a.
Filsystems Inc.
J. Puno
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems (SAMAFIL-NAFLUKMU) filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file
employees of Filsystems. It submitted the Certificate of Registration issued by
the DOLE, copies of union membership signed by 33 rank-and-file employees of
the company, the Charter Certificate showing its affiliation with the NAFLU,
the list of union officers, the certification of the union secretary of the minutes
of the general membership meeting, the Books of Accounts and its CBL.
Filsystems opposed the petition, questioning the status of petitioner as a
legitimate labor org on the ground of lack of proof that its contract of affiliation
with the NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to the BLR within 30 days from its
execution. Petitioner replied that as a duly registered labor union, it has all the
rights and privileges to act as representative of its members for the purpose of
collective bargaining with employers.
The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for certification election. He ruled that
petitioner, as an affiliate of NAFLU-KMU, has no legal personality on account
of its failure to comply with pars (a), (b), and (e) of Rule II3 of the
Implementing Rules of the LC.
Petitioner appealed to the Office of the SOLE, reiterating its contention that as
an independently registered union, it has the right to file a petition for
certification election regardless of its failure to prove its affiliation with the
NAFLU-KMU. Filsystems opposed the appeal.
On Feb. 7, 1996, the Filsystems Workers Union (FWU) filed a PCE in the same
bargaining unit, which the Med-Arbitration NCR Branch granted on April 19,
1996.
Filsystems filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeall of petitioner as it has become moot
and academic. It invoked Rule V3 of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the
LC stating that once a union has been certified, no certification election may be
held within one year from the date of issuance of a final certification election.
In its opposition, petitioner contended its appeal is not moot as the certification
election held on April 19, 1996 was void as
b.
Day
06
There was an unresolved representation case at the time Filsystems entered into a
CBA with FWU. Following Rule V4 of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the LC,
such CBA cannot and will not prejudice petitioners pending representation case or
ender the same moot. This rule was applied in Associated Labor Unions (ALUTUCP) v. Trajano where the Court held that There should be no obstacle to the
right of the employees to petition for a certification election at the proper time,
which is 60 days prior to the expiration of the life of a certified CBA x x x, not even
by a collective agreement submitted during the pendency of the representation case.
Rule V10: Decision of the Secretary Final and Inappealable. The Secretary shall h
calendar days within which to decide the appeal from receipt of the records of the c
the appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any certificatio
decision of the Secretary shall be final and inappealable.
2|Labor
FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (FFW), CALIFORNIA MFG. CORP.
SUPERVISORS UNION CHAPTER (CALMASUCO)
Day
06
ISSUE:
Whether or not the existence of collective bargaining agents for the establishment
as a whole, including all bargaining units, i.e. rank-and-file and supervisory, is the
reference for the 25% requirement, or is it per bargaining unit.
HELD:
It refers to the bargaining unit. Since it is uncontested that the supervisors do not
have a bargaining agent separate and distinct from that of rank-and-file, thus they
correctly filed a petition for certification election through the petitioning union.
The requirement of 25% is relevant only when it becomes mandatory to conduct a
certification election. In all other cases the discretion outght to be exercised in favor
of a petition for certification.
LAKAS
NG
MANGGAGAWA
SA
AG
&
P-SMSG-NATIONAL
FACTS
1.
2.
3.
b.
3|Labor
c.
4.
Day
06
with
AG&P
United
Rank &
File
SC Ruling:
1.
a.
6.
CBA with the AG&P Union provided that project employees who became
7.
8.
period.
the holding of the certification election so that there would be only one
bargaining unit
a.
9.
2.
Book V, Rule V, Sec 3, Par 2 of Labor Code IRR states that no petition for
certification election will be entertained if there is a duly registered and
existing CBA. Said petitions will only be entertained during the 60 Day
3.
to be represented were all regular workers under the CBA with AG&P. MR
between the employer and its employees during the existence of the
REFERENCES:
Syllabus Issue: Can petition for certification election be entertained if there is an
existing CBA (NO)
Case Issue: WON USEC Laguesma acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying
the MR and affirming Med Arbiters order to hold the second Certification Election
(YES)
LC, Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. The Bureau shall not
entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which may
disturb the administration of duly registered existing collective bargaining
agreements affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this
Code.
4|Labor
Book V, Rule V, Sec 3, Par 2 of Labor Code IRR. If a collective bargaining
agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a
petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained
within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement.
Day
06
proposed CBA. Copies of the newly concluded CBA were posted in the company
premises and were ratified by the members of the bargaining unit.
Thereafter, petitioner ALU moved for the dismissal of the appeal alleging that it
had just concluded a CBA with PASAR and that the said CBA had been ratified
by 98% of the regular R&F EEs and that at least 75 of NAFLU's members
Facts:
PASAR with ALU, NAFLU and no union as choices, and denied petitioner's
MTD.
BLR ordered the conduct of a certification election among the R&F EEs of
Both parties moved for reconsideration but both motions were denied. Hence,
this petition.
Petitioner Associated Labor Union (ALU) had a CBA with PASAR which
expired on April 1, 1987. Several days before the expiration of the said CBA or
on March 23, 1987, private respondent National Federation of Labor Unions
(NAFLU) filed a PCE with BLR Regional Office in Tacloban City alleging,
among others, that no certification election had been held in PASAR within 12
months immediately preceding the filing of the said petition.
petition.
