority of which are seasonal and casual and regular employees@ + that of the total "($ rank6and6file employees who authori:ed, signed and supported the filing of the petition +a "! wereno longer working as of 'une (, "#$% +b ! resigned after 'une, "#$% +c % withdrew their

membership from petitioner union +d ? were retrenched on 'une (, "#$% +e " weredismissed due to malicious insubordination and destruction of property and +f "<< simplyabandoned their work or stopped working@ +( that the "$ incumbent employees or workers ofthe livestock section were merely transferred from the agricultural section as replacement forthose who have either been dismissed, retrenched or resigned@ and +! that the statutoryre*uirement for holding a certification election has not been complied with by the union +Rollo,p. %.

The Labor 5rbiter granted the certification election sought for by petitioner union in his orderdated 5ugust "$, "#$% +Rollo, p. %.

2n 1ebruary !, "#$), respondent employer Belyca 4orporation, appealed the order of the Labor

5rbiter to the Bureau of Labor Relations in 3anila +Rollo, p. %) which denied the appeal +Rollo,p. $< and the motion for reconsideration +Rollo, p. #. Thus, the instant petition received in this4ourt by mail on 1ebruary <, "#$) +Rollo, p. (.

;n the resolution of 3arch !, "#$), the econd 7ivision of this 4ourt re*uired respondent 8nionto comment on the petition and issued a temporary restraining order +,Rollo, p. #?.

Respondent union filed its comment on 3arch (<, "#$) +Rollo, p. "#<@ public respondents filedits comment on 5pril $, "#$) +Rollo, p. "$.

2n 3ay !, "#$), the 4ourt resolved to give due course to the petition and to re*uire the partiesto submit their respective memoranda within twenty +< days from notice +Rollo, p. ?.

The 2ffice of the olicitor Aeneral manifested on 'une "", "#$) that it is adopting the commentfor public respondents as its memorandum +Rollo, p. %@ memorandum for respondent 5L8was filed on 'une (<, "#$) +Rollo, p. ("@ and memorandum for petitioner, on 'uly (<, "#$)+Rollo, p. !(?.

The issues raised in this petition are-

[4]




SY 2013-2014

;

/0T/0R 2R N2T T/0 9R29207 B5RA5;N;NA 8N;T ; 5N 599R29R;5T0 B5RA5;N;NA 8N;T.

;;

/0T/0R 2R N2T T/0 T5T8T2RC R0D8;R030NT 21 (<E +N2 <E21 T/0 039L2C00 ;N T/0 9R29207 B5RA5;N;NA 8N;T, 5F;NA 12R

5 40RT;1;45T;2N 0L04T;2N /57 B00N TR;4TLC 4239L;07 ;T/.

;n the instant case, respondent 5L8 seeks direct certification as the sole and e=clusivebargaining agent of all the rank6and6file workers of the livestock and agro division of petitionerB0LC45 4orporation +Rollo, p. (, engaged in piggery, poultry raising and the planting ofagricultural crops such as corn, coffee and various vegetables +Rollo, p. %. But petitionercontends that the bargaining unit must include all the workers in its integrated businessconcerns ranging from piggery, poultry, to supermarts and cinemas so as not to split an

otherwise single bargaining unit into fragmented bargaining units +Rollo, p. !(?.!re""an#$%&w'

The Labor 4ode does not specifically define what constitutes an appropriate collectivebargaining unit. 5rticle ?% of the 4ode provides-

5rt. ?%. ()clusi*e bar+ainin+ representati*e.GThe labororgani:ation designated or selected by the majority of theemployees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall bee=clusive representative of the employees in such unit for thepurpose of collective bargaining. /owever, an individual employeeor group of employee shall have the right at any time to presentgrievances to their employer.

5ccording to Rothenberg, a proper bargaining unit maybe said to be a group of employees of agiven employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which thecollective interests of all the employees, consistent with e*uity to the employer, indicate to bebest suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargainingprovisions of the law +Rothenberg in Labor Relations, p. !$.

This 4ourt has already taken cogni:ance of the crucial issue of determining the properconstituency of a collective bargaining unit.

