1
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
December 6, 2017
Transcribed by Glowing Gloria
No recording…
---------------- END OF CLASS--------------
December 8 2017
Transcribed by: Glowing Gloria
Recitation on cases
Still we are on the right to self-organization
Let’s start with the cases
REPUBLIC SAVINGS VS CIR
Atty Edig : What was the contention of the letter? What was
the issue in this case? Why the letter would considered
concerted activity? They were attacking the character of the
president how did it become a union activity? As to
nepotism, how does it affect the employees?
As to nepotism: it affects the employees because the
president failed to be an example by practicing favoritism
to other employees. Because the president acted in this
manner, he failed to provide wholesome recommendations
towards the employees.
So in this case class, even if it was not a collective
bargaining issue, the right to self-organizational issue was
still being exercised for mutual aide and protection of the
employees. Even if the protestors again are small group of
employees, still it a concerted activity protected by
industrial peace act. It is not necessary that the union
activity be involved or that collective bargaining is
contemplated.
VICTORIANO VS ELIZALDE
Atty Edig: So in this case, the Supreme Court did not say
that the right to exercise freedom of religion is superior to
the right of self-organization. What the SC said is that the
free exercise of the freedom of religion is superior to
contract rights. What we are discussion here is the union
security clause agreement. Here what happen is Victoriano
wanted to be out the union because of his religion. The
union also wanted vctoriano out here because he did not
want to follow the USC. So here SC held that the contract
here on the union cannot be made superior of that right to
free exercise of religion.
Even if the state afford protection in the labor, promotes
employment, the enactment of RA 3350 is still consistent in
the provision that protects labor. It merely relieve the
exercise of religion by certain persons of a burden that is
impose by the union security agreement. If your religious
belief precludes you from joining labor union, that should
not be taken against you that you should be dismissed by
work. The exemption in the law was upheld by the
constitutional _(dli gyd madungog) in this case.
REYES VS TRAJANO
Even though they are not part of any union, there can still
validly cast their vote in the election.
NOTE: atty ask about the employees who were not part of
any union, minority employee.
The purpose of a certification election is precisely the
ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not
to be represented by a labor organization, and in the
affirmative case, by which particular labor organization. If
the results of the election should disclose that the majority
of the workers do not wish to be represented by any union,
then their wishes must be respected, and no union may
properly be certified as the exclusive representative of the
workers in the bargaining unit in dealing with the employer
regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
employment. The minority employees — who wish to have
a union represent them in collective bargaining — can do
nothing but wait for another suitable occasion to petition
for a certification election and hope that the results will be
different. They may not and should not be permitted,
however, to impose their will on the majority — who do not
desire to have a union certified as the exclusive workers'
benefit in the bargaining unit — upon the plea that they,
the minority workers, are being denied the right of self-
organization and collective bargaining. As repeatedly stated,
the right of self-organization embraces not only the right to
2
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
form, join or assist labor organizations, but the concomitant,
converse right NOT to form, join or assist any labor union.
Lets stop here…
----------------END OF CLASS------------------
Jan 4 2018,
No recording.. absent ko
Jan 5 2018,
Transcribed by GlowingGloria
So yesterday we discussed what labor unions, what are their
rights and the process of its registration, like an
independent union, etc.
What are the grounds to cancel union registration? Before it
was 9 now its was 3 under article 245 of the labor code.
NOTE: please check the numbering of the provision,
maam said it was Article 245, but in book dated on
2015, the ground for cancellation is 247. But the
content are the same
ART. 245. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. -
The following may constitute grounds for cancellation of
union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
connection with the adoption or ratification of the
constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the
minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took
part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
election of officers, and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members."
So here are the three in condensed from but I suggest that
you read the law proper for exam:
1. Any falsehood about the constitutional by laws;
2. Any falsehood about election of officers; and
3. Voluntary dissolution.
So, if the constitution and bylaws or the election has been
found to be fraud or was simulated, according to
jurisprudence, the BIR can cancel the union registration.
The 3rd ground which is the voluntary dissolution which is
2/3 votes of the entire membership with a subsequent
application to cancel the said union submitted by the board
and attested by the president of the organization.
Q: WHAT HAPPEN TO THE OTHER GROUNDS THAT WAS
PREVIOUSLY TO CANCEL THE UNION REGISTRATION?
A: Those other grounds they will become or they will only
affect the airing officers. Example: Non submission of
reportorial requirement such as financial statements,
updated consti-or by laws. So here the non-submission now
of the consti and by laws are not considered as a ground to
cancel the union registration. But it may cause punishment
for the airing officers of the union.
Also previously, supervisor and rank and file employees are
found in one union, it was a ground to cancel, however the
amendment remove that. So now the excluded member are
deemed AUTOMATICALLY REMOVE from the list of the
listed members. So that is the effect. Read article 245.
Union affiicatitions it applies to local or charter union.
GR: A labor union may disaafilate from the mother union, to
form an independent union during the 60 days freedom
period immediately preceeding the expiration of the CBA
Usually the CBA has a life for 5 years. 2 months before it
in expires, that is what we call the freedom period and at that
time aside from negotiating for a new CBA, the charter or
the local may disaafilliate from the mother union.
HOW DO THEY DISAFFILIATE?
in ANS: upon a written resolution approved by the majority of
the local membership. Adopted by the general membership
meeting called by that purpose.
Note that kanina cancellation which needs 2/3
votes, ngaun naman disaffiliation which needs a
majority vote. Also dapat meron talaga sya sa
agenda. Hindi sya pwde issinngit singit lang sa
meeting. Dapat talaga called for that purpose. Let’s
go to the exception of this rule.
EXCEPTION: The disaffiliation by the majority where the
union may disaffiliate from the mother union even before
the 60 days freedom period. So it may be carried out but
still by the majority member of the union members in the
BU. This happens when there is a shift in allegiance by the
majority members of the union. They can disaffiliate,
however, the CBA continuous to bind the members of the
3
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
(new) union up to its expiration date. For this to happen, a
consent (?) election must be administered again to
determine which union must carried now since the
federation is no longer_.
WHAT IS THE LIMITATION OF THIS DISAFFILIATION? Can
the union say, ok I will now disaffiliates arbitrarily?
ANS: this should be done in accordance to the rules of
procedure stated in the consti and by laws of the federation.
Usually, a charter local does not have their own consti and
bylaws. They adopt the consti and bylaws of their federation.
How do they disaffiliates? So accordance to the bylaws of
the federation. This is also to protect the employees of the
BU, so that their officers will act arbitrary to their prejudice.
WHO HAS JURISDICTION?
ANS: BLR – Bureau Of Labor Relation cause it is considered
as an inter-union conflict.
WHAT IS THE SUBSTITUTIONARY DOCTRINE?
Ans: it is connected with the disaffiliation by majority. Even
if the union would disaffiliates from the mother federation,
the CBA entered into by the federation since ( do u
remember the principle of agency, the P is the employee,
the A is the union and the A of the A is the federation) since
the federation represents the union, which in turns
represents the employees, they are the ones who are
considered the exclusive bargaining agent during the entire
proceedings.
So even if the local union would disaffiliate from the mother
union, the CBA would still hold true for the BU. Employees,
cannot revoke validly executed CBA with there employer by
simple changing their bargaining agent.
WHAT IS EQUITY OF THE INCUMBENT?
ARTICLE 240( or Article 240) – All existing federation and
national unions which meet the qualification of a legitimate
labor organization and none of the grounds for cancelation
shall continue to maintain their existing affiliates regardless
of the nature of the industry and the location of the
affiliates
This was asked in my bar exam.
CHAPTER II
RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP
ART. 250. [241] Rights and Conditions of Membership in a
Labor Organization.
The following are the rights and conditions of membership
in a labor organization:
a) No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be
required of the members of a legitimate labor
organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or
oppressive fine and forfeiture be imposed;
b) The members shall be entitled to full and detailed
reports from their officers and representatives of all
financial transactions as provided for in the
constitution and by-laws of the organization;
c) The members shall directly elect their officers in the
local union, as well as their national officers in the
national union or federation to which they or their
local union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals
of five (5) years. No qualification requirement for
candidacy to any position shall be imposed other
than membership in good standing in subject labor
organization. The secretary or any other
responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary
of Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-
elected officers, together with the appointive
officers or agents who are entrusted with the
handling of funds within thirty (30) calendar days
after the election of officers or from the occurrence
of any change in the list of officers of the labor
organization;
d) The members shall determine by secret ballot, after
due deliberation, any question of major policy
affecting the entire membership of the
organization, unless the nature of the organization
or force majeure renders such secret ballot
impractical, in which case, the board of directors of
the organization may make the decision in behalf
of the general membership;
e) No labor organization shall knowingly admit as
members or continue in membership any individual
4
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
who belongs to a subversive organization or who is
engaged directly or indirectly in any subversive
activity;
f) No person who has been convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude shall be eligible for
election as a union officer or for appointment to
any position in the union;
g) No officer, agent or member of a labor
organization shall collect any fees, dues, or other
contributions in its behalf or make any
disbursement of its money or funds unless he is
duly authorized pursuant to its constitution and
by-laws;
h) Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions
by a member shall be evidenced by a receipt
signed by the officer or agent making the
collection and entered into the record of the
organization to be kept and maintained for the
purpose;
i) The funds of the organization shall not be applied
for any purpose or object other than those
expressly provided by its constitution and by-laws
or those expressly authorized by written resolution
adopted by the majority of the members at a
general meeting duly called for the purpose;
j) Every income or revenue of the organization shall
be evidenced by a record showing its source, and
every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced
by a receipt from the person to whom the payment
is made, which shall state the date, place and
purpose of such payment. Such record or receipt
shall form part of the financial records of the
organization.
Any action involving the funds of the
organization shall prescribe after three (3) years
from the date of submission of the annual financial
report to the Department of Labor and
Employment or from the date the same should
have been submitted as required by law, whichever
comes earlier: Provided, That this provision shall
apply only to a legitimate labor organization which
has submitted the financial report requirements
under this Code: Provided, further, That failure of
any labor organization to comply with the periodic
financial reports required by law and such rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder six (6) months
after the effectivity of this Act shall automatically
result in the cancellation of union registration of
such labor organization;
k) The officers of any labor organization shall not be
paid any compensation other than the salaries and
expenses due to their positions as specifically
provided for in its constitution and by-laws, or in a
written resolution duly authorized by a majority of
all the members at a general membership meeting
duly called for the purpose. The minutes of the
meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast
shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary of
Labor or his duly authorized representatives. Any
irregularities in the approval of the resolutions shall
be a ground for impeachment or expulsion from
the organization;
l) The treasurer of any labor organization and every
officer thereof who is responsible for the account
of such organization or for the collection,
management, disbursement, custody or control of
the funds, moneys and other properties of the
organization, shall render to the organization and
to its members a true and correct account of all
moneys received and paid by him since he
assumed office or since the last day on which he
rendered such account, and of all bonds, securities
and other properties of the organization entrusted
to his custody or under his control. The rendering
of such account shall be made:
a. (1) At least once a year within thirty (30)
days after the close of its fiscal year;
b. (2) At such other times as may be required
by a resolution of the majority of the
members of the organization; and
c. (3) Upon vacating his office. The account
shall be duly audited and verified by
5
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
affidavit and a copy thereof shall be Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of above
furnished the Secretary of Labor rights and conditions of membership shall continue to be
m) The books of accounts and other records of the under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
financial activities of any labor organization shall be
open to inspection by any officer or member Discussion: so the one I have is condensed version. So
thereof during office hours; better read you’re codal.
