7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
1/32
Probationary employees can join a
union and can vote in a CE Any employee, whether employed for a definite
period or not, shall beginning on the first day ofhis/her service, be eligible for membership in anylabor organization. In a certification election forthe bargaining unit of rank and file employees,all rank and file employees, whetherprobationary or permanent are entitled to vote.As long as probationary employees belong tothe defined bargaining unit, they are eligible tosupport the petition for certification election.
NUWHRAIN-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary, July 31,2009
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
2/32
Confidential Employees
Confidential employees are those who (1) assistor act in a confidential capacity, (2) to personswho formulate, determine, and effectuatemanagement policies in the field of laborrelations. The two (2) criteria are cumulative,and both must be met
The exclusion from bargaining units ofemployees who, in the normal course of theirduties, become aware of management policiesrelating to labor relations is a principal objective
sought to be accomplished by the confidentialemployee rule.
Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. AsiaBrewery, August 3, 2010
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
3/32
As regards the qualification of bank cashiers as confidential employees,National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) Republic Planters BankSupervisors Chapter v. Torres declared that they are confidentialemployees having control, custody and/or access to confidential matters,e.g., the branch's cash position, statements of financial condition, vaultcombination, cash codes for telegraphic transfers, demand drafts and othernegotiable instruments, pursuant to Sec. 1166.4 of the Central Bank Manualregarding joint custody, and therefore, disqualified from joining or assisting
a union; or joining, assisting or forming any other labor organization. Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja meanwhile stated that confidential
employees such as accounting personnel, radio and telegraph operatorswho, having access to confidential information, may become the source ofundue advantage. Said employee(s) may act as spy or spies of either partyto a collective bargaining agreement.
In Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. National Labor RelationsCommission, the Court designated personnel staff, in which human
resources staff may be qualified, as confidential employees because by thevery nature of their functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacityto, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercisemanagerial functions in the field of labor relations.
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) v. StandardChartered Bank, April 22, 2008
Confidential Employees
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
4/32
Confidential EEs
Payroll Master and EEs who have accessto salary and compensation data are NOT
confidential EEs. Their position do not
involve dealing with confidential laborrelations information. (Limited only to
access to salary rates
Mere access to salary rates does notmake you a confidential EE. (Unless part
of the HR department and has access to
confidential information
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
5/32
Mixture of R&F and Supervisory employees does
not negate the unions legitimacy
In Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Trajano, the Court had occasion to uphold thevalidity of the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules, although the specificprovision involved therein was only Sec. 1, Rule VI, which does not requirethat, for its creation and registration, a local or chapter submit a list of itsmembers.
Then came Tagaytay Highlands Intl. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay HighlandsEmployees Union-PGTWO in which the core issue was whether mingling
affects the legitimacy of a labor organization and its right to file a petition forcertification election. This time, given the altered legal milieu, the Courtabandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to itspronouncement in Lopez that while there is a prohibition against themingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one labororganization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects thereof.[1][55]Thus, the Court held that after a labor organization has been registered, itmay exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization.
Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in itsmembership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the groundsfor cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought aboutby misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of theLabor Code.
Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. Kawashima Textile, July23, 2008
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
6/32
Mixture of R&F and Supervisory employees does
not negate the unions legitimacy
In San Miguel Corp. (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v.Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Packaging Products-San Miguel Corp. Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW, the Courtexplained that since the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules does notrequire a local or chapter to provide a list of its members, it would beimproper for the DOLE to deny recognition to said local or chapter
on account of any question pertaining to its individual members. More to the point isAir Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of LaborRelations, which involved a petition for cancellation of unionregistration filed by the employer in 1999 against a rank-and-filelabor organization on the ground of mixed membership: the Courttherein reiterated its ruling in Tagaytay Highlands that the inclusionin a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds forcancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, falsestatement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections(a) and (c) of Article 239 of the Labor Code.
Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. KawashimaTextile, July 23, 2008
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
7/32
20% requirement must be at the
time of registration
Art. 234(c) requires the list of names of all theunion members of an INDEPENDENT UNIONcomprising at least 20% of the bargaining unit.This should not be equated with the list of
workers who participated in the organizationalmeetings (par [b]).
Subsequent affidavits of retraction (withdrawal ofmembership) will not retroact to the time of the
application for registration or even way back tothe organizational meeting.
Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
8/32
A trade union center
CANNOT create a chapter
A trade union center is any group of registerednational unions or federations organized for themutual aid and protection of its members; forassisting such members in collective bargaining;
or for participating in policy formulation. A trade union center has no authority to charter
directly. Under the law and the rules, thepower granted to labor organizations to directlycreate a chapter or local through chartering isgiven to a federation or national union only, notto a trade union center.
San Miguel Corporation Employees Union v. San MiguelPackaging Products Employees Union, September 12, 2007
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
9/32
Charter Certificate not required to
be certified under oath The charter certificate need not be certified under oath by the local unions
secretary or treasurer and attested to by its president.
Considering that the charter certificate is prepared and issued by thenational union and not the local/chapter, it does not make sense to havethe local/chapters officers certify or attest to the due execution of suchdocument.
Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER) v.Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., March 16, 2011
Notes:
All the other documents must be certified. The charter certificate is the ONLY documentthat does not originate form the local chapter. Hence, the requirement that it must be under
oath by the local chapter officers should not apply.
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
10/32
Mixture of R&F and Supervisory
employees does not negate the
unions legitimacy
The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisoryemployees in a union does not nullify its legal
personality as a legitimate labor organization. Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER)
v. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., March 16, 2011
As amended by R.A. 9481, the Labor Codenow allows a R&F union and a Supervisoryunion of the same company to be part of the
same federation.
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
11/32
Voluntary Recognition An employer cannot ignore the existence of a legitimate labor organization at the time of its
voluntary recognition of another union. The employer and the voluntarily recognized unioncannot, by themselves, decide whether the other union represented an appropriate bargainingunit.
The inclusion in the union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation ofregistration, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under thecircumstances enumerated in Sections (a) to (c) of Article 239 of the Labor Code. THUS, CLUP-SLECC AND ITS AFFILIATES WORKERS UNION, HAVING BEEN VALIDLY ISSUED ACERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ACQUIREDJURIDICAL PERSONALITY WHICH MAY NOT BE ATTACKED COLLATERALLY. THE PROPERPROCEDURE FOR SLECC IS TO FILE A PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATEOF REGISTRATION[1][11] OF CLUP-SLECC AND ITS AFFILIATES WORKERS UNION ANDNOT TO IMMEDIATELY COMMENCE VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION PROCEEDINGS WITHSMSLEC.
The employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of a union inunorganized establishments. (NOT ACCURATE: it is the absence of a sole bargainingrepresentative that makes an establishment unorganized. Voluntary recognition can onlyhappenwhen there is only 1 labor union and not when it is unorganized) SLECC WAS NOT ANUNORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENT WHEN IT VOLUNTARILY RECOGNIZED SMSLEC AS ITSEXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE ON 20 JULY 2001. CLUP-SLECC AND ITS
AFFILIATES WORKERS UNION FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION ELECTION ON 27FEBRUARY 2001 AND THIS PETITION REMAINED PENDING AS OF 20 JULY 2001. THUS,SLECCS VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION OF SMSLEC ON 20 JULY 2001, THE SUBSEQUENTNEGOTIATIONS AND RESULTING REGISTRATION OF A CBA EXECUTED BY SLECC ANDSMSLEC ARE VOID AND CANNOT BAR CLUP-SLECCWAS PRESENT PETITION FORCERTIFICATION ELECTION.
Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation v. Hon. Secretary Of Labor, August 14, 2009
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
12/32
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping
NOT required
in Petition for Certification Election
There is no requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping inthe Labor Code or in the rules.
A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a petition, isnot a litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character. Such proceedings are not predicated upon anallegation of misconduct requiring relief, but, rather, are merely of aninquisitorial nature.
SAMMA-LIKHA v. SAMMA Corporation, March 13, 2009 Manuel: CE is an investigation and non adversarial. It is fact finding in character. Hence,
the rules applicable to ordinary cases should not apply. It is not litigation but inquisitorial.
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
13/32
Petition for Certification Election The Secretary of Labor and Employment dismissed the first petition as it
was filed outside the 60-day freedom period. Subsequently, anotherpetition for CE was filed, this time within the freedom period. Is this laterPetition barred?