5mong the factors considered in 7emocratic Labor 5ssociation v. 4ebu tevedoring 4o. ;nc.

+"<( 9hil ""<( H"#?$I are- J+" will of employees +Alove 7octrine@ + affinity and unity ofemployee&s interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties or similarity ofcompensation and working conditions@ +( prior collective bargaining history@ and +!employment status, such as temporary, seasonal and probationary employeesJ.

8nder the circumstances of that case, the 4ourt stressed the importance of the fourth factor andsustained the trial court&s conclusion that two separate bargaining units should be formed indealing with respondent company, one consisting of regular and permanent employees andanother consisting of casual laborers or stevedores. 2therwise stated, temporary employeesshould be treated separately from permanent employees. But more importantly, this 4ourt laiddown the test of proper grouping, which is community and mutuality of interest.

Thus, in a later case, +5lhambra 4igar and 4igarette 3anufacturing 4o. et al. v. 5lhambra0mployees& 5ssociation "<) 9hil. $ H"#%<I where the employment status was not at issue butthe nature of work of the employees concerned@ the 4ourt stressed the importance of thesecond factor otherwise known as the substantial6mutual6interest test and found no reason todisturb the finding of the lower 4ourt that the employees in the administrative, sales anddispensary departments perform work which has nothing to do with production andmaintenance, unlike those in the raw leaf, cigar, cigarette and packing and engineering and

[5]




SY 2013-2014

garage departments and therefore community of interest which justifies the format or e=istenceas a separate appropriate collective bargaining unit.

till later in PLASLU *. C, et al. +""< 9hil. "$< H"#%<I where the employment status of theemployees concerned was again challenged, the 4ourt reiterating the rulings, both in

Deocratic Labor Association *. Cebu Ste*edorin+ Co. ,nc. supra and Alhabra Ci+ar andCi+arette Co. et al. *. Alhabra (plo/ees0 Association +supra held that among the factors tobe considered are- employment status of the employees to be affected, that is the positions andcategories of work to which they belong, and the unity of employees& interest such assubstantial similarity of work and duties.

;n any event, whether importance is focused on the employment status or the mutuality ofinterest of the employees concerned Jthe basic test of an asserted bargaining unit&sacceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to allemployees the e=ercise of their collective bargaining rights +7emocratic Labor 5ssociation v.4ebu tevedoring 4o. ;nc. supra

/ence, still later following the substantial6mutual interest test, the 4ourt ruled that there is asubstantial difference between the work performed by musicians and that of other persons whoparticipate in the production of a film which suffice to show that they constitute a properbargaining unit. +LKN 9ictures, ;nc. v. 9hilippine 3usicians Auild, " 4R5 "( H"#%"I.

4oming back to the case at bar, it is beyond *uestion that the employees of the livestock andagro division of petitioner corporation perform work entirely different from those performed byemployees in the supermarts and cinema. 5mong others, the noted difference are- their workingconditions, hours of work, rates of pay, including the categories of their positions andemployment status. 5s stated by petitioner corporation in its position paper, due to the nature ofthe business in which its livestock6agro division is engaged very few of its employees in thedivision are permanent, the overwhelming majority of which are seasonal and casual and not

regular employees +Rollo, p. %. 7efinitely, they have very little in common with the employeesof the supermarts and cinemas. To lump all the employees of petitioner in its integratedbusiness concerns cannot result in an efficacious bargaining unit comprised of constituentsenjoying a community or mutuality of interest. 8ndeniably, the rank and file employees of thelivestock6agro division fully constitute a bargaining unit that satisfies both re*uirements ofclassification according to employment status and of the substantial similarity of work and dutieswhich will ultimately assure its members the e=ercise of their collective bargaining rights.

;;

;t is undisputed that petitioner B0LC45 4orporation +Livestock and 5gro 7ivision employsmore or less two hundred five +<? rank6and6file employees and workers. ;t has no e=istingduly certified collective bargaining agreement with any legitimate labor organi:ation. There hasnot been any certification election conducted in the proposed bargaining unit within the lasttwelve +" months prior to the filing of the petition for direct certification and>or certificationelection with the 3inistry of Labor and 0mployment, and there is no contending unionre*uesting for certification as the sole and e=clusive bargaining representative in the proposedbargaining unit.