Med-Arbiter Elorcha dismissed the petition but enjoined PASAR from entering
into a CBA with any union until after the issue of representation is finally
resolved. Ultimately, the petition for certification was dismissed for failure of
NAFLU to solicit 20% of the total number of R&F EEs while ALU submitted 33
pages containing the signatures of 88.5% of the R&F EEs at PASAR.
defiance of the order of the med-arbiter enjoining the parties from entering into a
CBA until the issue on representation is finally resolved? NO
Petitioner moved to intervene and sought the dismissal of the petition on the
ground that NAFLU failed to present the necessary signatures in support of its
Issue: Is contract bar rule applicable where a CBA was hastily concluded in
Respondent NAFLU appealed the order of dismissal to BLR. While the appeal
was pending, petitioner ALU concluded negotiations with PASAR on the
Ratio:
Petitioner argues that Art. 257 of the Labor Code which requires the signature
of at least 20% of the total number of R&F EEs should be applied in the case at
bar. The Court disagreed and held that Art. 257 is applicable only to
unorganized labor organizations and not to establishments like PASAR where
there exists a certified bargaining agent, petitioner ALU, which as the record
shows had previously entered into a CBA with the management. Art. 257 is
applicable only to unorganized establishments.
5|Labor
06
General Milling Corporation (GMC) employed 190 workers. All 190 were
members of General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union (the
Art. 256 is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. The mere filing of a PCE
1989: GMC and the Union concluded a CBA, effective for a term of three
within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the respondent Director to order
of GMCs workers.
The petition for certification filed by NAFLU was well within the freedom
1991: A day before the expiration of the CBA, the Union sent GMC a draft
for a new CBA. However, even a month before, GMC had already received
letters
Day
agent, what is essential is whether the PCE was filed within the 60-day freedom
period.
from
workers
(individually
and
collectively),
stating
their
The contract bar rule is applicable only where the PCE was filed either before
reasons.
The PCE in this case was filed within the freedom period but the petitioner and
Because of this, GMC did not send the Union any counter-proposal,
PASAR hastily concluded a CBA despite the order of the Med-Arbiter enjoining
believing that the Union did not have standing to negotiate a CBA. GMC
them from doing so until the issue of representation is finally resolved. The
wrote a letter to the Union officers, stating that it felt that there was no
parties were in bad faith when they concluded the CBA. Their act was clearly
basis to negotiate with the Union, but that management was nonetheless
intended to bar the PCE filed by NAFLU. A CBA which was prematurely
The Union officers replied, disclaiming any mass disaffiliation from the
Union, attaching a manifesto, signed by the members, stating that they had
not withdrawn.
The renewed CBA cannot constitute a bar to the instant PCE for the very
reason that the same was not yet in existence when the said petition was filed.
procedure provided in the CBA. GMC, however, advised the Union to refer
to its previous letter (saying that the Union had no standing to negotiate a
circumvented.
CBA).
6|Labor
Day
06
NLRC: Reversed the LA. As per RA 6715, the duration of CBAs shall be
five years. This means that the Union remained as the exclusive bargaining
meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of
agent. It was unfair labor practice for GMC to not enter into negotiation
negotiating an agreement (Art. 252, Labor Code). The crucial question whether or
not a party has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns on the
facts of the individual case. Both parties are required to perform their mutual
NLRC, upon Motion for Reconsideration: Set aside its previous ruling.
obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement. In the case at bar, the Union lived up to this
Issues + Ratio:
1.
WON GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the duty to
bargain collectively YES
obligation when it presented proposals for a new CBA. But GMC failed in its duty.
Art. 253-A of the Labor Code mandates that the representation provision of a CBA
should last for five years. (Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties
may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term
of five (5) years.) The relation between labor and management should be
undisturbed until the last 60 days of the fifth year. Hence, it is indisputable that
when the Union requested for a renegotiation of the CBA, it was still the certified
collective bargaining agent of the workers. It is obvious that GMC had no valid
reason to refuse to negotiate in good faith with the Union. GMC committed an
unfair labor practice under Art. 248 (g) of the Labor Code (It shall be unlawful for
an employer to violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code.
- -> NOTE: In the Reviewer, it is this portion of the case which is cited as the
doctrine. But take note that the syllabus topic the case is assigned under is the
process of certification election, and the only part about certification election in this
case is where the LA ordered that a certification election be ordered. Kung pipilitin
ang topic, I would say that the doctrine is that no certification election was necessary
because the Union remained the exclusive bargaining agent.
2.
WON the draft CBA proposed by the Union may be imposed upon GMC
The general rule is that when a CBA already exists, its provision shall continue to
govern the relationship between the parties, until a new one is agreed upon. The
rule necessarily presupposes that all other things are equal. That is, that neither
party is guilty of bad faith.
It would be unfair to the Union if the terms and conditions contained in the old CBA
would continue to be imposed for the remaining two years of the CBAs duration.
The Court will not gratify GMC with an extended term of the old CBA after it
resorted to delaying tactics to prevent negotiations. Since it was GMC which
7|Labor
Day
06
violated the duty to bargain collectively, it lost its statutory right to negotiate or
the workers. Respondent Union countered with the allegation that there was no
renegotiate the terms and conditions of the draft CBA proposed by the Union.