n) No special assessment or other extraordinary fees They have the following rights:
may be levied upon the members of a labor 1. They have the right to decision making;
organization unless authorized by a written 2. They have the right to vote;
resolution of a majority of all the members in a 3. They have the right to include themselves fund-
general membership meeting duly called for the raising(?) in the labor organization;
purpose. The secretary of the organization shall 4. They have the right to information on the content
record the minutes of the meeting including the list of the consti and bylaws, access to the CBA and
of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose access to the labor laws;- actually labor
of the special assessment or fees and the recipient organizations are mandated by the labor code to
of such assessment or fees. The record shall be educate their members about their rights under the
attested to by the president. labor laws.
o) Other than for mandatory activities under the 5. They have the right to vote and be voted for
Code, no special assessments, from any amount subject to provisions of their qualifications and
due to an employee without an individual written disqualifications;
authorization duly signed by the employee. The 6. They have the right related to monetary matters-
authorization should specifically state the amount, so they may have vote on the compensation of
purpose and beneficiary of the deduction; and their officers, vote on special assesments where
p) It shall be the duty of any labor organization and atty fees come from so these can be voted by them
its officers to inform its members on the provisions on how much are they going to pay and who are
of its constitution and by-laws, collective going to pay.
bargaining agreement, the prevailing labor 7. They have the right to be deducted a special
relations system and all their rights and obligations assessment only with members’ written
under existing labor laws. authorization – this is an important provision. A lot
For this purpose, registered labor organizations may assess o cases deals with this matter. There must be this
reasonable dues to finance labor relations seminars and requirement of written authorization.
other labor education activities. 8. They have the right to impositions of excessive fees
Any violation of the above rights and conditions of against unauthorized collection of contribution or
membership shall be a ground for cancellation of union disbursement and they are required adequate
registration or expulsion of officers from office, whichever is records to the expenses
appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of the members of 9. They have the access to the financial records of the
a union or any member or members specially concerned union or LO. –
may report such violation to the Bureau. The Bureau shall
have the power to hear and decide any reported violation
to mete the appropriate penalty. MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF THE LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS
6
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
WHO ARE PROHIBITED OF BECOMING MEMBERS OR from any amount due to an EE without individual written
OFFICERS? authorization duly signed by the employee.
1. Non-employees ; The authorization should specify the following:
2. Those engaged in subversive activities; 1. Amount;
3. Those persons convicted of crime involving moral 2. Purpose;
turpitude; 3. Beneficiary of the deductions.
WHO MAY VOTE? Ans: Only members of the union
HOW DOES THE UNION QUALIFY WHO MAY VOTE? WHAT IS A SPECIAL ASSESMENT? – kasi usually pag
They may put criteria Ex. If the employees are seasonal or sinabing union dues, these are already provided by the law.
irregular and there is requirement that for a member to So what is the example of SA, example when the union
vote, there should be that, for a particular payroll period would hire a lawyer to represent a case. So SA yan sya.
and the status must be regular WON they are probationary.
So in these scenario or eligibilities, two criteria must be WHAT ARE THE REQUREMENTS OF SA? Para automatic sya
compiled for an employee to be eligible to vote. The deducted sa salary.
qualifications must be applied to all members. Dili pwde 1. Authorization by a written resolution of the
may special . hindi yan pwde. Kung ordinary yan, ordinary majority of the members at the general meeting
lahat. Wla dapat ice cream lahat kasi dapat walang special. called for that purpose;
You should be given time and opportunity to know also the 2. Secretary’s record of the minutes of the meetings
qualifications required. which must include the:
Ito we go to check-off dues. Ito talaga, marami talaga itong a. List of the members present;
cases sa SC. b. Votes case;
c. Purpose of the special assessment;
CHECK OFF d. Receipt of such assessment.
WHAT IS A CHECK OFF? 3. Individual written authorization to check off duly
It is a method of deducting from an employee’s pay at a signed by the Employees concerned- to levy such
prescribed period, the amounts due the union for fees, fines assessment ( ART 241,lc)
and assessments.
So here before you receive your salary here, there is WHAT IS THE EXCEPTION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF
automatic deductions for the check-off. Si ER mismo ang INDIVIDUAL WRTTEN AUTHORIZATION?
makuha 1. Mandatory activities under the labor code;
Deductions for unions service fees are authorized by the law 2. For agency fees;
and do not require individual check-off authorization 3. When non-member of the union avail of the
NATURE AND PURPOSE OF CHECK OFF- union dues are benefits of the CBA:
the lifeblood of the union. All unions are authorized to a. Nonmembers may be assesed union dues
collect All unions are authorized to collect reasonable equivalent to that paid by union members;
membership fees, union dues, assessments and fines and b. Only by board resolution approved by
other contributions for labor education and research, majority of the members in general
mutual death and hospitalization benefits, welfare fund, meeting called for that purpose
strike fund and credit and cooperative undertakings. 4. Union service fee authorized by law- we will discuss
(Article 292 (277), LC) these on the case.
GR: No special assessment, attorney’s fees, negotiations
fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off
7
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
So under number 3, example class, the BU already has an
EBA. So even if your union did not win the BU, they will still
charge agency fees.
WHAT ARE THE MANDATORY ACTIVTIES AUTHORIZED BY
LAW?
1. The union is required to educate the members.
Under section2 (huh) there is a special fund that
can be part of the check off without individual
written authorization
2. Mandatory seminars, conducted to educate the
members. Read Rule 10 of the omnibus rules
implementing union.
Rule X
LABOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
Sec. 1. Enlightenment of unionists as a duty. It shall be the
duty of every legitimate labor organization to enlighten its
members on their rights and obligations as unionists and as
employees.
Sec. 2. Special fund for labor education and research. Every
legitimate labor organization shall, for the above purpose,
maintain a special fund for labor education and research.
Existing strike funds may be transformed into labor
education and research funds, in whole or in part. The union
may also periodically assess and collect a reasonable
amount from its members for such fund.
Sec. 3. Mandatory seminars. It shall be mandatory for every
legitimate labor organization to conduct seminars and
similar activities on existing labor laws, collective
agreements, company rules and regulations, and other
relevant matters. The union seminars and similar activities
may be conducted independently or in cooperation with
the Department of Labor and Employment, the Asian Labor
Education Center, the Institute of Labor and Manpower
Studies, and other labor-education groups.
Sec. 4. Official receipts. All collections and expenditures of
funds for labor research and education shall be duly
covered by official receipts subject to account examination
by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his
representative.
Sec. 5. Grounds for impeachment or expulsion. Failure to
provide adequate labor education and research services to
members of a labor organization shall be a ground for the
impeachment or expulsion of the officer or officers
responsible therefor in accordance with the provisions of
the constitution and by-laws of the labor organization
concerned. Misuse or illegal disbursement of the labor
education and research fund shall be a ground for
impeachment or expulsion from the union and punishable
under the relevant provisions of the constitution and by-
laws of the union and other applicable laws.
WHAT ARE THE UNION SERVICE FEES AUTHROIZED BY LAW?
These was included because of the case Radio
Communication PH vs Secretary of labor. Magolo ito
masyado class
CASE: RADIO COMMUNICATION VS SECRETARY OF
LABOR
Atty Edig: The lawyer was denied of his atty’s fees kay
gimaniobra sa mga officials para maadto ang attys fees sa
isa ka non-existent na lawyer. This went court and the union
contended there was no individual written authorization for
his attys fees. Because the attorney’s fees here was from a
decision rendered by the BLR. SC HELD: union service fees
authorized by law under section 11 in relation to section 13.
The SC considered the attorney’s fees as part of union
service fees authorized by law under section11 in relation to
sec 13. Attorney’s fees, in any judicial or administrative
proceedings for the court not exceed 10%. These may be
deducted from the total amount due of the winning party.
Since the lawyer won the case for the union, there was the
amount given to the union. So doon magkuha ng 10% and
lawyer. Even without individual written authorization. The
10% should be given to the lawyer. ( so murag sa judgment
sya kuhaon)
FROM THE CASE: petitioner cannot invoke the lack of an
individual written authorization from the employees as a
shield for its fraudulent refusal to pay the service fee of
private respondent. Prior to the payment made to its
8
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
employees, petitioner was ordered by the Regional Director
to deduct the 15% attorney's fee from the total amount due
its employees and to deposit the same with the Regional
Labor Office. Petitioner failed to do so allegedly because of
the absence of individual written authorizations. Be that as
it may, the lack thereof was remedied and supplied by the
execution of the compromise agreement whereby the
employees, expressly approved the 10% deduction and held
petitioner RCPI free from any claim, suit or complaint
arising from the deduction thereof. When petitioner was
thereafter again ordered to pay the 10% fees to respondent
union, it no longer had any legal basis or subterfuge for
refusing to pay the latter.
We agree that Article 222 of the Labor Code requiring an
individual written authorization as a prerequisite to wage
deductions seeks to protect the employee against
unwarranted practices that would diminish his
compensation without his knowledge and consent. 21
However, for all intents and purposes, the deductions
required of the petitioner and the employees do not run
counter to the express mandate of the law since the same
are not unwarranted or without their knowledge and
consent. Also, the deductions for the union service fee in
question are authorized by law and do not require
individual check-off authorizations. 22
OK LETS GO TO THE CASES
CSAI VS FERRER-CALLEJA
FROM KADZ FACTS: Cebu Seaman’s Association, Inc. (CSAI)
was organized by marine engineers and deck officers of
vessels plying Cebu and other ports of PH. The same group
was registered as a labor union before the BLR as the
Seaman’s Association of the Philippines, Inc (SAPI).
Two sets of officers are claiming to be entitled of the
union dues. The first one was led by Nacua and the
other was led by Gabayoyo. According to the latter,
Nacua has already been expelled as member/officer of
the corporation and that the corporation is one and the
same with SAPI.
ISSUE: Who is entitled to the union fees?
RULING: SAPI.
Public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations correctly
ruled based on the evidence presented by the parties
that SAPI, the legitimate labor union, registered with its
office, is not the same association as CSAI, the
corporation, insofar as their rights under the Labor Code
are concerned. Hence, the former and not the latter
association is entitled to the release and custody of
union fees with Aboitiz Shipping and other shipping
companies with whom it had an existing CBA.
The expulsion of Nacua from the corporation, of which
she denied being a member, has however, not affected
her membership with the labor union. Whatever acts
their group had done in the corporation do not bind the
labor union.
Atty Edig:
PAFLU VS SEC OF LABOR
FACTS: The registration certificate of Security System
Employees Association (SSSEA), which is affiliated to
Philippine Association of Labor Unions (PAFLU), was
cancelled by the Registrar of Labor Organizations for
failure to comply with some requirements in violation of
Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875.
While a motion for reconsideration was still pending,
SSSSEA and PAFLU sought to annul all proceedings in
connection to the cancellation. According to SSSEA and
PAFLU, Sec. 23 of RA No. 875 violates their freedom to
assembly and association.
ISSUE: WON Sec. 23 of 875 violates their freedom to
assembly and association
RULING: NO.
The registration prescribed in paragraph (b) of said
section 1 is not a limitation to the right of assembly or
association, which may be exercised with or without said
registration. 2 The latter is merely a condition sine qua
non for the acquisition of legal personality by labor
organizations, associations or unions and the possession
of the "rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate
labor organizations". The Constitution does not
guarantee these rights and privileges, much less said
personality, which are mere statutory creations, for the
possession and exercise of which registration is required
to protect both labor and the public against abuses,
9
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
fraud, or impostors who pose as organizers, although
not truly accredited agents of the union they purport to
represent. Such requirement is a valid exercise of the
police power.
Atty Edig: what was the position of the court on the 30 day
period invoke the petitioner?
SMCEU-PTGWO VS SMCEU PDMP
FACTS: SMCEU-PTGWO is the incumbent bargaining
agent of three divisions of SMC. SMCEU-PDMP is a
registered chapter of PDMP, a legitimate
organization. Subsequently, SMCEU-PDMP filed
petition to represent the afore-mentioned
divisions of SMC.