The records show that on the filing of the petition for certification and>or certification election on'une (, "#$%@ "! employees or workers which are more than a majority of the rank6and6fileemployees or workers in the proposed bargaining unit had signed membership with respondent

5L86T849 and had e=pressed their written consent and authori:ation to the filing of thepetition. Thus, the Labor 5rbiter ordered the certification election on 5ugust "$, "#$% on afinding that (<E of the statutory re*uirement under 5rt. ?$ of the Labor 4ode has been met.

But, petitioner corporation contends that after 'une (, "#$% four +! employees resigned@ si= +%subse*uently withdrew their membership@ five +? were retrenched@ twelve +" were dismissedfor illegally and unlawfully barricading the entrance to petitioner&s farm@ and one hundred +"<<simply abandoned their work.

[6]




SY 2013-2014

9etitioner&s claim was however belied by the 3emorandum of its personnel officer to the ""#employees dated 'uly $, "#$% showing that the employees were on strike, which wasconfirmed by the finding of the Bureau of Labor Relations to the effect that they went on strikeon 'uly !, "#$% +Rollo, p. !"#. 0arlier the local union president, arrencio 3aputi@ the Kice6president, Ailbert Redoblado and three other active members of the union 4armen aguing,

Roberto Romolo and ;luminada Bonio were dismissed and a complaint for unfair labor practice,illegal dismissal etc. was filed by the 8nion in their behalf on 'uly , "#$% before the NLR4 of4agayan de 2ro 4ity +Rollo, p. !"?.!re""an#$%&w' The complaint was amended on 5ugust <,"#$% for respondent 8nion to represent arrencio 3aputi and "() others against petitionercorporation and Bello 4asanova 9resident and Aeneral 3anager for unfair labor practice, illegaldismissal, illegal lockout, etc. +Rollo, p. !"%.

8nder 5rt. ?) of the Labor 4ode once the statutory re*uirement is met, the 7irector of LaborRelations has no choice but to call a certification election +5tlas 1ree orkers 8nion 5189L8 Local v. Noriel, "<! 4R5 ?%? H"#$"I@ Kismico ;ndustrial orkers 5ssociation +K;5 v.Noriel, "(" 4R5 ?%# H"#$!I ;t becomes in the language of the New Labor 4ode J3andatoryfor the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the

representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as thee=clusive bargaining representative of all employees in the unit.J +1ederacion 2brera de la;ndustria Taba*uera y 2tros Trabajadores de 1ilipinas v. Noriel, ) 4R5 ! H"#)%I@ FapisananNg 3ga 3anggagawa v. Noriel, )) 4R5 !"! H"#))I@ more so when there is no e=istingcollective bargaining agreement. +amahang 3anggagawa Ng 9acific 3ills, ;nc. v. Noriel, "(!4R5 "? H"#$?I@ and there has not been a certification election in the company for the pastthree years +9L83 1ederation of ;ndustrial and 5grarian orkers v. Noriel, ""# 4R5 ##H"#$I as in the instant case.

;t is significant to note that "! employees out of the <? employees of the Belyca 4orporationhave e=pressed their written consent to the certification election or more than a majority of therank and file employees and workers@ much more than the re*uired (<E and over and above

the present re*uirement of <E by 0=ecutive 2rder No. """ issued on 7ecember !, "#$< andapplicable only to unorgani:ed establishments under 5rt. ?), of the Labor 4ode, to which theB0LC45 4orporation belong +5ss. Trade 8nions +5T8 v. Trajano, A.R. No. )?(", 'une <,"#$$. 3ore than that, any doubt cast on the authenticity of signatures to the petition forholding a certification election cannot be a bar to its being granted +1ilipino 3etals 4orp. v. 2ple"<) 4R5 "" H"#$"I. 0ven doubts as to the re*uired (<E being met warrant holding of thecertification election +9L83 1ederation of ;ndustrial and 5grarian orkers v. Noriel, ""# 4R5## H"#$I. ;n fact, once the re*uired percentage re*uirement has been reached, theemployees& withdrawal from union membership taking place after the filing of the petition forcertification election will not affect said petition. 2n the contrary, the presumption arises that thewithdrawal was not free but was procured through duress, coercion or for a valuableconsideration +La uerte 4igar and 4igarette 1actory v. 7irector of the Bureau of Labor