DISPOSITIVE: CA affirmed. The duration of the CBA is five years, so the Union
remained as the exclusive bargaining agent. The provisions of the draft CBA
the Bureau within twenty days from receipt of the resolution. Hence this certiorari
-ART.257 of the Labor Code is applicable here. What is required is that the petition
for certification election should have in its favor "the written consent of at least 30%
of all the employees in the bargaining unit. To elaborate:
-Requisites for certification election.Any petition for certification election filed by
any legitimate labor organization shall be supported by the written consent of at
least 30% of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Upon receipt and verification
of such petition, it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification
election for the purpose of determining the representative of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit. It speaks clearly and
categorically.
8|Labor
-The respondent Director having satisfied himself that the codal requisite had been
FACTS
Oriental Tin Can and Metal Sheet Manufacturing entered into CBA with
between the OTCLU and the company has the force and effect of law.
OTCWU-FFW officers walked out of their jobs. The union filed notice of strike
Day
06
Labor Usec issued resolution granting the appeal and setting aside the order of
Med-arbiter.
After denial of their MFR, the company and OTCLU filed petitions for certiorari
met, he had no choice but to order such certification. In the language of the above
provision, "it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election
before SC.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the DOLE correctly granted the petition for certification election
2. WON it is proper to dismiss a petition for certification election because a new
CBA has already been ratified.
3. WON the 25% support requirement has been met in this case
HELD
1. YES
The designation or selection of the bargaining representative without, however,
going through the process set out by law for the conduct of a certification election
applies only when representation is not in issue. There is no problem if a union is
unanimously chosen by a majority of the employees as their bargaining
representative, but a question of representation arising from the presence of more
than one union in a bargaining unit aspiring to be the employees representative,
can only be resolved by holding a certification election under the supervision of the
proper government authority.
2. NO
Petition for certification election was filed 28 days before expiration of existing CBA,
well within 60-day period provided for.
Filing of petition for certification election during 60-day freedom period gives rise to
a representation case that must be resolved even though a new CBA has been
entered into within that period. This is clearly provided for in the aforequoted
Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The
necessary where the employees are one in their choice of a representative in the
bargaining process. Moreover, said provision manifests the intent of the legislative
They prevented free ingress and egress of non-striking employees, and vehicles.
3. YES
9|Labor
Day
06
determining the true will of the workers instead of frustrating it. Thus, in Port
Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) v. Laguesma, this Court declared that:
In line with this policy (that the holding of a certification election is a certain and
definitive
mode
of
arriving
at
the
choice
of
the
employees
bargaining
FACTS:
submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of the petition for
WAWU is one of the local members of ULGWP, a national union, and the former was
called WAWU-ULGWP Local 101. On the other hand, KMU-WAWU refers to the
rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more
mother union ULGWP. Nasipit Lumber Company (NALCO) has employed in its
reason why the regulation should at best be given only a directory effect.
business a working force of more or less 2,100 workers in the level of rank and file,
Accordingly, we hold that the mere filing of a petition for certification election within
the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a
union of KMU-WAWU, instituted a petition for certification election for the rank and
file workers of NALCO. This was opposed by WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 on the
grounds that the petition does not meet the 30% consent requirement as the names
and signatures appearing in the list submitted by PTGWO had been secured
through fraud and that the purported signatures thereon were mere forgeries.
Med-Arbiter issued an order granting the certification election sought by PTGWO;
declaring the disaffiliation of WAWU from ULGWP meritorious, legal and valid;
denying the motion of NALCO-PWC for interpleader to be allowed to hold the
checked-off dues and/or deposit the same in a special account and designating the
unions to participate in the certification election. Director of the Bureau of Labor
Relations affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a certification election should be held? (Yes.)
HELD:
academic, even assuming such is not the case, it has long been settled that the
YES. While it appears evident that the issues in this case have become moot and
policy of the Labor Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a certification
election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain concerning the choice of
the labor organization to represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit.
Conformably to said basic concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor
10 | L a b o r
Day
06
supervisory
LAGUESMA
FACTS:
an
unorganized
J. Grio-Aquino
Facts:
The supervisory employees of PT&T did not yet have a certified bargaining agent to
registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, filed the petition for
certification election. Since no certified bargaining agent represented the
deemed
represent them at the time the UNION, which is legitimate labor organization duly
be
may
the supervisory employees. After all, supervisory employees are "not . . . eligible for
PT&T
certified bargaining agent doe not make PT&T an organized establishment vis-a-vis
HELD: YES. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Med-Arbiter.
employees,
11 | L a b o r
Issue:
Day
06
Titan opposed the petition, contending that members of the union are not its
employees but of Stitchers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (SMC), an independent
contractor.
o
Held:
Titan claimed that it engaged SMC to manufacture and sew its multipurpose industrial bags.
CA: reversed Med-Arbiter and DOLE Sec and disallowed the conduct of
certification elections.
vs.
TITAN
MEGABAGS
INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
ISSUE:
WON the CA was correct in disallowing the certification elections.