SCMEU-PTGWO sought to cancel the registration of
SMCEU-PDMP. In its petition, petitioner accused
respondent of committing fraud and falsification, and
failure to submit the number of employees and names
of all its members comprising at least 20% of the
employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to
operate.
ISSUE: Is SMCEU-PDMP a legitimate labor organization?
RULING: NO. Although PDMP as a trade union center is
a legitimate labor organization, it has no power to
directly create a local or chapter. Thus, SMPPEU-PDMP
cannot be created under the more lenient requirements
for chartering, but must have complied with the more
stringent rules for creation and registration of an
independent union, including the 20% membership
requirement.
Atty Edig: Maam ask about the non-compliance of the
requirement for registration. What was the ruling? What
was exclude by the law? What was the is a TRADE UNION
CENTER? Can a Trade union center create a local? What
happen to the 20% requirement under the law? ( It must be
complied with)
From the case : as has been held in a long line of cases, the
legal personality of a legitimate labor organization, such as
PDMP, cannot be subject to a collateral attack. The law is
very clear on this matter. Article 212 (h) of the Labor Code,
as amended, defines a legitimate labor organization[37] as
“any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE, and
includes any branch or local thereof.”[38]
On the other hand, a trade union center is any group of
registered national unions or federations organized for the
mutual aid and protection of its members; for assisting such
members in collective bargaining; or for participating in the
formulation of social and employment policies, standards,
and programs, and is duly registered with the DOLE in
accordance with Rule III, Section 2 of the Implementing
Rules.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
labor After an exhaustive study of the governing labor law
a provisions, both statutory and regulatory, we find no legal
three justification to support the conclusion that a trade union
center is allowed to directly create a local or chapter
through chartering.
PDC VS SEC. OF DOLE
FACTS: Kilusan filed a petition for certification election
among rank-and-file employees of PDC, alleging that it
is a legitimate labor federation and that its local chapter
PDEU (Progressive Development Employee’s Union) was
issued charter certifcation.
PDC filed a motion to dismiss contending that Kilusan
failed to submit necessary documents, one of which is
the book of accounts required under Sec. 3 Book V of
Rules Implementing Labor Code.
ISSUE: WON Kilusan failed to substantially comply with
the registration requirements
RULING: YES.
Where as in this case the petition for certification
election was filed by the federation which is merely an
agent, the petition is deemed to be filed by the chapter,
the principal, which must be a legitimate labor
organization. The chapter cannot merely rely on the
legitimate status of the mother union.
The Court's conclusion should not be misconstrued as
impairing the local union's right to be certified as the
employees' bargaining agent in the petitioner's
establishment. We are merely saying that the local union
must first comply with the statutory requirements in
order to exercise this right.
10
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
Atty Edig: was the charter or local here afforded status as an
LLO? There were not afforded with that status, Y? In the
case , SC held that they do not depriving them of the
chance to comply with the requirements but since they do
not comply with the reportorial requirements they cannot
file for petition of COE. They cannot be the EBA here, so the
petition was granted.
-------------------END OF CLASS-----------------
January 10 2018
Transcribed by GlowingGloria
QUIZ 1st half
Recitation of cases
Q: was the failure to submit reportorial requirements a
ground for dissolution?
A: No maam, what is important is the fundamental right to
self-organization.
This is a very interesting case of UST vs BITONIO
UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU) vs DIRECTOR
FACTS: Respondents Marino et al are duly-elected
officers of USTFU. In a memorandum dated 21 Sept 1996,
members of the Union were informed that they will have
a GA for the election of the new set of officers. The GA
was attended by members of the Union AND non-Union
members. The petitioners are the newly-elected officers
in the said GA. Marino et al filed a case, questioning the
GA election, alleging that the same did not follow the
procedures under the Union by-laws. The petitioners
insist that the election held was a legitimate exercise of
their right to self-organization.
ISSUE: Was the union election valid? NO, VOID.
HELD: A union election should be distinguished from a
certification election, which is the process of determining,
through secret ballot, the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit, for purposes of collective bargaining.
Specifically, while all legitimate faculty members of the
University of Santo Tomas (UST) belonging to a collective
bargaining unit may take part in a duly convened
certification election, only bona fide members of the UST
Faculty Union (USTFU) may participate and vote in a legally
called election for union officers
Atty Edig: so here, it was only a general faculty meeting, this
is not limited to union members. It was general faculty
member kahit dl member of union andun. Note here class
there was an election of the officers of the union offcers.
There is now two sets of union officers/members, one
elected previously and the other elected by the general
faculty. What was the ruling of the SC here? So here, the
election itself is void cause it go against the constitutional
bylaws of the union. Even if the management or the UST
affirmed the new set of officers, that cannot be done, since
nangingi-alam ang ER in this case. How are we going now
to know the will of the EE. Also SC here, said that even if the
whole faculty is in favor of the new set of officers, SC said __
cannot substitute the rule of law. They are bound by the by
laws and consti of the union. There is a right way, to do the
right thing at the right time.. (alright?? )
GABRIEL vs HON. SECRETARY
FACTS: Gabriel et al comprise the Executive Board of the
Union Solid Bank's rank-and-file employees. The Union's
Exec Board decided to retain anew the service of Atty
Lacsina, and it was approved in their resolution that 10%
of the total economic benefits secured thru negotiations
be given to Atty. Lacsina as attorney's fees.
Deductions were made on the payroll of the employees.
The employees filed a complaint for illegal deduction of
attorney's fees. The Union argues that the agreement in
the CBA for the check-off meets the legal requirements.
ISSUES: WON the check-off valid. NO
HELD: The pertinent legal provisions on check-offs are
found in Article 222 (b) and Article 241 (o) of the Labor
Code. Art. 222 provides that no attorney's fees may be
imposed on any individual member of the Union, but it
may be charged against Union funds. Art 241 provides
that no attorney's fees may be checked-off from any
amount due to the employee, without an individual
written authorization duly signed him/her.
As there were no individual written authorizations signed by
any of the member-employees, the check-off made by Solid
Bank and the Union is invalid. As provided under Art. 222,
11
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
the attorney's fees must be deducted from the Union's
general fund
Atty Edig: From what funds? From the union general fund.
Remember that this is the check off. since the EE here did
not give their individual written authorization, it cannot be
deducted from their salaries. What the SC did was that it
was payable not from their salaries but from the union
general fund.
EMPLOYEE’S UNION OF BAYER PHIL vs BAYER
PHILIPPINES
FACTS: EUBP is the Union of all of Bayer Phil's rank-and-
file employees. In the CBA negotiation, EUBP rejected
Bayer's 9.9% wage-increase proposal, resulting in a
bargaining deadlock. In 1997, Remigio et al, without any
authority from their union leaders, accepted Bayer's
proposal. Remigio's group formed REUBP, while
Facundo's remained as EUBP.
REUBP questioned Bayer's non-remittance of union dues,
and Bayer decided to turn over the same to REUBP..
EUBP maintains that Bayer act is unfair labor practice
(ULP) as it dealt and negotiated with REUBP despite the
existence and validity of the CBA with EUBP.
ISSUE: Did Bayer commit ULP? YES.
HELD: An employer should not be allowed to rescind
unilaterally its CBA with the duly certified bargaining
agent it had previously contracted with, and decide to
bargain anew with a different group if there is no
legitimate reason for doing so and without first
following the proper procedure.
Thus, when a valid and binding CBA had been entered
into by the workers and the employer, the latter is
behooved to observe the terms and conditions thereof
bearing on union dues and representation. If the
employer grossly violates its CBA with the duly
recognized union, the former may be held
administratively and criminally liable for ULP.
ATTY EDIG: So what happen here there were two groups,
the facundo group and the other group? What did the ER
do? The facundo group has already have a CB. ER
recognized the group of Eugenio group. So facundo team
filed ULP. what did SC said about bayer and the new CBA ?
An employer should not be allowed to rescind unilaterally
its CBA with the duly certified bargaining agent it had
previously contracted with, and decide to bargain anew
with a different group if there is no legitimate reason for
doing so and without first following the proper procedure.
Bayer here just decided that there be another set of
employee to represent the union. It is not allowed
considering that there is an existing CBA.
------------------ END OF CLASS------------------
JANUARY 11, 2018
Notebook submission, QUIZ , continue with the cases
RODRIGUEZ v HON. DIRECTOR OF BLR
FACTS: Under the Union by-laws, the election of officers
must be had every three (3) years in July. The provincial
elections were set. When the candidate fees were
increased, the candidates filed cases, yet the elections
were nevertheless held in July 1986. The validity of the
elections was questioned, and the members requested
that the holding be restrained until ground rules were
set.
Sumangil filed a case questioning the validity of the
increase, arguing that the resolution for such was not
approved by 2/3 of the vote of the council members, as
provided in the CBL. The Med-Arbiter denied the
petition, ruling that under Art. 242 of the LC, at least
30% of the members of the Union must report the
violation, and Sumangil failed to reach such.
ISSUES: Is the 30% membership support indispensable
for the acquisition of the BLR's jurisdiction? NO.
HELD: Law states that a report of a violation of rights and
conditions of membership in a labor organization maybe
made by "(a)t least thirty percent (30%) of all the members
of a union or any member or members specially
concerned." 4 The use of the permissive "may" in the
provision at once negates the notion that the assent of 30%
of all the members is mandatory.
12
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
Atty Edig: did they comply with the 30%? Was there a need
to comply with the 30%? No need, y? it is considered as an
inter-union conflict so there was no requirement for the
30% . upon request by the party or at the initative of the
BLR.
1st issue: FROM THE CASE: And further confirmation that
the assent of 30% of the union members is not a factor in
the acquisition of jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor
Relations is furnished by Article 226 of the same Labor Code,
which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction to the
Bureau, and the Labor Relations Division in the Regional
Offices of the Department of Labor, over "all inter-union
and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or
problems arising from or affecting labor management
relations," making no reference whatsoever to any such
30%-support requirement. Indeed, the officials mentioned
are given the power to act "on all inter-union and intra-
union conflicts (1) "upon request of either or both parties"
as well as (2) "at their own initiative." There can thus be no
question about the capacity of Rey Sumangil and his group
of more than eight hundred, to report and seek redress in
an intra-union conflict involving a matter they are specially
concerned, i.e., the rates of union dues being imposed on
them.
2ND ISSUE: Union dues: As regards the final issue
concerning the increase of union dues, the respondent
Director found that the resolution of the union's Legislative
Council to this effect 6 does not bear the signature of at
least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Council,
contrary to the requirement of the union constitution and
by-laws; and that proof is wanting of proper ratification of
the resolution by a majority of the general union
membership at a plebiscite called and conducted for that
purpose, again in violation of the constitution and by-laws.
The resolution increasing the union dues must therefore be
struck down, as illegal and void, arbitrary and oppressive.
The collection of union dues at the increased rates must be
discontinued; and the dues thus far improperly collected
must be refunded to the union members or held in trust for
disposition by them in accordance with their charter and
rules, in line with this Court's ruling in a parallel situation,
NUBE vs. PEMA AND PNB
FACTS: Philippine National Bank (PNB) used to be a
GOCC banking institution until in 1996, the Securities
and Exchange Commission changed status of PNB as a
private corporation. Philnabank Employees Association
(PEMA), a public sector union affiliated with petitioner
National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE), which is a
labor federation composed of unions in the banking
industry, adopting the name NUBE-PNB Employees
Chapter (NUBE-PEC).