Relations, "( 4R5 %)# H"#$(I. /ence, the subse*uent disaffiliation of the si= +% employeesfrom the union will not be counted against or deducted from the previous number who hadsigned up for certification elections Kismico ;ndustrial orkers 5ssociation +K;5 v. Noriel "("4R5 ?%# H"#$!I.!re""an#$%&w' imilarly, until a decision, final in character, has been issueddeclaring the strike illegal and the mass dismissal or retrenchment valid, the strikers cannot bedenied participation in the certification election notwithstanding, the vigorous condemnation ofthe strike and the fact that the picketing were attended by violence. 8nder the foregoingcircumstances, it does not necessarily follow that the strikers in *uestion are no longer entitledto participate in the certification election on the theory that they have automatically lost their

jobs. +Barrera v. 4;R, "<) 4R5 ?#% H"#$"I. 1or obvious reasons, the duty of the employer tobargain collectively is nullified if the purpose of the dismissal of the union members is to defeatthe union in the consent re*uirement for certification election. +amahang 3anggagawa Ng Kia

3are v. Noriel, #$ 4R5 ?<) H"#$<I. 5s stressed by this 4ourt, the holding of a certificationelection is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented. +Aeorge and 9eter Lines ;nc. v.

5ssociated Labor 8nions +5L8, "(! 4R5 $ H"#$%I.

1inally, as a general rule, a certification election is the sole concern of the workers. The onlye=ception is where the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to 5rt.?# of the Labor 4ode because the latter was re*uested to bargain collectively. But thereafterthe role of the employer in the certification process ceases. The employer becomes merely a

[7]




SY 2013-2014

bystander +Trade 8nion of the 9hil. and 5llied ervices +T895 v. Trajano, "< 4R5 %!H"#$(I.

There is no showing that the instant case falls under the above mentioned e=ception. /owever,it will be noted that petitioner corporation from the outset has actively participated and

consistently taken the position of adversary in the petition for direct certification as the sole ande=clusive bargaining representative and>or certification election filed by respondent 5ssociatedLabor 8nions +5L86T849 to the e=tent of filing this petition for certiorari in this 4ourt.4onsidering that a petition for certification election is not a litigation but a mere investigation of anon6adversary character to determining the bargaining unit to represent the employees +LKN9ictures, ;nc. v. 9hilippine 3usicians Auild, supra@ Bulakena Restaurant 4aterer v. 4ourt of;ndustrial Relations, !? 4R5 $$ H"#)I@ Aeorge 9eter Lines, ;nc. v. 5ssociated Labor 8nion,"(! 4R5 $ H"#$%I@ Tanduay 7istillery Labor 8nion v. NLR4, "!# 4R5 !)< H"#$)I, and itsonly purpose is to give the employees true representation in their collective bargaining with anemployer +4onfederation of 4iti:ens Labor 8nions 44L8 v. Noriel, ""% 4R5 %#! H"#$I,there appears to be no reason for the employer&s objection to the formation of subject union,much less for the filing of the petition for a certification election.

9R03;0 42N;70R07, +a the petition is 7;3;07 for lack of merit +b resolution of theBureau of Labor Relations dated Nov. !, "#$% is 511;R307@ and the temporary restrainingorder issued by the 4ourt on 3arch !, "#$) is L;1T07 permanently.

2 2R70R07.

1elencio-2errera 3Chairperson45 Padilla5 Sariento and e+alado5 66.5 concur.

[8]

Compilation of Labor Law Cases

Documents

Transcript of Compilation of Labor Law Cases