FACTS:
The controversy at bar arose from a petition for certification election filed with
the Med-Arbitration by petitioner SMC Quarry 2 Workers Union-February Six
Movement (FSM).
In its petition for certification election, the union alleged that it is a legitimate
HELD/RATIO:
No, it was not.
According to the SC, the CA should have denied Titans appeal because in
certification elections, the employer is a bystander; it has no right or material
interest to assail the certification election.
Thus, when a petition for certification election is filed by a legitimate labor
organization, it is good policy of the employer not to have any participation or
partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining representative.
12 | L a b o r
o
Day
06
Note:
The Court also ruled that another reason why Titans appeal should have been
dismissed by the CA was because the DOLE Secretarys decision became final
and executory:
AQUINO, J.:
FACTS:
1.
This is a certification election case. On June 24, 1976, or within sixty days
prior to the expiration on August 19, 1976 of the unregistered collective
bargaining agreement between the Associated Labor Unions and the
General Milling Corporation, the Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa, a duly
registered labor union, filed with Regional Office at Cebu City of the
Ministry of Labor a petition for certification election.
2.
The med-arbiter in his order granted the petition. He ordered the holding
of a certification election within twenty days from notice among the rankand-file employees of the company at Lapu-Lapu City. The Associated
Labor Unions appealed from that order to the Director of Labor Relations.
3.
Under Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, any party to a certification
election may appeal the order of the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor
who shall decide the same within fifteen (15) calendar days.
Along this line, Section 15, Rule XI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code provides that the Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of the DOLE on
appeal shall be final and executory. Upon finality of the Decision of the Secretary,
the entire records of the case shall be remanded to the office of origin for
implementation of the Decision, unless restrained by the appropriate court.
and fatal to its cause and has, in effect, rendered the DOLE Secs decision final
and executory.
o
Code of Ethics.
4.
The TUCP has not decided the controversy. On September 14, 1978, or
more than twenty months after the federation received the record of the
case, the Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa filed in this Court the instant
petition for mandamus to compel the Director of Labor Relations to decide
13 | L a b o r
Day
06
the case, or, in the alternative, to require the TUCP to return to the
Director the record of the case.
5.
6.
Article 259 of the Labor Code provides that "all certification cases shall be decided
within twenty (20) working days." Article 260 of the same Code provides that the
Bureau of Labor Relations should decide appeals in representation cases, within
fifteen (15) working days", or twenty working days, according to section 10, Rule V,
Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. Section 10
further provides that "the decision of the Bureau in all cases shall be final and
unappealable."
7.
The petitioner in its reply to the TUCP's comment alleged that it was
affiliated with the TUCP only in 1978 or long after the certification case
was appealed to the Director of Labor Relations. It further manifested that
other certification cases referred in 1976 to the TUCP have not been acted
upon by it up to this time and that the delay is a denial of labor justice.
ISSUE: WON it was legal and proper for the Director of Labor Relations to refer to
the TUCP the appeal of the Associated Labor Unions in a certification election case.
HELD and RATIO: The referral of the appeal to the TUCP is glaringly illegal
and void. The Labor Code never intended that the Director of Labor Relations
should abdicate, delegate and relinquish his arbitrational prerogatives in favor of a
private person or entity or to a federation of trade unions. Such a surrender of
official functions is an anomalous, deplorable and censurable renunciation of the
Director's adjudicatory jurisdiction in representation cases. The Director was
directed to decide the appeal within ten days from the receipt of the record
Article 226 of the Labor Code provides in peremptory terms that the Bureau of
Labor Relations and the labor relations divisions in the regional offices of the
Ministry of Labor "shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own
initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intraunion conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting
labor-management relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or nonagricultural, except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of
Those provisions are mandatory and should be strictly adhered to. They are part
and parcel of the adequate administrative machinery established by the Labor Code
for the expeditious settlement of labor disputes. The Director's act of referring the
appeal of the Associated Labor Unions to the TUCP is not only contrary to law but
is a patent nullification of the policy of the Labor Code to avoid delay in the
adjudication of labor controversies.
The certification election was held on Sep 6 and yielded the following results:
1. JIU 46 votes
2. Samahang Manggagawa ng JISSCOR-ALU 50 votes
14 | L a b o r
3.
4.
5.
No Union 0
Spoiled 3
TOTAL VOTES CAST 99
JIU then registered a protest in the minutes of the election stating that we file
protest on the following grounds using visor, emblem. By Sep. 11, JIU filed a formal
protest before DOLE on the following grounds:
1.
3.
4.
5.
Day
06
Section 3, Rule VI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code
provides that:
1. Grounds of a protest may be filed:
a. On the spot or
b. In writing with the representation officer
2. Protests shall be contained in the minutes of the proceedings.
3. Protests not so raised are deemed waived.
2.
The minutes of the certification election show, however, that JIU only protested
against the use of emblem, visor, pin.
Hence, other "protests [such as the posting in the chapel entrance of a huge
streamer with the words: "Vote! Samahang Manggagawa ng JISSCORALU"] not so raised are deemed waived"
There is no merit in the JIUs contention that the non-posting of the notice of the
certification election as prescribed by Section 1, Rule VI, Book V of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the labor Code misled and confused the workers regarding the
mechanics of the election.