Later, NUBE-PEC was certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the PNB rank-and-file employees. A
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was subsequently
signed between NUBE-PEC and PNB. Following the
expiration of the CBA, the Philnabank Employees
Association-FFW (PEMA-FFW) filed a petition for
certification election among the rank-and-file employees
of PNB. The petition sought the conduct of a
certification election to be participated in by PEMA-FFW
and NUBE-PEC.
While the petition for certification election was still
pending, two significant events transpired – the
independent union registration of NUBE- PEC and its
disaffiliation with NUBE. PEMA sent a letter to the PNB
management informing its disaffiliation from NUBE and
requesting to stop, effective immediately, the check-off
of the P15.00 due for NUBE.
ISSUE: WON PEMA validly disaffiliated itself from NUBE,
the resolution of which, in turn, inevitably affects the
latter’s right to collect the union dues held in trust by
PNB.
HELD: YES. The right of the local members to withdraw
from the federation and to form a new local union
depends upon the provisions of the union's constitution,
by-laws and charter and, in the absence of enforceable
provisions in the federation's constitution preventing
disaffiliation of a local union, a local may sever its
relationship with its parent. PEMA is not precluded to
disaffiliate from NUBE after acquiring the status of an
independent labor organization duly registered before
the DOLE
13
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
By PEMA's valid disaffiliation from NUBE, the bond between
the two entities was completely severed. As NUBE was
divested of any and all power to act in representation of
PEMA, NUBE loses it right to collect all union dues held in
its trust by PNB.
Atty Edig: no questioned asked .. good
ANGLO V. SAMANA BAY
FACTS: In December 1993, SAMANA BAY (Samahan Ng
Mga Manggagawang Nagkakaisa sa Manila Bay
Spinning Mills and J.P. Coats) decided to disaffiliate from
ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor
Organization) due to the latter’s dereliction of duty to
promote the welfare of SAMANA BAY and the alleged
case of corruption. ANGLO overthrew all officers of the
respondent, and appointed new set of officers, for non-
remittance of federation dues. ANGLO contended that
the disaffiliation was void since the freedom period has
not yet set in.
MED ARBITER declared the disaffiliation void but
maintained that the dismissal of officers was illegal.
DOLE reversed and declared that the disaffiliation was
VALID Directed the Company (Manila Bay Spinning Mills)
to remit the dues directly to SAMANA
ISSUE: Whether or not the disaffiliation of SAMANA was
valid.
HELD: YES. As a rule, a labor union may disaffiliate from
the mother union only within the freedom period. (PD
1391 – “No petition for certification election, for
intervention and disaffiliation shall be entertained or
given due course except within the 60-day freedom
period…”)
In addition, with respect to the removal of the officers, a
local union does not owe its existence to the federation
with which it is affiliated. Having its own personality, the
mother federation has no license to act independently of
the local union. Any act performed by ANGLO affecting
the interest and affairs of SAMANA, including the ouster
of herein individual private respondent, is rendered
without force and effect.
Atty Edig: We already know that a local can disaffiliate at
any time. But in this case there was a valid CBA. In this case
the CBA is still existing and the 60 days period has not yet
commenced. How did the SC ruled about this. Class the GR,
you can only disaffiliate during the freedom period. So what
is the exception? So this case, even before the onset of the
60 period, there was a change/shift of allegiance of the
majority of the members. Remember this case there was
allegation of corruption and it was well substantiated.
Remember class majority shifted their allegiance. It must be
supported by the majority of the members.
On the 2nd issue: we go back to the principle of agency. The
mother union is merely an agent of an agent. The local
union is the agent of the ER. And the mother union is the
agent of the union and not the employees. Ultimately, the
one who represents the employee is still the local union.
------------END OF CLASS-----------------
JANUARY 18, 2018
TRANSCRIBED BY
BONITA BEHN
-------------------- END OF CLASS ----------------
January 24, 2018
Transcribed by: BONITA BHEN
--------------------END OF CLASS----------------
JANUARY 25, 2018
Transcribed By: GLOWING GLORIA
QUIZ – lets continue with the cases recitation.
ATLANTIC VS. LAGUESMA
[G.R. No. 96635 August 6, 1992]
ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA,
INC. vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA,
UNDERSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR &
EMPLOYMENT; HON. TOMAS F. FALCONITIN MED-
14
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
ARBITER, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPT. OF
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT; LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA SA
AG & P-SMSG-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR
(LAKASNFL)
FACTS: In 1990, Atlantic executed a Collective Bargaining
Agreement with the AG&P United Rank & File
Association ("URFA") which is the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all the regular rank-and-file
employees of Atlantic.
Meanwhile, Lakas ng Manggagawa sa AG&P-SMSG-
National Federation of Labor ("LAKAS-NFL”) filed a
Petition for Certification Election to be certified as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the project
employees of the Steel and Marine Structure at the
BMFY representing approximately 1,000 employees. The
petition was granted by the Med-Arbiter, and affirmed
by the DOLE in an appeal. Consequently, a certification
election was ordered to be conducted.
When the project employees with at least one year of
service were regularized, Atlantic moved for
reconsideration alleging that the employees sought to
be represented by LAKAS-NFL are regular employees of
Atlantic and are deemed included in the existing
Collective Bargaining Agreement of the regular rank-and
file employees of the latter. The motion was denied by
the Secretary of Labor, hence this present petition.
ISSUES:
I. Whether the bargaining unit of the project workers
had ceased to exist in light of the regularization of the
said workers.
II. Whether the contract-bar rule applies in this case.
RULING:
I. Yes. Although the definition in URFA’s CBA does not
include Atlantic’s regular project employees in the
coverage of the existing CBA between it and Atlantic, the
regularization of all the project employees with at least
one year of service and the subsequent membership of
said employees with the URFA mean that the alleged
project employees whom LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent
are, in fact, regular employees by contemplation of law
and included in the appropriate bargaining unit of said
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
II. Yes. The existence of a duly registered Collective
Bargaining Agreement between Atlantic and URFA,
which is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
of all the regular rank-and-file employees of the former,
including the regular project employees with more than
one year of service, bars any other labor organization
from filing a petition for certification election except
within the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
ATTY EDIG: Why was there no anymore?
NATIONAL CONGRESS VS. FERRER-CALLEJA
[G.R. No. 89609 January 27, 1992]
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR
INDUSTRY OF THE PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP)-TUCP vs.
HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, in her capacity as Director
of the Bureau of Labor Relations; and the NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (NFSW)-FGT-KMU
FACTS: NFSW-FGT-KMU and Dacongcogon negotiated
for the renewal of their CBA. However, a deadlock in
negotiation ensued on the matter of wage increases and
optional retirement. In order to obviate friction and
tension, the parties agreed on a suspension to provide a
cooling-off period to give them time to evaluate and
further study their positions.
Four years thereafter, NACUSIP-TUCP filed a petition for
direct certification or certification election among the
rank and file workers of Dacongcogon. NFSW-FGT-KMU
moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that there
is a deadlock of CBA negotiations between it and
Dacongcogon, but the same was denied.
ISSUE:
II. Whether the contract-bar rule applies in this case.
RULING:
it shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status
quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms
and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-
day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by
the parties. Despite the lapse of the formal effectivity of
the CBA the law still considers the same as continuing in
force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly
executed. Hence, the contract bar rule still applies.
15
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
Besides, it should be emphasized that Dacongcogon, in
its answer stated that the CBA was extended for another
three (3) years and that the deadlock was submitted to
the Labor Management Council.
ATTY EDIG: So the issue here, WON the petition for COE
may be filed after the 60 days freedom period and
considering that there was no existing CBA considered still
because here there was a deadlock. This was filed after the
freedom period and there was still no CBA then or there is
existing CBA pero expired nah. What was the ruling of this
case? What was the principle laid down? Here even if no
contract or new CBA, the contract bar rule still applies.
Remember the hold-over principle that I discuss last
meeting? it shall be the duty of both parties to keep the
status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms
and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day
period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the
parties. Since there was a deadlock, there is a continuing
negotiation, of the new CBA. It would be different if there
was no negotiation at all. So here, until a new agreement is
reach by the parties, the contract bar rule, still applies.
DHL-URFA-FFW VS. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA
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 DHL-URFA-
FFW and "no union."
Meanwhile, Buklod filed a Petition for the nullification of
the certification election before the DOLE. The officers of
DHL-URFA-FFW were charged with committing fraud
and deceit in the election proceedings, particularly 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).
ISSUE: Whether the first certification election was valid.
RULING: NO. The Med-Arbiter and the CA was correct in
ordering a new certification election.
The making of false statements or misrepresentations
that interfere with the free choice of the employees is a
valid ground for protest. The fact that the officers of
DHL-URFA-FFW 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 materiality
of such misrepresentation is self-evident.
The purpose of a certification election is precisely to
ascertain the majority of the employees’ choice of an
appropriate bargaining unit -- to be or not to be
represented by a labor organization and, in the
affirmative case, by which one.
ATTY EDIG: this case is a clear exception to the ELECTION
YEAR BAR RULE, because false misrepresentation was given
by the union officers that prejudice freedom of choice of
the employees, a new COE was allowed in the case.
ORIENTAL TIN CAN VS. SEC
[G.R. No. 116751 & G.R. No. 116779. August 28, 1998]
FACTS: Oriental Tin Can (OCT) entered into a CBA with
OCTLU as their existing CBA was about to expire. Four
days later, 248 of the company’s rank-and-file
employees authorized the Federation of Free Workers
(FFW) to file a petition for certification election. However,
this petition was repudiated via a written waiver by 115
of the signatories who ratified the CBA on the same date.
OTCWU-FFW filed a petition for certification
accompanied by the authentic signatures of 25% of the
employees/workers in the bargaining unit. OCTLU filed a
motion to dismiss on the grounds that the petition did
not comply with the 25% signature requirement and
maintaining that the new CBA was a bar to a certification
election.
ISSUE: WON the employees’ ratification of the new CBA
nullify the timely-filed petition for certification election
RULING:
II. No. The filing of a petition for certification election
during the 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 Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
16
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
Hence, the agreement prematurely signed by the union
and the company during the freedom period does not
affect the petition for certification election filed by
another union.
ATTY EDIG: no questions
SUGBUANON VS. LAGUESMA
[G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000]
SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. vs. HON.
UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MED-
ARBITER ACHILLES MANIT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 7, CEBU
CITY, AND SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. —
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL, SUPERVISORY,
OFFICE, AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION-TRADE
UNIONS CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS: APSOTEU-TUCP filed a petition for certification
election of the supervisory employees of SRBI. The latter
opposed the petition in a motion to dismiss on the
grounds that the alleged supervisory employees were
actually managerial and confidential employees.
The Med-Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss, while the
SOLE denied the consequent appeal. The certification
election was ordered to be conducted. The DOLE denied
the appeal as well as the subsequent motion for
reconsideration, hence this present petition.
ISSUE:
II. Whether the Med-Arbiter may validly order the
holding of a certification election despite an appeal
pending against the issuance of the union's registration.
RULING:
II. Yes. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a
certification election shall automatically be conducted by
the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a
legitimate labor organization. Nothing is said therein
that prohibits such automatic conduct of the certification
election if the management appeals on the issue of the
validity of the union's registration.
ATTY EDIG: what principle apply? It is the bystander
principle. Even if there was inaction (or action?) of the
employer, it cannot affect the petition for COE. Y?
---------------------- END OF CLASS------------------
January 18, 2018 transcription
___________________________________
We will see later that just because you are all regular
employees, doesn’t immediately mean that you will belong
in one bargaining unit. Certain circumstances may present
differences.
Jurisprudence tells us that also, an appropriate bargaining
unit is that which best suits the reciprocal rights and duties
of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of
the law.
Factors in determining the appropriate bargaining unit
So there are several factors that can determine what is an
appropriate bargaining unit.