At that time therefore, the union has no cause of action since they are notyet legally allowed to challenge openly and formally the status of SMCGC-SUPER as the exclusive bargaining representative of the bargaining unit.
Such dismissal, however, has no bearing in the instant case since the thirdpetition for certification election was filed well within the 60-day freedomperiod. Otherwise stated, there is no identity of causes of action to speak ofsince in the first petition, the union has no cause of action while in the third,a cause of action already exists for the union as they are now legallyallowed to challenge the status of SMCGC-SUPER as exclusive bargainingrepresentative.
Chris Garments Corporation v. Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas and ChrisGarments Workers Union-PTGWO, January 12, 2009
Manuel: First dismissal was merely a logical procedural action because the action wasfiled prematurely. Hence, the 2ndaction may be entertained.
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
14/32
Unions legal personality not
subject to collateral attack The legal personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked in
the certification election proceedings. A separate action for cancellation ofthe unions registration/legal personality must be filed.
Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER) v.Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., March 16, 2011
As amended by R.A. 9481, the Labor Code now provides that, incertification election cases, the employer shall not be considered aparty with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for certificationelection.
Manuel: There is only 1 exception to the rule that you cannot raise the issue of legitimacy:When the petition or union is NOT listed in the roster of legitimate unions. In such case,you can file a petition for cancellation for the unions registration
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
15/32
Employer as Bystander
Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a merebystander to any petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determinewhich organization will represent the employees in their collectivebargaining with the employer. The choice of their representative is theexclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan
interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process byfiling a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegationthat some employees participating in a petition for certification election areactually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality toblock the certification election. The employer's only right in the proceedingis to be notified or informed thereof.
Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. KawashimaTextile, July 23, 2008
Manuel: The ER cannot be considered a party in a petition for CE. He cannot file apleading. See exception
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
16/32
Unions legal personality not
subject to collateral attack The legal personality of petitioner union cannot
be collaterally attacked in the certificationelection proceedings. A separate action forcancellation of the unions registration/legalpersonality must be filed.
Legend International Resorts v. Kilusang Manggagawa ngLegend, February 23, 2011
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
17/32
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
18/32
Whoever alleges fraud/
misrepresentation
has burden of proof The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and
misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge thatshould be clearly established by evidence and the surroundingcircumstances.
The petitioner (the party that filed the Petition for Cancellation) hasthe burden of proof.
Yokohama Tire Phils. v. Yokohama Employees Union, March10, 2010; Heritage Hotel Manila v. PIGLAS-Heritage, October 30,2009
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
19/32
Signing of Petition for CE not
disloyalty
The mere signing of the authorization in support of a Petitionfor Certification Election before the freedom period, is not
sufficient ground to terminate the employment of union
members under the Union Security Clause respondents
inasmuch as the petition itself was actually filed during thefreedom period. PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Taeca, August
9, 2010
Manuel: Any termination by reason of this is considered illegal
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
20/32
Certification Election
VALIDITY Majority of eligible voters voted WINNER Majority of valid votes RUN-OFF ELECTION
3 or more choices No winner Union votes amount to at least 50% of total votes
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
21/32
Employers insistence to exclude a
particular provision in the
negotiations NOT refusal to bargain The duty to bargain does not include the
obligation to reach an agreement. While the lawmakes it an obligation for the employer and the
employees to bargain collectively with eachother, such compulsion does not include thecommitment to precipitately accept or agree tothe proposals of the other. All it contemplates isthat both parties should approach the
negotiation with an open mind and makereasonable effort to reach an agreement.
Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Phils., March 3,2008
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
22/32
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
23/32
5-year term
While the parties may agree to extend the CBAs original five-year termtogether with all other CBA provisions, any such amendment or term inexcess of five years will not carry with it a change in the unions exclusivecollective bargaining status. By express provision of the above-quoted
Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five yearsand the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace partiesto agree upon. In other words, despite an agreement for a CBA with a lifeof more than five years, either as an original provision or by amendment,the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining status is effective only for fiveyears and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration ofthe CBAs first five years.
FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General WorkersOrganization (FVCLU-PTGWO) v. Sama-Samang NagkakaisangManggagawa Sa FVC-Solidarity Of Independent And General Labor
Organizations (SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO), November 27, 2009
Manuel: Representation aspect is for 5 years. Contract may go one beyond 5.