-
The results of the certification election belie the JIUs allegation that the workers
were misinformed about the election
Records show that out of 104 eligible voters, 99 were able to cast their votes
and only 3 were spoiled ballots.
On the alleged use of sunvisors, pins, emblems and the posting of a huge streamer,
the DOLE found:
. . . nothing in the records shows that the alleged wearing of sunvisors and
pins, the posting of huge streamers, as well as the alleged escorting of
voters by SMJ-ALU have unduly pressured, influenced, vitiated, or in any
manner affected the choice of the workers of their bargaining agent.
SC: That finding of fact of the head of an administrative agency is
conclusive upon the court
DISPOSITIVE: No grave abuse of discretion. Petition for certiorari dismissed.
15 | L a b o r
Election-Mechanics of Process/D. Voters All Employees
Day
06
lower court issued, on July 21, 1961: motion denied and certify
respondent Union NAMAWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining
petitioners MR denied
FACTS:
petitioner also questioned the list of qualified voters that was used
during the election which was based on the payroll of the
employees
not less than 310 workers of the Company were threatened the
night immediately preceding the election by agents of respondent
Union individually "to cast their vote for said Union ... or else;"
margin of 282 votes had filed a motion to invalidate said election upon
several grounds
ISSUE: WoN a payroll can be used as basis for determining the qualified employeevoters (YES)
16 | L a b o r
Day
06
May 19, 1961, the court issued the corresponding order for the
holding of the election and made its ruling on the question as to
who were qualified to vote, and petitioner did not move for a
reconsideration of said ruling.
Hence, petitioner may no longer contest the accuracy of the
aforementioned voters list
CIR affirmed
78
73
-----151
401
The company challenged the 78 votes for the reason that they were cast by
dismissed employees. The union, on the other hand, challenged the 68 votes cast by
newly regularized rank-and-file employees and another 5 votes by alleged
supervisor-trainees.
The Med-Arbiter ruled that:
a. the appreciation of the votes of the 65 dismissed employees (out of the 78) shall be
suspended until final disposition of their complaint for illegal dismissal.
17 | L a b o r
b. the votes of the 68 newly-regularized employees shall be appreciated in the final
tabulation
On appeal, the acting SOLE ruled that:
a. the votes of the dismissed employees who contested their dismissal before the
NLRCshall be appreciated in the final tabulation of the certification election results
b. the votes of the 68 shall be exclude.
The CA affirmed the acting SOLE's in toto because of Article 212 (f) of the Labor
Code (It shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a result of or in
connection with any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice if
he has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular employment.)
and Section 2, Rule XII of the IRR of the Labor Code (A dismissed employee whose
dismissal is being contested in a pending case shall be allowed to vote in the
election.). It excluded the 68 votes because they were not included in the voter's list
submitted in the pre-election conference. It further ruled that the company's
insistence on including the 68 lends suspicion that it wanted to create a company
union, and that the company had no right to interfere in the certification election.
Issues:
W/N the dismissed employees can vote? YES
W/N the newly-regularized employees can vote? MOOTED
Held:
Dismissed employees whose cases are still pending at the time of the election are
allowed to vote as per Section 2 Rule XII. Moreover, Department Order No. 40-03,
Series of 2003 explicitly states that without a final judgment declaring the legality
of the dismissal, dismissed employees are eligible or qualified voters.
The 68 votes, even if their votes (No Union) are counted, will not materially alter the
result of the certification election (208-189)
164 Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions, Pacific Knitting Workers Org.
v. Carmelo Noriel, PAFLU, Vicente Arniego Luzon Federation of Labor
Organization Fur Chapter, Pacific Mills Inc.
Day
06
This certiorari and prohibition proceeding assumes that the order amounts to a
grave abuse of discretion on the ground that the motion to do so by such union
"came too late for the order calling for a certification election has already become
final without an appeal interposed by any party.
Noriel justified his order, saying: "It may not be disputed that the order for an
election has already become final. But this per se did not eliminate PAFLU from the
picture since its motion for intervention was interposed before the scheduled
election.
SolGen submitted its comment considered as the answer sustaining the issuance of
the assailed order not only because no certification election had as yet been held but
as the union in question had "established substantial interest in the ordered
election.
Noriel also argued that the issue had become moot and academic as a certification
election among the rank and file employees resulted in respondent PAFLU receiving
254 votes out of the 401 total votes cast.
SC: Petition cannot prosper.
It cited United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries v. Noriel, that it has been
the consistent ruling of the court that for the integrity of the collective bargaining
process to be maintained and thus manifest steadfast adherence to the concept of
industrial democracy, all the workers of a collective bargaining unit should be given
the opportunity to participate in a certification election.
Also, petitioner must have realized the futility of insisting on its claim for on March
7, 1980, it filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of interest and recognizing the fact
that respondent PAFLU "be certified as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining
agent of the employer firm, Pacific Mills Inc.
166 R. Transport Corp. v Laguesma
November 16, 1993 QUIASON, J.
FACTS:
18 | L a b o r
Med-Arb dismissed the petition on the ground that the bargaining unit did
not include all the eligible employees of petitioner (inspectors,
inspectresses, dispatchers, mechanics and washerboys were excluded)
CLOP rectified its mistake and filed a 2nd petition for certification election
Petitioner filed a MTD the 2nd petition and contended that the dismissal of
the first petition constituted res judicata.