MUTUAL INTERESTS – wages, hours of work, working
conditions and other subjects for collective bargaining.
1. Globe doctrine – essentially is the will of the
employees to be represented. This can be
ascertained through the conduct of a certification
election. Where other considerations determinative
of an appropriate bargaining unit is equally
balanced, the decisive factor for what is an
appropriate bargaining unit is the desire of the
employees involved.
2. Community of interest rule – also known as the
substantial mutual interest rule. This is where the
affinity and unity of the employees’ interest is
considered, such as substantial similarity in work
and duties, and similarities in working conditions.
3. Similarity of employment status rule – under this
rule, the main consideration for an appropriate
bargaining unit is the work status of employment.
This rule requires that non-regular employees be
grouped as one category and they be considered
separately from regular employees.
17
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
4. Prior collective bargaining history – jurisprudence
has held that this is not a decisive or conclusive
factor in the determination of an appropriate
bargaining unit. It can be one of the determinants
only. For example, if the history of the company’s
appropriate bargaining unit has been altered so
much that past facts are no longer reliable, only
those factors that have remained the same should
be considered.
5. One Company, One Union policy – the purpose of
this policy, is that if there is one union in one
company, this strengthens the union’s unity. The
Supreme Court seriously discourages disunity in
one company, as it defeats the purpose of having a
union.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Supervisory employees must have a separate
union from rank-and-file employees.
2. When the employer unit has to give way to
other bargaining units due to different job
groupings.
3. When a certain class of employees are
exempted from the coverage in an existing
CBA.
In a decided case, the SC has said that for every corporation,
there must be separate bargaining units. So, two
corporations CANNOT be treated as a single bargaining
unit even if their businesses are directly related.
For example, Ayala Corp. Let’s say Ayala has many branches.
So, even if these branches are owned by one and the same
mother company, they are considered separate entities.
So what is the rationale behind this? Two companies are
distinct entities with separate juridical personalities. The SC
has held that even if employees of one corporation were
originally employees of the other corporation: Ayala in the
1950s was only one company. Then, it decided to create an
accounting arm called Concentrix. So, some employees of
Ayala went to Concentrix. Can the employees of Concentrix
say that they demand to still be part of the bargaining unit
of Ayala?
The SC said NO. By corporate fiction, these two are separate
companies already. Thus, you cannot say that the
employees’ interest in Concentrix is the same as those in
Ayala.
Also, the SC said that even if the employees of one
company are the same persons manning and providing for
security services to another corporation, they cannot be
considered as the same bargaining unit, even if they share
the same compound.
So now we know what an appropriate bargaining unit is.
_______________________________________
UNION REPRESENTATION
So how do we determine union representation? What are
the modes of determining who should represent the
employees?
There are two modes: 1. Certification election, and 2.
Voluntary recognition.
Voluntary Recognition
Proper when:
1. No exclusive bargaining representative in a
bargaining unit (UNORGANIZED)
2. No other legitimate labor organization within the
bargaining unit.
Essentially, no union has existed in this establishment. That
is why the employer may merely acknowledge the
legitimate labor organization as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees.
Requirements for voluntary recognition:
1. Joint affidavit of the ER and the Union attesting
that the Union is the only legitimate labor
organization in the bargaining unit and it has been
accorded voluntary recognition;
2. Such JA must be posted for 15 consecutive days in
at least two (2) conspicuous places within the
establishment.
18
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
3. A certificate of Voluntary Recognition filed before
the DOLE within thirty (30) days from the
recognition.
The employees must be aware that there is a LLO being
recognized by the employer. As no certification election had
been conducted, such notice to the employees is essential.
So, upon filing of the Notice of Voluntary Recognition, the
recognized Union becomes the EBR.
This is one of the more popular topics in jurisprudence
when it comes to certification election because a lot of the
problems arise during such.
Certification Election
It is defined as the process of determining the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
through secret balloting in an appropriate bargaining unit.
Requirement for a CE:
1. Notice for the CE should be posted ten (10) days
BEFORE the election, in two (2) conspicuous places
within the establishment;
This requirement is mandatory. Absent such notice, the CE
is invalid.
Who may file?
1. Legitimate labor organization (LLO) of a local
chapter, and duly issued a chapter certificate;
(Remember that the Federation is just an agent of
the agent of the employees)
When can the petition of CE be filed?
1. Unorganized establishment: ANYTIME
2. Organized establishment: only within the 60-day
freedom period.
When we say organized establishment, this means that
there are already several LLOs within the establishment, and
there is an existing CBA with one of them. In this situation
the petition for certification election may be filed only
within the freedom period.
Freedom Period: the 60-day period immediately preceding
the expiration of a VALIDLY REGISTERED collective
bargaining agreement.
Remember that the CBA must have been validly registered,
if not, the unions may file a petition for CE anytime.
During the 60-day freedom period, either party may serve
written notice to terminate or modify the CBA.
During the freedom period, or even after the freedom
period, if there is no new CBA, both parties are under the
duties to keep the status quo and abide by the conditions
set under the CBA until a new agreement is reached by the
parties.
How does the petitioning union file the PCE?
1. By a verified petition consented by 25% of all
employees within the bargaining unit
These are favorite bar questions.
When is the filing of a petition for cert election BARRED?
1. Election year bar rule – within one (1) year after
the holding of a successful cert election;
2. Voluntary recognition year bar rule – the same as
the election year bar rule, in that one (1) year after
the voluntary recognition by the ER, a petition for
CE is not allowed;
3. Negotiation year bar rule – when the bargaining
agent has commenced and sustained bargaining
negotiations with the employer, within one (1) year
from the voluntary recognition or holding of a
successful CE, the petition is not allowed.
4. Deadlock bar rule – here, the freedom period had
already lapsed but there is no new CBA entered
into. So even if there is a deadlock, and the same
has been submitted to conciliation or arbitration,
or the deadlock has been the subject of a valid
notice of lockout, there could be no petition for CE
filed.
5. Contract bar rule – if there is a validly registered
CBA, a petition for CE cannot be filed during such
existence, except within the 60-day freedom period.
So class, if the CBA says it shall be valid for five (5) years,
does this mean that no petition for CE absolutely cannot be
filed for the same duration? YES, except during the 60-day
freedom period.
Where should the petition for CE be filed?
19
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
It should be filed before the DOLE Regional Office which
issued the petitioning Union’s certificate of registration.
Requisites for a valid petition for certification election:
1. Unorganized establishment – verified petition
consented to by 25% of all employees in the
bargaining unit;
2. Organized establishment –
a. verified petition; and
b. written consent of 25% of all the employees in
the bargaining unit
What is the reason for the non-requirement of such written
consent in UNORGANIZED establishments? This is because
the LC wants to promote the formation of labor unions in
establishments. So, as there yet no LLO in unorganized
establishments, even if there is non-compliance of the 20%
requirement, there can still be an LLO formed.
So upon compliance of the bargaining unit of the written
consent, it is MANDATORY for the Med-Arbiter in the DOLE
to order a certification election.
As it is mandatory, it can be compelled via a Petition for
Mandamus.
But if the 25% statutory requirement is NOT complied with,
the decision to hold a CE becomes DISCRETIONARY upon
the Med-Arbiter.
Thus…
1. 25% complied with – mandatory upon the Med-
Arbiter;
2. NOT complied with – discretionary upon the Med-
Arbiter.
Role of the Employer during the Certification Election
In a CE, we are only concerned with the representation of
the employees. This is the sole concern of the employees,
and the employer has nothing to do with this.
Bystander Principle – the ER cannot intervene during the CE,
and should strictly maintain a hands-off policy on the CE
proceedings.
We do not want an employer-dominated union, so the ER
cannot have a hand in the proceedings. But this does not
mean that the ER cannot do anything during the CE.
So during this time, the ER may participate by:
1. Submitting the list of the names of the employees
during the preliminary conference;
2. Required to be notified that a petition for CE has
been filed within the bargaining unit.
So when can the ER oppose the petition for CE?
Exceptions to the By-stander Principle:
1. When there is no employer-employee relationship
(EER)between the petitioning union and the
employer;
2. If the petitioning union is not listed in the registry
of legitimate labor unions;
3. If the registration of the petitioning union is
cancelled (3 grounds);
4. The BU is not appropriate (mixing);
5. The petition is not supported by the written
consent of 25% of the employees in the BU
(applicable only in organized establishments);
6. If the petition is filed within 1 year from the
voluntary recognition OR certification election;
7. The EBR has commenced negotiations with the ER;
8. When there is a bargaining deadlock;
9. If the petition is filed during the existence of a
registered CBA (exception: freedom period)
What issues may the Med-Arbiter resolve in a petition for
CE?
1. Existence of EER;
2. Eligibility or mixture in union membership.
What issues are the Med-Arbiter NOT allowed to resolve in
a petition for CE?
1. Validity of the union’s registration, EXCEPT if on the
face of the petition, the union is not included in the
roster of LLOs;
2. Validity of the registration of the CBA, EXCEPT if
the CBA is not registered at all with the DOLE.
Who are qualified to vote in a CE?
All employees covered in the BU, at the time of the issuance
of the certification for CE, are eligible to vote.
Absent any prohibitions, probationary employees, or those
who are members of religious sects that prohibit their
members from joining labor unions may vote. This also
includes dismissed employees whose complaints for illegal
dismissal have not yet been resolved.
Challenging of votes
1. The voter is not an employee of the company, or
20
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
2. is not a member of the involved bargaining unit
Who can challenge?
1. Not an employee –
a.) any of the authorized representatives of any of the
contending unions; or
b.) the employer (exception to the By-stander Principle)
When should the vote be challenged?
Before the ballot is deposited in the ballot box.
How can you know if there are voters who cast votes
despite not being employees? Remember that the employer
must submit a list of the names of the employees during
the preliminary conference before the conduct of a CE.
Before he/she can vote, the Union or the ER must
immediately challenge the vote.
RUN-OFF ELECTION – when no winner emerged in the CE,
and there is a need to have an election to declare a winner.
Requirements:
1. CE conducted should have at least three (3)
choices;
2. None of the contending unions obtained the
majority of votes cast.
3. Total number of votes for all contending unions
must be 50% of the votes.
4. There are no challenged ballots which can
materially alter the results.
For the EBR to be held as such, it must have garnered the
majority of the valid votes cast.
Example, 200 voted. Majority would be 101 votes. As for #3,
if there are three choices namely, “Union A, B, and No
Union,” A and B must have garnered 100 votes together.
Who can participate in a run-off election?
Only two labor unions which received the highest number
of votes can participate in a run-off election.
A “No Union” option must always be present.
When is the election considered FAILED?
When majority of the eligible voters failed to vote.
A Motion for the Holding of a New Certification Election
may be filed within six (6) months AFTER the Declaration of
Failure of Elections is issued.
If majority of the eligible voters voted for No Union, there is
no failure of elections. The employees clearly do not want
to be represented.
What if the election was SUCCESSFUL?
The proclamation of the winning union shall be done when:
1. No protest has been filed or perfected within the
five (5)-day reglementary period; or
2. No challenge or eligibility issue was raised; or
3. If there was a challenge raised, the resolution of
the same will NOT materially change the result of
the election.
The winning union will now represent ALL of the employees
in the bargaining unit, and not only its members.
Agency fees – dues collected from non-union members of
the bargaining unit.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Collective Bargaining Agreement – a contract executed
upon request of either the EBR or the employer himself
after negotiating regarding wages, hours of work, and all
other terms and conditions of employment, including the
grievance machinery.
What are the processes involved?
1. Negotiation of the terms of employment;
2. Execution of the written contract;
3. After execution of the CBA, there will be questions
interpreting the contract, and negotiating in the
terms of the new contract, or amendment of a new
agreement.