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
24/32
Bargaining Unit
The test of grouping is community ormutuality of interest
There should be only 1 bargaining unit forEes involved in dressed chickenprocessing and workers engaged in live
chicken operations
Although they seem separate and distinct,the tasks of each are interrelated.
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
25/32
ULP
In Silva v. National Labor Relations Commission, we explained thecorrelations of Article 248 (1) and Article 261 of the Labor Code tomean that for a ULP case to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, andfor the NLRC to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereon, theallegations in the complaint must showprima facie the concurrenceof two things, namely: (1) gross violation of the CBA; and (2) theviolation pertains to the economic provisions of the CBA.
This pronouncement in Silva, however, should not be construed toapply to violations of the CBA which can be considered as grossviolationsper se, such as utter disregard of the very existence of theCBA itself, similar to what happened in this case. When an employerproceeds to negotiate with a splinter union despite the existence ofits valid CBA with the duly certified and exclusive bargaining agent,the former indubitably abandons its recognition of the latter and
terminates the entire CBA. (Employees Union of Bayer v. Bayer Phils., December 6, 2010)
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
26/32
Bonus in the CBA
Generally, a bonus is not a demandable and enforceableobligation. For a bonus to be enforceable, it must havebeen promised by the employer and expressly agreedupon by the parties. Given that the bonus in this case isintegrated in the CBA, the same partakes the nature of a
demandable obligation. Verily, by virtue of itsincorporation in the CBA, the Christmas bonus due torespondent Association has become more than just anact of generosity on the part of the petitioner but acontractual obligation it has undertaken.
Lepanto Ceramics v. Lepanto Ceramics EmployeesAssociation, March 2, 2010
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
27/32
Grievance
Petitioners clearly and consistently questioned the legality ofRGMIs adoption of the new salary scheme (i.e., piece-ratebasis), asserting that such action, among others, violated theexisting CBA. Indeed, the controversy was not a simple case ofillegal dismissal but a labor dispute involving the manner ofascertaining employees salaries, a matter which was governedby the existing CBA.
Article 217(c) of the Labor Code requires labor arbiters to refercases involving the implementation of CBAs to the grievancemachinery provided therein and to voluntary arbitration.
Moreover, Article 260 of the Labor Code clarifies that suchdisputes must be referred first to the grievance machinery and, ifunresolved within seven days, they shall automatically be
referred to voluntary arbitration.
Santuyo v. Remerco Garments, March 22, 2010
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
28/32
Grievance
Individual employees cannot raise a grievance. Only disputes involving the union and the
companyshall be referred to the grievance
machinery or voluntary arbitrators.
A FEDERATION cannot raise a grievance onbehalf of members of its local/chapter.
Insular Hotel Employees Union v. Waterfront Insular Hotel,September 22, 2010
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
29/32
Arbitral Award While an arbitral award cannot per se be categorized as an
agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties because it requiresthe intervention and imposing power of the State thru the Secretaryof Labor when he assumes jurisdiction, the arbitral award can beconsidered an approximation of a collective bargainingagreement which would otherwise have been entered into by theparties, hence, it has the force and effect of a valid contractobligation.
That the arbitral award was higher than that which was purportedlyagreed upon in the MOA is of no moment. For the Secretary, inresolving the CBA deadlock, is not limited to considering the MOAas basis in computing the wage increases. He could, as he did,consider the financial documents submitted by respondent as wellas the parties bargaining history and respondents financialoutlook and improvements as stated in its website.
It bears noting that since the filing and submission of the MOAdid not have the effect of divesting the Secretary of hisjurisdiction, or of automatically disposing the controversy, thenneither should the provisions of the MOA restrict theSecretarys leeway in deciding the matters before him.
Cirtek Employees Labor Union v. Cirtek Electronics, November 15,2010
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
30/32
Arbitral Award
The duty of the parties to keep the status quo and to continuein full force and effect the existing CBA applies not only to a
CBA voluntarily entered but also to a CBA imposed by the
SEC of Labor
The law does not provide for any exception nor qualificationon which economic provisions of the existing agreement are
to retain its force and effect. The law does not distinguish.
(2011 case)
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
31/32
7/27/2019 Labor - Manuel
32/32
Top Related