Med-Arb rendered decision which ordered that a certification election be
conducted
Later, the Associated Labor Unions (ALU-TUCP) filed a motion for
intervention and alleged that it has members in the proposed bargaining
unit. Subsequently, the National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed
a separate petition for certification election and a motion to consolidate
related cases
Petitioner appealed Med-Arbs decision to the DOLE Secretary. Med-Arb
decision affirmed through USec Laguesmas resolution calling for conduct
of certification election (no res judicata no final judgment on the merits;
parties not identical)
Petitioner filed MR, again stressing res judicata and arguing that the 2nd
petition for certification election is barred at least for 1 year from the time
CLOPs petition was dismissed. MR Denied.
No res judicata - Before the principle of res judicata can be operative, the
ISSUE: W/N employment status of the members of respondent CLOP who joined the
strike must first be resolved before a certification election can be conducted. NO.
Petition dismissed.
RATIO: As held in the case of Philippine Fruits and Vegetables Industries, Inc. v.
Torres, 211 SCRA 95 (1992):
At any rate, it is now well-settled that employees who have been
06
Day
19 | L a b o r
guilty of forum-shopping in pursuing the same cause of action involving the
same issue, parties and subject matter before two different fora.
168 Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Laguesma
1.
1.
On Premature Contract
SAMAHAN: The CBA between it and PPC signed during the pendency of the
representation proceedings, rendered the certification election moot.
SC: A CBA which was prematurely renewed is not a bar to the holding o a
certification election. Hence, the CBA entered into between SAMAHAN and
PPC during he pendecy of the representation case and after filing of the
petition for certification election cannot possibly prejudice the
certification election nor render it moot.
Ratio:
1.
06
Facts:
Issue/Held:
Day
voters must have cast their votes. The certification election results
The union had a three-year CBA with the Corporation. The expiration date
show that more than a majority (62 out of 98 eligible voters included in
the list of employees obtained from SSS) cast their votes.
20 | L a b o r
was August 24, 1984.
On July 15, 1984 within the "freedom period" of sixty (60) days a
general meeting of all the members of the Kapisanan was convoked by
Timbungco.
o
Day
06
a letter to the Bureau of Labor Relations advising that Bureau that the
majority of the members of the Kapisanan had affiliated with ADLO.
AAATC replied to Tayo's letter that it could not accede to the request to
stop deduction of union dues since it had been dealing over many years
with the Kapisanan as its workers' authorized bargaining representative.
On April 23, 1986 Delicano Pajares filed with the Bureau of Labor
Relations a petition for election of officers of the Kapisanan, alleging that
he and his co-workers numbered 700, 62% of whom had signed the petition;
that the election of officers held on July 15, 1984 was invalid, and they
wished to exercise their right to vote for and elect their union officers. He
also adverted to the existing collective bargaining agreement between
Kapisanan and AAATC.
Issue/Holding/Ratio
WON the election of officers of July 15, 1984 was valid? Yes, it was valid. The writ of
certiorari prayed for will issue.
21 | L a b o r
except during the "freedom period" (i.e., the period of 60 days prior to the
Day
06
In the first place, it does not at all appear that the dispensing by the
In the second place, as the Office of the Solicitor General points out, the
private respondents' objections to the elections of July 15, 1984 have come
too late, and they must be deemed in the premises to have forfeited
their right to impugn the same. Under the Rules implementing the
In this case, the protest against the election was presented to the medarbiter only after the lapse of almost two (2) years after it was held. And in
that interval, no informal protest, oral or written, was ever presented
against the election.
Indeed, there was tacit acceptance of the regularity of the elections and
the results thereof, for during that period of almost two (2) years, certain
significant events took place without demur or objection:
o
FACTS:
A certification election was conducted among the regular rank and file employees in
the main office and the regional branches of DHL Philippines Corporation. The
contending choices were petitioner and no union. On the basis of the results of the
certification election, with petitioner receiving 546 votes and no union garnering
348 votes, the election officer certified the former as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent.
Respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD)
filed with the Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE a Petition for the
nullification of the certification election. The officers of petitioner were charged with
committing fraud and deceit in the election proceedings by misrepresenting to the
voter-employees that it was an independent union, when it was in fact an affiliate of
the Federation of Free Workers (FFW).
Allegedly supporting this claim was the fact that those whom it had misled allegedly
withdrew their membership from it and subsequently formed themselves into an
independent union. The latter union, BUKLOD, was issued a Certificate of
Registration by DOLE.
Procedural-
22 | L a b o r
MA: nullified the certification election and ordered the holding of another one with
the following contending choices: petitioner, respondent, and no choice.
DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz: issue of representation had
already been settled with finality in favor of petitioner
CA: the withdrawal of a great majority of the members of petitioner -- 704 out of 894
of them -- provided a compelling reason to conduct a certification election anew. The
issue of representation was not put to rest by the mere issuance of a Certification
Order by the election officer.
ISSUE:
WON the certification election was valid (NO)
RATIO:
Under Section 13 of the Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code,the election
officers authority to certify the results of the election is limited to situations in
which there has been no protest filed; or if there has been any, it has not been
perfected or formalized within five days from the close of the election proceedings.