Thus, the execution of the CBA does not end the collective
bargaining process.
Actually class, the book says that CB is a continuing process
that never stops. If there are provisions in the CBA that
need to be changed or amended, collective bargaining can
again resume, subject to the guidelines provided by the
Labor Code.
Preconditions for CB:
1. The Union must possess the status of majority
representation in the BU;
2. Proof of such majority representation thru a CE;
and
3. A demand to bargain was made, as required under
Art. 250 (a) of the LC.
Who are the parties in CB?
1. The employer’s representative; and
21
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
2. The employee’s representative
Who has the duty to bargain?
Absent the preconditions we stated, the ER is not under any
duty to initiate CB negotiations.
But upon compliance of the preconditions above, the ER’s
duty to bargain begins during the certification year.
What does this mean? Within one (1) year from the
certification of the EBR, the employer is compelled to
bargain, but this duty to meet and convene promptly for
negotiations does not include the duty to agree to a
proposal.
Who signs the CBA?
1. Union officers; and
2. Union managers
shall sign the CBA for it to be valid. After signing, the CBA
must be posted for five (5) days in two (2) conspicuous
places in the establishment.
This is a mandatory requirement, under the rules of the
DOLE.
After posting, the CBA must be submitted for ratification by
the EEs of the BU. The ratification must be made by majority
of the covered employees.
After ratification, the CBA is then submitted to the DOLE for
ratification.
If the CBA is UNREGISTERED, it is still binding between the
parties. But, the CBA will NOT bar the filing of a petition for
CE by another union.
So for example, if the union that signed the CBA did not
register the CBA, another union may filed a petition for CE.
This is because the contract-bar rule DOES NOT apply to an
unregistered CBA.
During the 60-day freedom period, either party may serve
written notice to terminate or modify the CBA.
During the freedom period, or even after the freedom
period, if there is no new CBA, both parties are under the
duties to keep the status quo and abide by the conditions
set under the CBA until a new agreement is reached by the
parties.
During the freedom period, this only refers to proposals to
negotiate non-representational provisions of the CBA.
Meaning economic provisions.
Outside the freedom period, there should be no petition for
CE filed, since under the LC, the representation aspect of
the CBA may be for a term of five (5) years.
All other CBA provisions may be renegotiated within three
(3) years after the execution of the CBA.
Example, there is a valid CBA. The LC provides that
economic provisions may be renegotiated within three (3)
years after the execution of the CBA. After expiration of the
freedom period, the ER shall continue to recognize the
majority status of the incumbent EBR.
So, if no one will a petition for CE during the freedom
period, the status of the Union as the EBR shall continue. It
does not expire even if the CBA has expired.
Effectivity and Retroactivity of the CBA
1. New CBA – effectivity date must be agreed upon
by the parties;
2. Renegotiated CBA or there was an old CBA and
you desire to replace it with a new CBA:
a. Renegotiated DURING or WITHIN freedom
period: takes effect after the expiry of the old
CBA;
b. Renegotiated AFTER the freedom period:
effectivity date of the new CBA should be
agreed upon by the parties. No automatic
retroaction.
c. Absent agreement and the case is submitted
to the DOLE Sec, the arbitral award that states
when the effectivity of the CBA is to take place
is upon the discretion of the DOLE Sec or the
NLRC. Prospective or retroactive
Hold-over Principle – in the absence of a new CBA, the
parties should maintain the status quo, and existing terms
and conditions of employment must continue in full force
and effect.
22
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
January 24, 2018 transcription
____________________________________
18. SAN MIGUEL CORP. SUPERVISORS AND
EXEMPT UNION V. LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 110399 | August 15, 1997
FACTS: SMC Supervisors and Exempt Union filed
before DOLE a Petition for Certification Election
among the supervisors and exempt employees
of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of
Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis. Med-Arbiter
Reynante then ordered their conduct
certification as one bargaining unit. But San
Miguel appealed with DOLE contending that (1)
the 3 separate plants should not be grouped
into one bargaining unit, and (2) supervisory
levels 3 and 4 (S3 & S4) should be excluded
because these positions are confidential in
nature.
Undersecretary Laguesma declared confidential
employees ineligible from forming or joining a
labor union. He ordered S3, S4 and the so-called
exempt employees to be excluded from those
participating in the certification election, and
directed the conduct of separate certification
elections in each of the 3 plants.
ISSUE: WON that the employees of the 3 plants
constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit?
HELD: YES.
The SC held that S3, S4 and the exempt
employees do not fall within the
“confidential employees” who may be prohibited
from joining a union. In the case at bar, S3, S4
and the exempt employees handle confidential
information which relate to product formulation,
product standards and product specification
which concerns the employer’s internal business
operations and not to the field of labor relations.
Moreover, SC held that the employees of the 3
plants constitute an appropriate
bargaining unit for they have community or
mutuality of interest, performing work of the
same nature and receiving the same wages and
compensation although belonging to 3 different
plants of the Magnolia Poultry Division of San
Miguel.
19. SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INCORPORATED VS
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS
of and EXEMPT UNION
G.R. No. 146206
FACTS: Following the case of San Miguel
Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v.
Laguesma, a certification election was
conducted. On the date of the election, SanMig
questioned the eligibility to vote by some of its
employees on the grounds that some employees
do not belong to the bargaining unit which
respondent seeks to represent or that there is no
existence of ER-EE relationship with petitioner.
Based on the results of the election, the Med-
Arbiter issued the Order stating that since the
Yes vote received 97% of the valid votes cast,
respondent is certified to be the exclusive
bargaining agent of the supervisors and exempt
employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry
Products Plants. CA affirmed the Resolution with
modification stating that those holding the
positions of Human Resource Assistant and
term Personnel Assistant are excluded from the
bargaining unit.
ISSUE: WON CA departed from jurisprudence
when it expanded the scope of the bargaining
unit.
RULING: NO. In San Miguel vs Laguesma, the
Court explained that the employees of San
single
23
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products
Plants constitute a single bargaining unit, which
is not contrary to the one-company, one-union
policy. It held that while the existence of a
bargaining history is a factor that may be
reckoned with in determining the appropriate
bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or
conclusive.
The test of grouping is community or mutuality
of interest. This is so because the basic test of an
asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability
whether or not it is fundamentally the
combination which will best assure to all
employees the exercise of their collective
bargaining rights. Certainly, there is a mutuality
of interest among the employees.
The Court affirms the finding of the CA that
there should be only one bargaining unit for the
employees in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis
of Magnolia Poultry Products Plant involved in
dressed chicken processing and Magnolia
Poultry Farms engaged in live chicken
operations.
17. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
FERRER-CALLEJA
G.R. No. 96189, 14 July 1992
FACTS: The Organization of Non-Academic
Personnel of UP (ONAPUP) filed a petition for
certification election with Bureau of Legal
Relations (BLR). It claimed to represent 33% of
all the non-academic personnel of UP-Diliman,
Los Baños, Manila, and Visayas. All UP Workers’
Union opposed the same and asked that the
appropriate organizational unistructure be first
defined. It alleged that its membership
composed of both academic and non-academic
rank-and-file (RnF) employees (EEs) of UP.
UP then made a comment on such that there
should indeed be 2 distinct unions, one for
academic EEs and the other for the non-
academic EEs, considering their dichotomy of
interests. Director Calleja however declared that
the appropriate bargaining unit should comprise
of both groups, stating that the intent of EO 180
was to not fragmentalize the employer (ER) unit.
The University also sought to exclude from the
bargaining unit EEs holding supervisory
positions, alleging that there still existed that
held supervisory powers over her other EEs.
is
ISSUE: WON academic and non-academic EEs of
UP should comprise a single collective
bargaining unit.
HELD: NO. A “bargaining unit” has been defined
as a group of employees, consistent with equity
to the ER, cases have shown the 4 criterion to
consider;
(1) will of the employees;
(2) affinity and unit of employees' interest,
such as substantial similarity of work and
duties, or similarity of compensation and
working conditions;
(3) prior collective bargaining history; and
(4) employment status, such as temporary,
seasonal probationary employees.
Out of the four, it is the “community/mutuality
of interests” test that stands out the most.
Applying the same, it's clear that the acad and
non-academic personnel’s respective interests
contradict with each other, and in effect, failed
to satisfy the “community/mutuality of interest
test.” Thus, the 2 separate and distinct
bargaining units, one unit is for academics and
the other for non-academic unit personnel, is
essential to assure it to all the EEs the exercise of
their collective bargaining rights.
24
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
20. MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT LABOR
UNION SA PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS V
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CIR),
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA
CALOOCAN SHOPS
24 SCRA 925 (1968)
FACTS: There were three (3) union in the
Caloocan shops of the Philippine National
Railways (PNR): the “Samahan”, the “Kapisanan
ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad
Company”, and the Mechanical Department
Labor Union. A petition was filed by Samahan
calling attention to the fact that no certification
election had been held in the last 12 months in
the Caloocan shops.
The petition was opposed by management as
well as the Mechanical Department Labor Union,
the latter averring that it had been previously
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the employees and laborer of the PNR’s
mechanical department and it had negotiated
two CBAs with management in 1961 and 1963
and that a renewal of the CBA had been re-
negotiated and is yet to be signed. The CIR,
however, found that the Caloocan shops are
separate and distinct from the rest of the
workers under the Mechanical Department unit
represented by the Mechanical Department
Labor Union.
ISSUE: WON the holding of a plebiscite election
be allowed to determine the desire of the
workers of the Caloocan shops to have a
separate bargaining unit
HELD: YES. Bargaining units may be formed
through separation of new units from existing
ones whenever plebiscites had shown the
workers’ desire to have their own
representatives.
The CIR has found that there is a basic
difference, in that those in the Caloocan shops
not only have a community of interest and
working conditions but perform major repairs of
railway rolling stock, using heavy equipment and
machineries while others only perform minor
repairs. Therefore, the workers in the Caloocan
shops require special skill which set them apart
from the rest of the workers in the Mechanical
Department.
21. FILOIL REFINERY CORPORATION –VS–
FILOIL SUPERVISORY & CONFIDENTIAL
EMPLOYEES ASSOC & COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS
46 SCRA 512 [1972]
FACTS: Filoil Supervisory & Confidential
Employees Assoc (FSCA) filed petition for
certification as sole and exclusive collective
bargaining agent of all of the supervisory and
confidential employees. The petitioner
(Employer Company) filed a Motion to dismiss
arguing that supervisors are not employees,
since they are part of management, they do not
have the right to bargain collectively.
The then Court of Industrial Relations (CIA) and
NLRB (National labor relations board) ruled in
favor of FSCA.
ISSUE: WON supervisors form part of the
management and are not considered as
employees entitled to bargain collectively.
HELD: NO. Supervisor has a dual status as a
representative of the management and as an
employee.
“Supervisors and confidential employees, even
though they may exercise the prerogatives of
management as regards the rank and file
employees are indeed employees in relation to
25
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
their employer, the company which is owned by have every right to self-organization or to be
the stockholders and bondholders (capital) and heard through a duly certified collective
should therefore by entitled under the law to bargaining union. The Supervisory power of the
bargain collectively with the top management members of NATU consists merely in
with respect to their terms and conditions of recommending as to what managerial actions to
employment”. take in disciplinary cases. Therefore, they are not
prohibited from forming their own collective
bargaining unit since it has not been shown by
22. GENERAL RUBBER VS. BLR GRFC that "the responsibilities (of these
[G.R. No. 74262 October 29, 1987] monthly-paid-employees) inherently require the
GENERAL RUBBER and FOOTWEAR exercise of discretion and independent
CORPORATION vs. BUREAU OF LABOR judgment as supervisors" or that "they possess
RELATIONS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF the power and authority to lay down or exercise
TRADE UNION OF MONTHLY PAID EMPLOYEES- management policies."