Further, Section 14 of the same Rules provides that when a protest has been
perfected, only the med-arbiter can proclaim and certify the winner.
Clearly, this rule is based on the election officers function, which is merely to
conduct and supervise certification elections.It is the med-arbiter who is authorized
to hear and decide representation cases. Consequently, the decision whether to
certify the results of an election or to set them aside due to incidents occurring
during the campaign is within the med-arbiters discretion.
Petitioner argues: no protest or challenge had been formalized within five days, or
raised during the election proceedings and entered in the minutes thereof.
Respondent did not file any protest, either, against the alleged fraud and
misrepresentation by the formers officers during the election.
SC: When the med-arbiter admitted and gave due course to respondents Petition for
nullification of the election proceedings, the election officer should have deferred
issuing the Certification of the results thereof. Section 13 of the Implementing
Rules cannot strictly be applied to the present case.
The employees had long desired to have an independent union that would represent
them in collective bargaining, they voted yes in favor of petitioner. Having been
misled, a majority of them eventually disaffiliated themselves from it and formed an
Day
06
independent union which thereafter protested the conduct of the election. Having
been formed just after such exercise by the defrauded employees who were former
members of petitioner, respondent could not have reasonably filed its protest within
five days from the close of the election proceedings. Petitioner insistently opposed
the Petition, as respondent had not yet been issued a certificate of registration at
the time. Because such certificate was issued in favor of the latter four days after
the filing of the Petition, the misgivings of the former were brushed aside by the
med-arbiter. The circumstances in the present case show that the employees did not
sleep on their rights. Hence, their failure to follow strictly the procedural
technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest should not be taken
against them.
The making of false statements or misrepresentations that interfere with the free
choice of the employees is a valid ground for protest. A certification election may be
set aside for misstatements made during the campaign, where 1) a material fact has
been misrepresented in the campaign; 2) an opportunity for reply has been lacking;
and 3) the misrepresentation has had an impact on the free choice of the employees
participating in the election. A misrepresentation is likely to have an impact on
their free choice, if it comes from a party who has special knowledge or is in an
authoritative position to know the true facts. This principle holds true, especially
when the employees are unable to evaluate the truth or the falsity of the assertions.
The fact that the officers of petitioner especially its president, misrepresented it to
the voting employees as an independent union constituted a substantial
misrepresentation of material facts of vital concern to those employees. The
employees wanted an independent union to represent them in collective bargaining,
free from outside interference. Additionally, the misrepresentation came from
petitioners recognized representative, who was clearly in a position to hold himself
out as a person who had special knowledge and was in an authoritative position to
know the true facts.
Other contentionPetitioner: employees had sufficient time between the misrepresentation and the
election to check the truth of its claims.
SC: NO! They could hardly be expected to verify the accuracy of any statement
regarding petitioner, made to them by its officers. No less than its president stated
that it was an independent union (i.e. no reason to doubt him).
23 | L a b o r
171 PHILIPPINE FRUITS AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES vs.TORRES
Med-Arbiter Basa granted the petition for Certification election (CE) filed
by the Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS)----which directed the holding of a certification election among the regular and
seasonal workers of the Philippine Fruits and Vegetables, Inc.. (PFVI)
After a series of pre-election conferences, all issues relative to the CE were
threshed out except the voting qualifications of the 194 workers
Day
06
It turned out that the yes votes failed to obtain the majority of the votes
cast, hence, the necessity of opening the 168 challenged votes to determine
the true will of the employees.
PFVI objected: alleged not to be regular employees nor seasonal workers for
having allegedly rendered work for less than 180 days.---- they formally
filed a Protest.
FACTS:
ISSUE/S:
Topical: W/N the formal protest of PFVII was filed beyond the reglementary
period? YES
parties and notice of certification election was duly posted. 168 of the
questioned workers actually voted on election day.
W/N non-regular seasonal workers who have long been separated from employment
prior to the filing of the petition for certification election would be allowed to vote
and participate in a certification election
HELD:
the minutes of the proceedings before the close of election proceedings, and
(2) The protest must be formalized before the Med-Arbiter within five (5) days
after the close of the election proceedings.
24 | L a b o r
PFVI after filing a manifestation of protest on December 16, 1988, election day, only
formalized the same on February 20, 1989, or more than two months after the close
of election proceedings. The phrase "close of election proceedings" refers to that
period from the closing of the polls to the counting and tabulation of the votes and
DOES NOT INCLUED the period for the final determination of the challenged votes
and the canvass since it may take a VERY LONG PERIOD.
NOTE: if a protest can be formalized within five days after a final determination
and canvass of the challenged votes have been made, it would result in an undue
delay in the affirmation of the employees' expressed choice of a bargaining
representative
Plus re compliance with req posting days: SC adopted the liberal approach which
favors the exercise of labor rights, and found that the lack of one day in the posting
of notices was not a compelling reason at all to nullify the elections since a
substantial number, or 291 of 322 qualified voters, of the employees concerned were
informed and were able to vote accordingly. (SUBSTANTIAL Compliance)
Day
06
Plus: a certification election is the sole concern of the workers and the employer is
regarded as nothing more than a bystander with no right to interfere at all in the
election. The only exception here is where the employer has to file a petition for
certification election.
172 SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA FILSYSTEMS VS SECRETARY
OF LABOR
Puno, J.
Facts:
While the appeal was pending, another union, Filsystem Workers Union (FWU),
filed a petition for certification election, won and negotiated a CBA with
FILSYSTEMS.
FILSYSTEMS filed a motion to dismiss the appeal arguing that it is made moot
and academic by the FWUs status as the current exclusive bargaining agent and
the CBA.
SAMAFIL countered that the certification election which FWU won was void for
violating Section 10 and Section 4, Rule V of the IRR.
The Secretary of Labor dismissed the appeal.
Issue:
1.) Whether SAMAFIL has the legal personality to file the petition for certification
election. YES.
25 | L a b o r
2.) Whether the appeal was rendered moot and academic. NO.
Ratio
Issue 1:
SAMAFIL is an independently registered labor union as evidenced by a Certificate
of Registration issued by the DOLE. As a legitimate labor organization, SAMAFILs
right to file a petition for certification election on its own is beyond question. The
failure of SAMAFIL to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU cannot affect its right
to file said petition for certification election as an independent union. At the most,
petitioner's failure will result in an ineffective affiliation with NAFLU-KMU. Still,
however, it can pursue its petition for certification election as an independent union.
"SEC. 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable. - The Secretary shall
have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide the appeal from receipt of the
records of the case. The filing of the appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter
stays the holding of any certification election. The decision of the Secretary shall be
final and inappealable."
Accordingly, there was an unresolved representation case at the time the CBA was
entered between FWU and private respondent. Following Section 4, Rule V of the
Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code, such CBA cannot and will not
prejudice petitioner's pending representation case or render the same moot
"SEC. 4. Effects of early agreements. - The representation case shall not, however,
be adversely affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered before or
during the last 60 days of the subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the
representation case."
This rule was applied in the case of Associated Labor Unions (ALU-TUCP) v.
Trajano where we held that "[t]here should be no obstacle to the right of the
employees to petition for a certification election at the proper time, that is, within
sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the life of a certified collective bargaining
agreement x x x, not even by a collective agreement submitted during the pendency
Day
06
of the representation case." Likewise, in Associated Labor Unions (ALU) v. FerrerCalleja, we held that a prematurely renewed CBA is not a bar to the holding of a
certification election.
173 United Employees Union of GELMART Industries Philippines v. Noriel
October 3, 1975 Fernando, J.:
FACTS:
Issue 2:
The order of the Med-Arbiter dismissing petitioner's petition for certification
election was seasonably appealed. The appeal stopped the holding of any
certification election. Section 10, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the
Labor Code is crystal clear and hardly needs any interpretation.
petition sought to have the certification election declared null and void ab
initio and thus unenforceable
o contending parties in a pre-election conference conducted by the
BLR agreed that petitioner would be listed in the ballot as United
Employees Union of Gelmart Industries Philippines (UEUGIP)
o In the notice of the certification election, however, it was wilfully
deleted and replaced by "a non-contending party, namely,
Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU), which, although
an existing labor federation has nothing to do and has no interest
or right of participation therein."
As a result, there was confusion in the minds of independent voters and
demoralization in the ranks of those inclined to favor petitioner
There was a protest but it was not based on this ground; instead the
grievance complained of referred to the alleged electioneering of nuns and a
priest as observers or inspectors on behalf of respondent
The certification election took place as scheduled and respondent
GATCORD garnered the highest number of votes
BLR Director Carmelo Noriel was about to certify respondent GATCORD
as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of the rank
and file employees of Gelmart
present petition for violation of procedural due process
ISSUE: WoN there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of BLR (NO)
RATIO:
26 | L a b o r
however, is composed of a number of individuals, it is indispensable that
they be represented by a labor organization of their choice. Thus may be
discerned how crucial a certification election is. There must be such an
opportunity to determine which labor organization shall act on their behalf.
Nor need this Court pass upon the ground of protest based on the alleged
participation by nuns and a priest who presumably aided the cause of
private respondent. Petitioner understandably did not choose to press this
point.
o Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union: primacy of religious
freedom, to which contractual rights, even on labor matters, must
yield, thus removing any taint of nullity from the amendment to
the Industrial Peace Act, which would allow exemption from a
closed shop on the part of employees, members of a given religious
sect prohibiting its devotees from affiliating with any labor
organization.
Day
06
Petitioner argues:
that the petitions against it are dilatory tactics
that they were not notified
company intervention
DOLE did not give wieght to the Med-Arbiter's reports and considered the
same as baseless.
27 | L a b o r
Day
06
states, that the protests were not filed within five (5) days, is a mere
technicality which should not be allowed to prevail over the workers
welfare.
and that the only exception under Art. 258 does not apply.
It is not the motion filed by the company which made the DOLE
reconsider its judgment, but the deluge of letter-appeals and
complaints from the workers themselves.
Nor is it improper for private respondent to show interest in the
conduct of the election. Private respondent is the employer. The
manner in which the election was held could make the difference
between industrial strife and industrial harmony in the
company. What an employer is prohibited from doing is to interfere
with the conduct of the certification election for the purpose of
influencing its outcome. But certainly an employer has an abiding
interest in seeing to it that the election is clean, peaceful, orderly and
credible.