NATU. To prevent any difficulty. and to avoid confusion
FACTS: In 1985, the Samahang Manggagawa sa to all concerned and, more importantly, to fulfill
General Rubber Corporation-ANGLO was the policy of the New Labor Code as well as to
formed by the daily-paid rank and file be consistent with Our ruling in the Bulletin case,
employees as their union for collective supra, the monthly-paid rank-and-file
bargaining. employees should be allowed to join the union
In the same year, the monthly-paid employees of the daily-paid-rank-and-file employees of
of GRFC, formed their own collective bargaining GRFC so that they can also avail of the CBA
unit, named as National Association of Trade benefits or to form their own rank-and-file
Unions of Monthly Paid Employees (NATU). union, without prejudice to the certification
NATU then filed a petition for certification election that has been ordered.
election, which the BLR granted. GRFC fontested
the Order, but both its appeal and MFR were
denied, hence this present petition. 23. SAMAHANG VS. SEC.
GRFC argued that (1) there is already an existing [G.R. No. 107792. March 2, 1998]
bargaining unit in GRFC, which is the Samahang, SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA PERMEX (SMP-
(2) the monthly paid employees are not legally PIILU-TUCP) vs. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR,
allowed to form or join a union as they exercised NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, PERMEX
managerial functions. PRODUCER AND EXPORTER CORPORATION
FACTS: The employees of Permex conducted a
ISSUE: Whether the monthly-paid employees are certification election, where majority of the
allowed to form or join a union. employees voted for No Union.
Nevertheless, some employees of Permex
RULING: Yes. formed their own labor organization known as
The members of NATU are not managerial the Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex (SMP),
employees as claimed by GRFC but merely which they registered with the DOLE. The union
considered as rank-and-file employees who later affiliated with the Philippine Integrated
26
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
Industries Labor Union (PIILU).
Soon thereafter, SMP-PIILU wrote
requesting recognition as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the company’s
employees. Permex recognized SMP-PIILU and
entered into a collective bargaining agreement
with the said union. The CBA was ratified by the
members and was subsequently certified by the
DOLE.
NFL filed a petition for certification election but
the same was dismissed. An appeal to the
Secretary of Labor caused the setting aside of
the dismissal and the order of certification
election among the rank-and-file employees of
Permex. The choices were NFL, SMP, and No
Union.
SMP moved for reconsideration, but the motion
was dismissed, hence this present petition.
ISSUES: I. Whether SMP may be validly
recognized as Permex’s valid [appropriate]
bargaining unit.
II. Whether the contract-bar rule applies in this
case
RULING:
I. No. If a union asks the employer to voluntarily
recognize it as the bargaining agent of the
employees, it in effect asks the employer to
certify it as the bargaining representative of the
employees - A CERTIFICATION WHICH THE
EMPLOYER HAS NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE, for it
is the employees prerogative (not
employers) to determine whether they want a
union to represent them, and, if so, which one it
should be.1
By virtue of Executive Order No. 111, which
became effective on March 4, 1987, the direct
1
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. Ferrer-Calleja, 182 SCRA 561 (1990).
certification previously allowed under the Labor
Code had been discontinued as a method of
Permex selecting the exclusive bargaining agents of the
workers. Certification election is the most
effective and the most democratic way of
determining which labor organization can truly
represent the working force in the appropriate
bargaining unit of a company.
II. No. The purpose of the rule is to ensure
stability in the relationships of the workers and
the management by preventing frequent
modifications of any collective bargaining
agreement earlier entered into by them in good
faith and for the stipulated original period.
Excepted from the contract-bar rule are certain
types of contracts which do not foster industrial
stability, such as contracts where the identity of
the representative is in doubt. Any stability
derived from such contracts must be
subordinated to the employees’ freedom of
choice because it does not establish the kind of
industrial peace contemplated by the law. Such
situation obtains in this case. SMP entered into a
CBA with Permex when its status as exclusive
bargaining agent of the employees had not
been established yet.
the
27
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
January 31, 2018 transcription
Unfair Labor Practices in Collective Bargaining
What are these ULP?
A. If the employer failed or refuses to meet and
convene with the Union who demanded
negotiations for CBA: Instances:
1. May opt to not recognize the EBR;
2. The ER, in the guise of transferring his assets to
another ER, but still, there is continuity of
business;
3. Financial hardship of the ER cannot be used as
an excuse to meet and convene for CBA
negotiations;
Bargaining in good faith: No specific test on what is good
faith-bargaining. Case to case basis.
What are the acts which are NOT deemed as a refusal to
bargain by the ER?
1. If the EEs have committed ULP such as an illegal
strike, the ER may choose not to bargain with the
union which committed the illegal strike;
2. No request for bargaining;
3. If the Union seeks to represent an inappropriate
bargaining unit;
4. There is comingling of supervisors and rank-and-
file employees in the same BU;
5. If the BU chose ‘No Union’;
6. If there are unlawful bargaining demands by the
union;
B. Failure or refusal to bargain on mandatory
subjects
Mandatory subjects: wages, hours, terms
conditions of employments, bonuses, retirement and
pension, transfer.
Why is there an importance to know the difference
between mandatory and non-mandatory subjects?
If for example, there is a bargaining impasse and a
deadlock, and the reason for such is NON-mandatory
subjects, this cannot be a ground for a valid strike or
lockout due to a bargaining deadlock.
If there is a deadlock, there is a need for a third-party
to come up to the negotiations as a negotiator or
arbitrator.
In a conciliation for deadlock, both the ER and EE
representatives agree that the deadlock should be
submitted to a third-party who will decide upon the
conditions of the CBA that will be a win-win solution for
both parties under the CBA.
But even if there is a conciliator or arbitrator, this does
not mean that he can compel the parties to agree to
the CBA. What he can do is, to draft a CBA that will be
favorable to both.
C. Bargaining in bad faith
Blue Sky Bargaining – you come to the negotiation table
but had no good faith in doing so because the ER or the EE
demands are too high. They come to the table with the
intention of demanding terms that are too high, to cause
the non-signing of any CBA. Inflexible demands.
Bargaining in bad faith means there is unwarranted delay in
the negotiations, or there it a time limit set when to
conclude the negotiations.
If the ER or EE representative are in good faith, there must
do all in their power to come to an agreement.
Boulwarism – this term came from a US jurisprudence. In a
motor company, the ER advertised to his EEs a pre-crafted
terms and conditions of a CBA. They gave out ads and flyers,
and the ER said that this is the most beneficial contract for
the EEs.
What the US Court said about Boulwarism is that such
practice does not give the EE representative any leeway to
and negotiate beneficial terms for the EEs. This is a take it or
leave it principle. If you do not agree, the ER will refuse to
bargain. This is bargaining in bad faith.
D. Gross violation of a contract (not included in exam)
E. Grievance Machinery Procedure
_______________________________________
Union Security Agreements (USA)
Union Security - is a generic term of an agreement which
imposes upon the EEs of an organization the obligation to
acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting
employment.
28
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
Why are union security agreements important in CBAs? It’s 3. Confidential EEs who are not part of the rank-and-
because USAs ensure the continuity of a union. Since it is a file employees. Since they cannot participate in a
precondition to employment, there is little chance that the BU, the closed-shop agreement cannot apply to
ER will bust the union. them;
Kinds of USA: 4. Employees who are expressly excluded from the
1. Closed-shop agreement – most prized CBA;
achievement of unionism. Here, only union Tanduay distillery case
members can be hired by the company, and they FACTS: TDI and the Union therein entered into a CBA
must remain as such to continue employment. This for three years. The CBA expressly and clearly contained
must CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY appear in the CBA a USA which provided that all workers, as a condition of
which was duly signed by both parties, to warrant a their continued employment, must maintain
valid dismissal. membership in good standing in the union for the
duration of the CBA.
2. Union-shop agreement – A non-union member Some members joined and organized a different union
may be hired by the ER, but to retain employment, in TDI. Under the CBA by-laws, disaffiliating members
the EE must acquire union membership after a must explain their action lest they be meted with
certain period. Applies to both and present and termination for disloyalty. An investigation was
future EEs. conducted and the disaffiliating members were
terminated from employment.
3. Maintenance of membership-shop agreement – ISSUE: Was their termination by the ER proper?
No EEs may be compelled to join the union, but all HELD: YES. The stipulation in the CBA by-laws of the
present and future members must, as a condition maintenance of good membership standing is
for continued employment, remain in good necessary to preserve the integrity of the union. It is
standing in the union. also allowed by the Magna Carta of Labor.
While it may be true that employees have the right to
4. Treasury-shop agreement – EEs are not compelled self-organization, such right shall not injure the right of
to join the union, but the union shall charge the Union to proscribe its own rules with respect to
agency fees against non-member EEs. Agency fee retention of membership therein.
in lieu of union membership. Since the ER merely imposed the provisions of the CBA,
When does the use of a Union Security Clause come as an there was a valid dismissal of the disaffiliated members.
issue? Once the USA is used on an erring union member, it As the CBA signed while the erring EEs were union
can turn into a termination issue. members, it is presumed that they knew that there was
When a closed-shop agreement NOT applicable: a closed-shop agreement in such CBA.
1. Any EE who, at the time agreement took effect, is a
bona fide member of a religious sect which
prohibits membership in a labor union based on
religious grounds;
2. Any EE already employed and working, who, at the
time agreement took effect, was already a member
of a union other than the majority union that
crafted the CBA;
29
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
February 1, 2018 transcription
29. HERCULES INDUSTRIES VS SECRETARY OF
LABOR
September 1992
FACTS: National Federation of Labor as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and
file employees of the petitioner. Petitioner as the
Employer now questions and assail the validity
of the result of the certification of election.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner, Hercules
Industries, Inc., as employer, may question the
validity of the certification election among its
rank-and-file employees. NO.
HELD: Employer is not a party to a certification
election which is the sole or exclusive concern of
the workers. In the choice of their collective
bargaining representative, the employer is
definitely an intruder. His participation, to put it
mildly, deserves no encouragement. The only
instance when the employer may be involved in
that process is when it is obliged to file a
petition for certification election on its workers’
request to bargain collectively pursuant to
Article 258 of the Labor Code. After the order for
a certification election issues, the employer’s
involvement ceases, and it becomes a neutral
bystander.
30. BENGUET ELECTRIC CORP. v HON. CALLEJA
BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
INC., petitioner, vs. HON. PURA FERRER-
CALLEJA, Director of the Bureau of Labor
Relations, and BENECO EMPLOYEES LABOR
UNION, respondents.
G.R. No. 79025. December 29, 1989.
FACTS: Beneco Worker's Labor Union-
Association of Democratic Labor Organizations
(BWLU- ADLO) filed a petition for direct
certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of all the rank and file employees
of Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO).
BENECO, on the other hand, filed a motion to
dismiss the petition claiming , that the
employees sought to be represented by BWLU-
ADLO are not eligible to form, join or assist
labor organizations of their own choosing
because they are members and joint owners of
the cooperative.
ISSUE: W/N employees of a cooperative are
qualified to form or join a labor organization for
purposes of collective bargaining. NO
HELD: The right to collective bargaining is not
available to an employee of a cooperative who
at the same time is a member and co-owner
thereof. With respect, however, to employees
who are neither members nor co-owners of the
cooperative they are entitled to exercise the
rights to self-organization, collective bargaining
and negotiation as mandated by the 1987
Constitution and applicable statutes.
The fact that the members-employees of
petitioner do not participate in the actual
management of the cooperative does not make
them eligible to form, assist or join a labor
organization for the purpose of collective
bargaining with petitioner. It is the fact of
ownership of the cooperative, and not
involvement in the management thereof, which
disqualifies a member from joining any labor
organization within the cooperative.
31. PHIL DIAMOD HOTEL v MANILA DIAMOND
HOTEL EEs UNION
GR NO 158075
JUNE 30, 2006
30
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
FACTS: The Manila Diamond Hotel Employee’s
Union (the union) filed a Petition for CE seeking
certification as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its members. DOLE-NCR
denied the petition for failure to comply with the
legal requirements and that the CE was seen to
fragment the EEs of the ER (Phil Diamond Hotel).
ER advised the union that it was not certified by
the DOLE as the exclusive bargaining
representative and ER could not recognize the
union as such. Because of this, the union filed a
Notice of Strike and thereafter, conciliation
proceedings were conducted. However, a day
before a scheduled conciliation meeting, the
union suddenly went on strike! ER filed a
petition to declare the strike illegal. NLRC- the
strike was illegal. CA- the strike was illegal.
Argument of union: it sought to bargain for its
members only and that the ER’s refusal to
bargain would prompt the union to engage in
concerted activities.
ISSUE:
Can the union represent its members in the
negotiations for a CBA?
RULING:
No. As per LC 255 (now 267), the labor
organization designated or selected by the
majority of the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for
the purpose of collective bargaining. Only the
labor organization designated or selected by the
majority of the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit is the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for
the purpose of collective bargaining.
The union is admittedly not the exclusive
representative of the majority of the EEs of the
ER, hence, it could not demand from ER the right
to bargain collectively in their behalf.
Union insists, however, that it could validly
bargain in behalf of "its members," relying on LC
242 (now 251) - A legitimate labor organization
shall have the right: (a) To act as representative
of its members for the purpose of collective
bargaining. Union’s reliance on said article, a
general provision on the rights of legitimate
labor organizations, is misplaced, for not every
legitimate labor organization possesses the
rights mentioned therein. Article 242 (a) (now
251- a) must be read in relation to above-
quoted Article 255 (now 267).
32. KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWANG
PILIPINO (KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN), vs. TRAJANO
and VIRON GARMENTS
G.R. No. 75810 September 9, 1991
FACTS: Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino
KAMPIL Katipunan filed with the BLR a petition
for certification election among the employees
of VIRON.
NAFLU opposed the petition. t
contended that at the time the petition for
certification election was filed on April 11, 1985,
it was in process of collective bargaining with
VIRON; that there was in fact a deadlock in the
negotiations which had prompted it to file a
notice of strike; and that these circumstances
constituted a bar to the petition for election
KAMPIL's petition for certification
election is barred because, before its filing, a
bargaining deadlock between VIRON and
NAFLU as the incumbent bargaining agent, had
been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or
had become the subject of a valid notice of
strike or lockout
31
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
HELD:
KAMPIL petition should be granted. It is evident
that the prohibition imposed by law on the
holding of a certification election "within one
year from the date of issuance of declaration of
a final certification election result' — in this case,
from February 27, 1981, the date of the
Resolution declaring NAFLU the exclusive
bargaining representative of rank-and-file
workers of VIRON — can have no application to
the case at bar.
The fact is that from February 27, 1981 — when
NAFLU was proclaimed the exclusive bargaining
representative of all VIRON employees — to
April 11, 1985 — when KAMPIL filed its petition
for certification election or a period of more
than four (4) years, no collective bargaining
agreement was ever executed, and no deadlock
ever arose from negotiations between NAFLU
and VIRON resulting in conciliation proceedings
or the filing of a valid strike notice. It being
apparent that none of the proscriptions to
certification election set out in the law exists in
the case at bar.
33. DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN
VS SECRETARY OF LABOR
GR. NO. 91915
FACTS: On Sept 6, 1984 the med-arbiter certified
the Divine Word University Employees Union as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
Divine Word University. After three years, the
affiliate of the union, Associated Labor Union,
requested a conference with the University for
the purposes of continuing the bargaining
negotiations. The university maintained it
silence.
The union thereafter filed a notice of strike on
the grounds of bargaining deadlock and ULP,
refusal to bargain, discrimination and coercion.
Conferences were held after the filing of the
notice of strike and the parties came to an
agreement. It was found however, that the
university filed for a petition for certification
election one hour before the agreement was
concluded.
The union then submitted proposals which were
again ignored by the university. Marathon
conciliations were held to no avail. The Sec of
Labor assumed jurisdiction and directed that all
striking workers to report back to work within 24
hours.
ISSUE: WON certification election can be held
after CBA was agreed upon after 5 years.
HELD: An employer who is requested to bargain
collectively may file a petition for certification
election any time except upon clear showing the
existence of either: 1) petition is filed within one
year from the issuance of a final certification
election result OR 2) when a bargaining
deadlock had been submitted to conciliation or
arbitration or had become the subject of a valid
notice of strike or lockout.
Deadlock is the counteraction of things
producing entire stoppage: a state of inaction or
of neutralization caused by the opposition of
persons or factions. There is a deadlock when
there is a complete blocking or stoppage
resulting from the action of equal and opposed
forces.
The records of the case shows that there was no
reasonable effort at good faith bargaining on
the part of the university. The union after
submitting proposals which were ignored by the
university, remained passive. Technically, the
university has the right to file the petition for
certification election as there was no bargaining
deadlock. However such right was forfeited by
its inaction.
32
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
includes the mutual obligation to meet and
convene promptly and expeditiously in good
34. COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN V. faith for the purpose of negotiating an
ASSOC. OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY OF agreement. Petitioner failed to make a timely
LETRAN reply to the unions proposals, thereby violating
[G.R. 141471, September 18, 2001] the proper procedure in collective bargaining as
provided in Article 250. In order to allow the
FACTS: Abtria, President of union initiated employer to validly suspend the bargaining
renegotiations of its CBA with petitioner for the process, there must be a valid PCE raising a
last two years of CBA’s 5 years lifetime from legitimate representation issue, in this case, the
1989-1994. On the same year, the union elected petition was filed outside the 60-dayt freedom
a new set of officers with private respondents period; therefore there was no legitimate
Eleanor Ambas as the newly elected President. representation issue and the filing of the PCE did
Ambas wanted to continue renegotiation, but not constitute to the ongoing negotiation.
petitioner claimed that the CBA was already
prepared for signing. The dismissal of Ambas was in violation of the
Thereafter, the parties agreed to employee’s right to self- organization. The
disregard the unsigned CBA and to start dismissal must be made pursuant to the tenets
negotiation on a new five-year CBA. The union of equity and fair play wherein the employers
submitted its proposals to petitioner, which right to terminate the services of an employee
notified the union that the same was submitted must be exercised in good faith, furthermore, it
to its Board of Trustees. Both parties again must not amount to interfering with, restraining,
discussed the ground rules for the CBA or coercing, employees in their right to self-
renegotiations; however petitioner stopped organization.
negotiations after allegedly receiving
information that a new group of employees had
filed a PCE. The union struck and the Secretary 35. SAMAHAN vs. LAGUESMA and MNMPP
assumed jurisdiction ordering all striking G.R. No. 111245
workers to return to work. All were readmitted January 31, 1997
except Ambas.
FACTS: Petitioner SAMAHAN NG
ISSUE: Whether petitioner is guilty of unfair MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC
labor practice by refusing to bargain within the (SAMAHAN) and respondent MALAYANG
union when it unilaterally suspended the NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG PACIFIC
ongoing negotiations for a new Collective PLASTIC (MNMPP) are labor unions of rank and
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) upon mere file employees at the Pacific Plastic Corporation
information that a petition for certification has (PPC) in Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
been filed by another legitimate labor MNMPP filed a Petition for Certification Election.
organization. Accordingly, the representation officer of the
Secretary of Labor held a pre-election
HELD: NO. the duty to bargain collectively conference, during which the PPC was required
33
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
to submit the list of its rank and file employees
based on the company payroll 3 months prior to
the filing of the petition. Respondent company
failed to submit the list. The certification election
was held, using as voter’s list the list of PPC
employees requested from the SSS. MNMPP
won.
ISSUE:
Was the use of the SSS list in violation of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
which prescribes the use of the company payroll
as basis for the voter’s list?
HELD:
NO. It should ideally be the payroll which should
have been used for the purpose of the election.
However, the unjustified refusal of a company to
submit the payroll in its custody, despite efforts
to make it produce it, compelled resort to the
SSS list as the next best source of information.
After all, the SSS list is a public record whose
regularity is presumed. It is the policy of the
Labor Code to encourage the holding of a
certification election as the definitive and certain
way of ascertaining the choice of employees as
to the labor organization in a collective
bargaining unit. Insistence on the application of
the Omnibus Implementing Rules could defeat
this policy. Worse, it could facilitate fraud by
employers who can easily suppress the payroll
to prevent certification elections from being
held.
Considering all the arguments presented above,
we find no substantial reason to nullify the
certification election conducted on the basis of a
mere technicality.
28. SUGBUANON VS. LAGUESMA
[G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000]
SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. vs. HON.
UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
MED-ARBITER ACHILLES MANIT, DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL
OFFICE NO. 7, CEBU CITY, AND SUGBUANON
RURAL BANK, INC. — ASSOCIATION OF
PROFESSIONAL, SUPERVISORY, OFFICE, AND
TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION-TRADE UNIONS
CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS: APSOTEU-TUCP filed a petition for
certification election of the supervisory
employees of SRBI. The latter opposed the
petition in a motion to dismiss on the grounds
that the alleged supervisory employees were
actually managerial and confidential employees
prohibited from forming or joining a union, and
that ALU-TUCP also sought to represent the rank
and file employees of SRBI, thereby violating the
principle of separation of unions.
The Med-Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss,
while the SOLE denied the consequent appeal.
The certification election was ordered to be
conducted. SRBI then sought to cancel the
registration of the APSOTEU-TUCP. The DOLE
denied the appeal as well as the subsequent
motion for reconsideration, hence this present
petition.
ISSUES:
I. Whether the alleged supervisory employees
are actually managerial and confidential
employees.
II. Whether the Med-Arbiter may validly order
the holding of a certification election despite an
appeal pending before the DOLE Secretary
against the issuance of the union's registration.
RULING:
I. No. Cashiers, Accountant, and Acting Chief of
the Loans Department of SRBI did not possess
34
LABOR RELATIONS 1ST EXAM COVERAGE 2017-2018
Based on the Lecture of Atty. Edig
managerial powers and duties. Nor are they
confidential employee in light of the fact that
SRBI did not state who among the employees
has access to information specifically relating to
its labor to relations policies.
II. Yes. One of the rights of a legitimate labor
organization under Article 242(b) of the Labor
Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive
representative of all employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of
collective bargaining. Having complied with the
requirements of Article 234, it is our view that
respondent union is a legitimate labor union.
Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a
certification election shall automatically be
conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of
a petition by a legitimate labor organization.
Nothing is said therein that prohibits such
automatic conduct of the certification election if
the management appeals on the issue of the
validity of the union's registration. On this score,
SRBI’s appeal was correctly dismissed.
SRBI argues that giving due course to APSOTEU-
TUCP’s petition for certification election would
violate the separation of unions doctrine. Note
that the petition was filed by APSOTEU-TUCP, a
legitimate labor organization. It was not filed by
ALU. Nor was it filed by TUCP, which is a
national labor federation of with which
respondent union is affiliated. SRBI says that
APSOTEU-TUCP is a mere alter ego of ALU. The
records show nothing to this effect. What the
records instead reveal is that APSOTEU-TUCP
was initially assisted by ALU during its
preliminary stages of organization. A local union
maintains its separate personality despite
affiliation with a larger national federation. SRBI
alleges that ALU seeks to represent both
APSOTEU-TUCP and the rank-and-file union.
Again, we find nothing in the records to support
this bare assertion.